Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Multimodal Cognitive Load Assessment
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Multimodal Cognitive Load Assessment

1,079
views

Published on

A paper presented at IACSS09

A paper presented at IACSS09

Published in: Sports, Technology, Education

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,079
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Multimodal Cognitive Load Assessment for Athletes Natalie Ruiz *, Bo Yin*, Damian Farrow^, Lyndell Bruce^, Ronnie Taib*, and Fang Chen* * NICTA – National ICT Australia ^ AIS – Australian Institute of Sport IACSS2009, Canberra
  • 2. Skill Acquisition and Cognitive Load
    • Cognitive Load Theory [Sweller et. al. 1988]
      • Degree of mental demand while completing a task
      • Intrinsic, extraneous and germane load
      • Must not exceed capacity of working memory
    • High cognitive load not conducive for learning
    • Aim: Assessment of cognitive load
      • Monitor when load is too high or too low
      • Either extreme is problematic for skill acquisition and optimal performance
      • Performance != Cognitive load
  • 3. Impact of high cognitive load on human responses
    • Working memory is shared by cognitive processes e.g. perception and production of responses
    • Resulting disturbance may not be perceptible to humans, but may be machine measurable
    Long-term memory Short-term memory Shared space (7±2) Visual processing (Visuospatial sketchpad) Linguistic processing (Phonological loop) Central executive Perception Response Muscular action Excitation + vocal tract configuration Gesture… Multi-sensory perception . . . . . . Disturbance e.g. latency, pitch, jittering
  • 4. Behavioural Indicators of High Load
    • Possible behavioural data sources for cognitive load assessment:
      • Speech,
      • Mouse speed and pressure,
      • Linguistic or dialogue patterns,
      • Pen input,
      • Eye-gaze,
      • Manual gesture, etc…
    • Advantages
      • Implicit data collection
      • (Relatively) non-intrusive
      • Does not interfere with task flow
      • Can be collected/analysed in real time
  • 5.
    • Netball AIS Decision Making Study
      • Opportunistic data collection
      • Participants: 20 underage-expert subjects
      • Task:
        • 32 netball clips of 5-10s projected onto a wall
        • Competitive scenarios of varying complexity
        • Decision-making: who to pass, what kind of pass, confidence
      • Available Data:
        • Speech responses
        • Video of subject (front)
        • Eye-Gaze (crosshairs)
        • Performance/ Accuracy
        • Subjective ratings
    Exploratory Data Collection: Netball Decision Making
  • 6. Analysis - Speech
    • Hypothesis:
      • Speech signal features will vary as cognitive load changes
    • 600 mins speech data
      • 120 mins effective speech
    • Existing speech classification
    • system developed at NICTA
      • At least 3 level classification (L/M/H)
      • Use half of the data for training
      • Use the other half for testing
      • Applications
        • Traffic control, crisis mgt, etc...
      • Accuracy in the range of 75%-80%
      • Details in the paper + references
  • 7. Results - Speech
    • Analysis 1: Intrinsic Complexity (post hoc)
      • Expert labelling of tasks based on possible choices, difficulty of pass, and pressure
      • Trained and tested six levels of load/difficulty; two-thirds training, one-third testing
      • ~19% accuracy
    • Analysis 2: Grouping Levels
      • Grouped Levels 1&2 (Low) and 5&6 (High) to double the amount of data per model
      • Trained and tested 2 levels (Highest vs Lowest);
      • ~65% accuracy
    • Subjective ratings and performance scores
      • Subjective rating scores only within bandwidth of 2-3 points on 7pt scale
      • Performance scores not as expected for the six load levels.
    • Analysis 3: Best and Worst Performances
      • 3 best performing tasks (100% score) and 3 worst performing tasks (0% score)
      • Trained and tested 2 levels (High and Low)
      • 56% accuracy 
      • Due to low granularity of scoring?
  • 8. Discussion and Future Work
    • So far, best result for speech: 65% accuracy on High vs Low
    • Exploratory study served to highlight issues
      • Surprising that results not due to small amounts of data
      • Necessary to administer tasks of extreme load levels (high and low)
      • Higher granularity in performance scores
      • Look into intrinsic load structures to quantify “designed load” for Netball DM tasks
      • Theory building: does poor task performance mean higher or lower load?
    • Analysis of other measures yet to be done:
      • Eye gaze, fixation and trajectory patterns, search strategies
      • Head movement, proxy of video frame movement
      • Manual gesture (manual annotation)
  • 9. Application Contexts – Sports
    • Multimodal assessment of cognitive load in sports contexts be applied to, for example:
      • Objective supplementary coaching tool
        • Individualised training progressions
        • Individualised athlete assessment (own baselines)
        • Highly customisable to the type of skill being learned
      • Ongoing performance monitoring
        • Possible to assess individual athletes in team sports
        • Performance != experienced load level
        • In training and in the field.
      • Talent identification programs