Atgentive
Choices and constraints for
Atgentive’s conceptual framework
Aims
• Intelligent support for attention in the
context of collaborative learning
environments (DoW, p.18)
 Why the need to support attention in learning
environments?
 What aspects of attention are relevant?
 Where do we go from here?
2
7-8/12/2005
Claudia Roda - AUP - Atgentive WP1
Attention in learning
environments
• Support of learning not limited to lecture
based (experiential, project based, context
based)
Choice
Autonomy
Large amount of
information available
to students
Problems formulation
Issues identification
Solution recognition
3
7-8/12/2005
Claudia Roda - AUP - Atgentive WP1
Learners guidance
Choice
Autonomy
Large amount of
information available
to students
Problems formulation
Issues identification
Solution recognition
Attention guidance,
minimisation of distractors
4
7-8/12/2005
Claudia Roda - AUP - Atgentive WP1
Research questions
System
*
Attention mng
System
**
Attention mng
with emb.agts
System
***
5
7-8/12/2005
Claudia Roda - AUP - Atgentive WP1
Research questions
System
*
Attention mng
System
**
Attention mng
with emb.agts
System
***
What do we measure?
6
7-8/12/2005
Claudia Roda - AUP - Atgentive WP1
Research questions
Perceived
Objective
•Achievements (e.g. user has learned X,
user has solved Y, …)
•Performance (e.g user has learned X in
time T, user has found and efficient solution
to Y)
*
**
***
What do we measure?
7
7-8/12/2005
Claudia Roda - AUP - Atgentive WP1
Research questions
Perceived
Objective
•Achievements (e.g. user has learned X,
user has solved Y, …)
•Performance (e.g user has learned X in
time T, user has found and efficient solution
to Y)
•Pleasurableness
•???
*
**
***
What do we measure?
8
7-8/12/2005
Claudia Roda - AUP - Atgentive WP1
Research questions
Perceived
Objective
•Achievements (e.g. user has learned X,
user has solved Y, …)
•Performance (e.g user has learned X in
time T, user has found and efficient solution
to Y)
•Pleasurableness
•???
*
**
***
What do we measure?
9
7-8/12/2005
Claudia Roda - AUP - Atgentive WP1
Research questions
How are Perceived / Objective achievements,
performance, pleasure, etc. related to lower level
indicators such as:
*
Attention as a tool for cognitive
•Cognitive load
(and physical?) resources
•Memory load
allocation
**
•…
***
•Interaction dynamics
What do we measure?
10
7-8/12/2005
Claudia Roda - AUP - Atgentive WP1
What do we know about
attention
• Attention is the set of processes enabling
and guiding the selection of incoming
perceptual information in order to limit
the external stimuli processed by our
bounded cognitive system and to avoid
overloading it (Posner 1982; Lavie and
Tsal 1994; Chun and Wolfe 2001; Driver
2001).
11
7-8/12/2005
Claudia Roda - AUP - Atgentive WP1
How is attention controlled?
Exogenous, bottom-up, stimulusdriven attention.
•Attention captured by external event
•Different degrees of power
•Automatic attention drive
•Rapid, transient time course
Endogenous, top-down, goal-driven
attention.
•Attention is controlled voluntarily
•Effortful
•Slow (sustained) time course
12
7-8/12/2005
Claudia Roda - AUP - Atgentive WP1
How is attention controlled?
Sensory mechanisms
supporting attention
Exogenous, bottom-up, stimulusdriven attention.
•Attention captured by external event
•Different degrees of power
•Automatic attention drive
•Rapid, transient time course
Endogenous, top-down, goal-driven
attention.
•Attention is controlled voluntarily
Motivational mechanisms
•Effortful
supporting attention
•Slow (sustained) time course
13
7-8/12/2005
Claudia Roda - AUP - Atgentive WP1
How is attention controlled?
Exogenous, bottom-up, stimulusdriven attention.
•Attention captured by external event
Sensory mechanisms
•Different degrees of power
supporting attention
•Automatic attention drive
Interaction, e.g. what I •Rapid, transient time course
am looking for may
determine what I can
ignore
Endogenous, top-down, goal-driven
attention.
•Attention is controlled voluntarily
Motivational mechanisms
•Effortful
supporting attention
•Slow (sustained) time course
14
7-8/12/2005
Claudia Roda - AUP - Atgentive WP1
Atgentive
Sensory mechanisms
supporting attention
Information about user
Information about environment
Motivational mechanisms
supporting attention
Which
information, at
what time, and
in which format
is best suited
for presentation
to the learner
15
7-8/12/2005
Claudia Roda - AUP - Atgentive WP1
Atgentive
We know that switching attention
comes at a cost
1.
2.
3.
4.
Which
information, at
what time, and
in which format
Detect current user’s attentional state
is best suited
Determine possible alternative foci
Evaluate cost/benefits of attentional shifts for presentation
to the learner
Decide if / when / how to intervene
16
7-8/12/2005
Claudia Roda - AUP - Atgentive WP1
Atgentive
Sensory mechanisms
supporting attention
1.
2.
3.
4.
Motivational mechanisms
supporting attention
Detect current user’s attentional state
Determine possible alternative foci
Evaluate cost/benefits of attentional shifts
Decide if / when / how to intervene
Note: we may
want to maintain
focus rather than
switching focus
17
7-8/12/2005
Claudia Roda - AUP - Atgentive WP1
What do we need to know
Stimuli selection
Stimuli relevance
Interference
Top-down/bottom-up
Emotion
Task specific
• What are the essential stimuli selection
processes?
• How stimuli’s relevance is evaluated
• Why sometime there are “strange” attentional
behaviours? (Interference)
• How do higher level (motivational) processes
interact with lower level sensory processes?
• Do emotions play a role in all this?
• Are there “special cases” where we know
more on how attention intervenes to reduce
cognitive load?
• …
18
7-8/12/2005
Claudia Roda - AUP - Atgentive WP1
Stimuli selection
•How the selection of exogenous stimuli may take place ?
•First hypothesis - two stage processing of external stimuli:
Stimuli selection
•parallel preattentive process filtering non-relevant stimuli
Stimuli relevance
( simple physical properties).
Interference
•serial, attentive stage - limited processing encoding more
Top-down/bottom-up
abstract properties of the attended stimuli. (Broadbent
Emotion
Task specific
1958)
•Later theories: all stimuli are analysed, but only pertinent
stimuli are selected for awareness and memorisation.
•Recent theories: although not all the stimuli are analysed, non
attended stimuli are not completely filtered out either, stimuli
impact depends upon their relevance to the environment or
personal experience .
19
7-8/12/2005
Claudia Roda - AUP - Atgentive WP1
Relevance evaluation
Stimuli selection
Stimuli relevance
Interference
Top-down/bottom-up
Emotion
Task specific
7-8/12/2005
Learning involves the creation of a
set of expectation with respect to
Research
the influence
of
external
stimuli.onThese
expectations
processes
on
allowtop-down
us to focus
on the expected
data.bottom-up ones (Executive
Control Processes, ACT_R,
It is the resonance between
Adaptive Resonance Theory,
expectations and received input that
…)
brings certain stimuli to the
conscious state and generates
learning
Claudia Roda - AUP - Atgentive WP1
20
Interference
Stimuli selection
Stimuli relevance
Interference
Top-down/bottom-up
Emotion
Task specific
• Sometime unable to disregard
irrelevant stimuli
 Lavie and Tsal theory on capacity
• Sometime we miss noticing something
obviously present
 Change blindness
 Distractors may delay attentional
processes (time and relation w/t target
stimuli)
• Other interferences
 Negative priming, Learned inattentions
21
7-8/12/2005
Claudia Roda - AUP - Atgentive WP1
Top-down / bottom-up
Stimuli selection
Stimuli relevance
Interference
Top-down/bottom-up
Emotion
Task specific
• Motivation affects attention both at the
conscious and unconscious level
(nonconscious cues)
• Positive/negative valence associated
to stimuli and to goals at motivational
level (attaining/avoiding something)
• Automatic vigilance terminates when
goal is attained
22
7-8/12/2005
Claudia Roda - AUP - Atgentive WP1
Emotions
Stimuli selection
Stimuli relevance
Interference
Top-down/bottom-up
Emotion
Task specific
• Hypothesis: “happier moods
promote a greater focus on the
forest and sadder moods a greater
focus on the trees”. (Gasper &
Clore 2002)
• Global attention versus local
attention
23
7-8/12/2005
Claudia Roda - AUP - Atgentive WP1
Task specific
Stimuli selection
Stimuli relevance
Interference
Top-down/bottom-up
Emotion
Task specific
• Cognitive Load Theory: working
memory size is a fundamental
bottleneck
• Information for task support
divided in supportive and
procedural (theory/routine) presentation before/during task
execution. Avoid split attention.
24
7-8/12/2005
Claudia Roda - AUP - Atgentive WP1
Towards the Atgentive
framework
Sensory mechanisms
supporting attention
Information about user
Information about environment
Motivational mechanisms
supporting attention
25
7-8/12/2005
Claudia Roda - AUP - Atgentive WP1
Towards the Atgentive
framework
Information about environment
Information about user
System:
AtGentSchool
AtGentNet
Sensory mechanisms supporting
attention
Motivational mechanisms
supporting attention
26
7-8/12/2005
Claudia Roda - AUP - Atgentive WP1
Towards the Atgentive
framework
Information about environment
•Information about content
•Required cognitive load
•Local/global
•Relation to other content
•Relation to task
(supporting/procedural)
•Relation to goals
(positive/negative valence)
•…
Information about user
•Current concerns
•Ignored and pursued stimuli
•Goals (achieved, suspended, failed,
impossible)
•Tasks
•Relations to other users
•…
System:
AtGentSchool
AtGentNet
Sensory mechanisms supporting
attention
Motivational mechanisms
supporting attention
27
7-8/12/2005
Claudia Roda - AUP - Atgentive WP1