Advertisement

Evaluation of the Index of Cognitive Activity (ICA) as an Instrument to Measure Cognitive Workload Under Differing Light Conditions

  • Lisa Rerhaye
  • Talke Blaser
  • Thomas Alexander
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 827)

Abstract

A straightforward and valid instrument for measuring cognitive workload would be heavily appreciated in many research areas, such as human-machine-interaction, driver behavior (e.g. automation and fatigue), usability and UI design (e.g. adaptive displays), training and education, or other areas, that are interested in the assessment of the cognitive state of a person. The Index of Cognitive Activity (ICA) is a promising but also controversially discussed instrument that could be of high relevance if it keeps its promises. The ICA is a patent from the year 2000, which claims to be an effective, light-independent recording method of mental workload.

On the basis of a literature research, we carried out a lab experiment to evaluate the ICA. Participants were equipped with an Eyetracking device and worked on a mental rotation task and a Stroop task under varying light conditions. The NASA-TLX was to be answered after each test condition to evaluate the subjective workload of the participants in each condition. If the ICA is truly light-independent, the ICA should show the same mental workload for each light condition. Results show expected ICA values for the Spatial Task, but inconclusive ICA values for the Stroop Task. Possible explanations and future work is discussed.

Keywords

Mental workload Pupillometry Index of Cognitive Activity 

References

  1. 1.
    Marshall SP (2002) The index of cognitive activity: measuring cognitive workload. In: Proceedings of the 2002 IEEE 7th conference on human factors and power plants in new century, new trends, Scottsdale, AZ, USA, p 7.5Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schwalm M (2009) Pupillometrie als Methode zur Erfassung mentaler Beanspruchungen im automotiven Kontext, DissertationGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johannsen G (1979) Workload and workload measurement. In: Moray N (ed) Mental workload. Springer, Boston, pp 3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Damos DL (ed) (1991) Multiple-task performance. Taylor & Francis, London, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Korbach A, Brünken R, Park B (2017) Differentiating different types of cognitive load: a comparison of different measures. Educ Psychol Rev 16(6582):389Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Gog T, Kirschner F, Kester L, Paas F (2012) Timing and frequency of mental effort measurement: evidence in favour of repeated measures. Appl Cognit Psychol 26(6):833–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kahneman D (1973) Attention and effort. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.JGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beatty J (1982) Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. Psychol Bull 91(2):276–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Loose C (2004) Psychosensorische Pupillendilatation bei bewusster und unbewusster visueller Informationsverarbeitung: Untersuchungen an normalsichtigen Probanden und HemianopikernGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hampson RE, Opris I, Deadwyler SA (2010) Neural correlates of fast pupil dilation in nonhuman primates: relation to behavioral performance and cognitive workload, (eng). Behav Brain Res 212(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Janisse MP (1977) Pupillometry: The psychology of the pupillary response. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation; Distributed solely by Halsted Press, Washington, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Laeng B, Orbo M, Holmlund T, Miozzo M (2011) Pupillary Stroop effects, (eng). Cognit Process 12(1):13–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marshall SP (2000) Method and Apparatus for Eye Tracking and Monitoring Pupil Dilation to Evaluate Cognitive Activity, 6,090,051, US006090051A, USA, 18 July 2000Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Loewenfeld IE, Lowenstein O (1993) The pupil: Anatomy, physiology, and clinical applications. Iowa State Univ. Press, AmesGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schlegel RE, Gilliland K, Schlegel B (1987) Factor structure of the criterion task set. Proc Hum Factors Soc Ann Meet 31(4):389–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hart SG, Staveland L (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Human mental workload, pp 139–183Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bortz J, Döring N (2006) Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler, 4th edn. Springer Medizin Verlag, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Funahashi S (2006) Prefrontal cortex and working memory processes, (eng). Neuroscience 139(1):251–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schwalm M, Keinath A, Zimmer HD (2008) Pupillometry as a method for measuring mental workload within a simulated driving task. In: Waard D, Flemisch FO, Lorenz B, Oberheid H, Bookhuis KA (eds) Human factors for assistance and automation. Shaker Publishing, Maastricht, The Netherlands, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Demberg V, Sayeed A (2016) The frequency of rapid pupil dilations as a measure of linguistic processing difficulty, (eng). PLoS ONE 11(1):e0146194CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fraunhofer Institute for Communication, Information Processing and Ergonomics (FKIE)BonnGermany

Personalised recommendations