Calendar

May 20

CTS 2013 - The 2013 Intl. Conf. on Collaboration Techn. and Systems

May 22

Knowing (by) Designing 2013

May 27

13th Intl. Conf. on New Interfaces for Musical Expression

May 18

“ It's really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them. ”

-- Steve Jobs, 1998

Share this quote on...
Get more quotes via RSS or by joining our Usability Quote of the Day Facebook Page

Featured chapter

Read the fascinating history of Wearable Computing, told by its father, Steve Mann

Read Steve's chapter !

Help us help you!

Spread the word:
Donate
Other ways to help

David A. Washburn

Add description

← Button will not work: You have not enabled Javascript. How do I enable it?

Rename / change spelling

Add publication

← Button will not work: You have not enabled Javascript. How do I enable it?

Publications by David A. Washburn (bibliography)

1995

Edit | Del

Washburn, David A., Putney, R. Thompson and Henderson, Brandon D. (1995): Harder to Do, Easier to Learn: Manipulations of Attention in Training. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting 1995. p. 937.

“In previous studies, subjects were trained more rapidly on a variety of computerized tasks in which the experimental stimuli move than when the stimuli remain stationary. Subsequent investigations have revealed this effect to stem from the relative difficulty of catching moving versus stationary stimuli, rather than from the basic predisposition to attend to movement in the environment. However, the cost of such manipulations is that procedurally difficult training trials take longer to do, and thus fewer can be completed per unit of time. In the present study, we controlled the amount of time that was available for training under conditions in which sample stimuli either moved or remained stationary to determine whether the stimulus movement effects previously reported were an artifact of training time. Undergraduate student volunteers (N = 23) were required to learn the English equivalent for 16 arbitrary visuographic symbols in two 20-minute sessions using a symbolic matching task. Accuracy was significantly better on this task when the”

Edit | Del

Washburn, David A. and Putney, R. Thompson (1995): Pupillometric Indices of Dimensions of Difficulty in Visual-Task Performance. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting 1995. p. 949.

“On the basis of previous experiments, a distinction has been made between performance difficulty and procedural difficulty in visual-task performance. Increasing the procedural difficulty of a task can actually improve accuracy and response time, whereas increasing performance difficulty reliably has the opposite effects. In the present experiment, undergraduate volunteers N = 22) were required to recognize briefly presented, computer-generated forms in a divided visual-field task. An ISCAN RK-426PC was used to assess visual gaze and pupil dilation during testing. A Trial-Initiation Difficulty X Presentation Duration interaction was obtained, F(1, 21) = 8.67, p < .05. Subjects performed significantly better on the recognition task when it was difficult to initiate a trial than when it was easy (mean accuracy = 78% versus 71%). The effects of manipulating presentation duration were comparable in degree but opposite in direction, as responses were significantly more accurate in the easier condition (73% for 100 msec presentations versus 81% for 150 msec presentations). Presentation duration was not reliably related to pupil dilation or position. In contrast, the pupils were significantly more dilated”

Add publication