Revising mental models to accommodate expectation failures in human-computer dialogues

  • Thomas G. Moher
  • Victor Dirda
Part of the Eurographics book series (EUROGRAPH)


Faulty mental models of device operation may lead to expectation failure in human-computer dialogues. This paper presents an integrative modeling formalism for representing users and devices, and employs this formalism to describe a two-phase process of model strengthening and model weakening in response to expectation failure. During weakening, selected components of the mental model are tagged as “uncertain.” The task plan is re-executed on the weakened mental model, and the mental model is strengthened as particular suspicions are eliminated. The revised mental model may then be used as the basis for the development of an alternative task plan.


Mental Model Editor Operation Weakened Model Buffer Content Paste Operation 
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.


  1. 1.
    Bastide, R., Palanque, P.: Petri nets with objects for the design, validation and prototyping of user-driven interfaces, In: Proceedings INTERACT’90, Cambridge: Elsevier, 625–631 (1990).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belotti, V.: Integrating Theoreticians’ and Practitioners’ Perspectives with Design Rationale, In: Proceedings INTERCHI’93, New York: ACM Press, 101–106 (1993).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blandford, A., Young, R.: Developing Runnable User Models: Separating the Problem Solving Techniques from the Domain Knowledge, Amodeus Document UM/WP6 (1993).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blandford, A., Young, R.: Separating User and Device Descriptions for Modeling Interactive Problem Solving, Amodeus Project Document UM/WP27 (1994).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Byrne, M., Wood, S, Sukaviriya, P., Foley, J, Kieras, D.: Automating Interface Evaluation, In: Proceedings CHI’94, New York: ACM Press, 232–237 (1994).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carroll, J., Olson, J.: Mental Models in Human-Computer Interaction, In: Helander M. (Ed.), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, North-Holland: Elsevier, 45–65 (1988).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Churchill, E., Young, R.: Modeling representations of device knowledge in Soar, In: Steels L., Smith. B. (Eds.), AISB-91: Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the Simulation of Behavior, Berlin: Springer, 247–255 (1991).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coombs, M, Hartley, R.: The MGR algorithm and its application to the generation of explanations for novel events, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 27, 679–708 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Kleer, J.: An assumption-based TMS, Artificial Intelligence, 28, 127–162 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Doyle, J.: Truth maintenance systems, Artificial Intelligence, 12, 231–271 (1979).CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Duke, D., Barnard, P., Duce, D., May, J.: Syndetic Models for Human-Computer Interaction, Amodeus Project Document ID/WP35 (1994).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Furuta, K., Kondo, S.: Reasoning on plant process using TMS with temporal constraints, In: Rzevski G. (Ed.), Artificial Intelligence in Manufacturing, Proceedings 4th International Conference on Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, Berlin: Springer, 313–321 (1989).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Furuta, K., Kondo, S.: An approach to assessment of plant man-machine systems by computer simulation of an operator’s cognitive behavior, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 39, 473–493 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harrison, M, Barnard, P.: On Defining Requirements for Interaction, In: Finkelstein A. (Ed.), Proceedings IEEE International Workshop on Requirements Engineering, New York: TF.F.E, 50–54 (1993).Google Scholar
  15. Howes, A.: A Model of the Acquisition of Menu Knowledge by Exploration, Proceedings CHI’94, New York: ACM Press, 445–451 (1994).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kieras, D., Polson, P.: An Approach to the Formal Analysis of User Complexity, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 22, 365–394 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Newell, A.: Unified Theories of Cognition, Cambridge: Harvard University Press (1990).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Polk, T., Newell, A., Lewis, R.: Towards a unified theory of immediate reasoning in Soar, In: Proceedings Eleventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (1989).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Biljon, W.: Extending Petri nets for specifying man-machine dialogues, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 437–455 (1988).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Young, R., Green, T., Simon, T.: Programmable User Models for Predictive Evaluation of Interface Designs, In: Proceedings CHI’89, New York: ACM Press, 15–19 (1989).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Young, R., Whittington, J.: Instruction Language Descriptions and User Models for Aspects of Interactive Systems, Amodeus Project Document D20 (1992).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas G. Moher
    • 1
  • Victor Dirda
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer ScienceUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations