Advertisement

Methodology for Knowledge Elicitation in Visual Abductive Reasoning Tasks

  • Michael J. HaassEmail author
  • Laura E. Matzen
  • Susan M. Stevens-Adams
  • Allen R. Roach
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9183)

Abstract

The potential for bias to affect the results of knowledge elicitation studies is well recognized. Researchers and knowledge engineers attempt to control for bias through careful selection of elicitation and analysis methods. Recently, the development of a wide range of physiological sensors, coupled with fast, portable and inexpensive computing platforms, has added an additional dimension of objective measurement that can reduce bias effects. In the case of an abductive reasoning task, bias can be introduced through design of the stimuli, cues from researchers, or omissions by the experts. We describe a knowledge elicitation methodology robust to various sources of bias, incorporating objective and cross-referenced measurements. The methodology was applied in a study of engineers who use multivariate time series data to diagnose the performance of devices throughout the production lifecycle. For visual reasoning tasks, eye tracking is particularly effective at controlling for biases of omission by providing a record of the subject’s attention allocation.

Keywords

Knowledge elicitation Eye tracking Abductive reasoning 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge James D. Morrow of Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque New Mexico for creating the software used in our study to display the time series stimuli and record subject response times. Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.

References

  1. 1.
    Booker, J.M., Meyer, M.A.: Eliciting and Analyzing Expert Judgment: A Practical Guide. ASA, pp. 3–16. SIAM, Philadelphia (2001)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thagard, P., Shelley, C.: Abductive reasoning: logic, visual thinking, and coherence. In: DallaChiara, M.L., et al. (eds.) Logic and Scientific Methods: Volume One of the Tenth International Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Florence, August 1995, vol. 259, pp. 413–427. Springer, Netherlands (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Console, L., Torasso, P.: On the co-operation between abductive and temporal reasoning in medical diagnosis. Artif. Intell. Med. 3(6), 291–311 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kovacs, G., Spens, K.M.: Abductive reasoning in logistics research. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logistics Manage. 35(2), 132–144 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gelsema, E.S.: Abductive reasoning in bayesian belief networks using a genetic algorithm. Pattern Recogn. Lett. 16(8), 865–871 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brookings, J.B., Wilson, G.F., Swain, C.R.: Psychophysiological responses to changes in workload during simulated air traffic control. Biol. Psychol. 42(3), 361–377 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marshall, S.P.: Identifying cognitive state from eye metrics. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 78(5), B165–B175 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Matzen, L.E., Haass, M.J., McNamara, L.A.: Using eye tracking to asseess cognitve biasses: a position paper. In: DECISIVe Workshop, IEEE Vis 2014 (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Erkelens, C.J., Sloot, O.B.: Initial directions and landing positions of binocular saccades. Vision. Res. 35(23–24), 3297–3303 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael J. Haass
    • 1
    Email author
  • Laura E. Matzen
    • 1
  • Susan M. Stevens-Adams
    • 1
  • Allen R. Roach
    • 1
  1. 1.Sandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations