How people comprehend unknown system structures: Conceptual primitives in systems' surface representations

  • Gabriele Rohr
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 282)


The Visual spatial representation of command concepts seems to help to build up place concepts about the system's functional structure and to identify system components as objects or places. This conceptualization seems especially to help persons who are used to think this way (visualizers). This subject group has a great advantage in learning and using a software system to perform complex tasks. The icons drafted by us enable relational encoding. Those visualizers are used to build up their concepts from this functional part of memory which allows direct access to the information of how to conduct operations needed for a task. An indispensable prerequisite for this advantage, however, is that the visual spatial relations shown map the functional relations within the system. If not, this representation can create more troubles than help. Furthermore, we have to regard that in our experiment subjects had to perform mainly editing tasks which are basically more spatial organization tasks. For tasks with highly abstract event chains which cannot be mapped onto spatial relations it could be indicated to enable propositional encoding. This means to use natural language concepts because they imply the most elaborated strategies for serial recall. Further research is needed.


Conceptual Primitive Editor System Place Function Relational Encode Completeness Score 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

6. References

  1. [1]
    B.R. Bugelski: The association of images. In: J.M. Nicholas 1977Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    J.M. Carroll & J.C. Thomas: Metaphor and the cognitive representation of computing systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 12 (2), 1982Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    W. Epstein: The influence of syntactical structure on learning. American Journal of Psychology, 74, 1961Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    R. Jackendoff: Semantics and Cognition. MIT Press: Cambridge (Mass.) 1983Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    E. Keppel & G. Rohr: Prototyping — A method to explore human factors aspects in application software. In: H.W. Hendrik & W. Brown (Eds.): Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management. North Holland, Amsterdam 1984Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    S.M. Kosslyn: Imagery and internal representation. In: E. Rosch & B.B. Lloyd 1978Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    S.M. Kosslyn: The Ghosts in the Mind's Machine. W.W. Norton & Company, New York 1983Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    J.M. Nicholas (Ed.): Images, Perception, and Knowledge. D. Reidel Publishing Company: Dodrecht 1977Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    A. Paivio: Images, propositions, and knowledge. In: J.M. Nicholas 1977Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    G. Rohr: Using visual concepts. In: Chang et al.: Visual Languages. Plenum Press, New York 1986 (in press)Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    G. Rohr & E. Keppel: Zur begrifflichen und bildlichen Kodierung von Operationsfolgen bei der Mensch-Computer-Interaktion. Zeitschrift f. Psychologie, 193 (4), 1985Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    E. Rosch & B.B. Lloyd: Cognition and Categorization. LEA: Hillsdale 1978Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriele Rohr
    • 1
  1. 1.IBM Science CenterHeidelberg

Personalised recommendations