Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Robert W. Proctor
Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University
Kim-Phuong L. Vu
Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach
1. INTRODUCTION
I believe it is important to recognize that the advent of cognitive theories in the 1950s did
mark a fairly radical theoretical discontinuity, and precisely the sort of theoretical dis-
continuity that is characteristic of many revolutionary episodes in the history of science
(Cohen, 1985). (p. 1)
Or more bluntly, as Estes (1975) put it, Without depreciating its oftentimes impres-
sive accomplishments, we must recognize that behavior theory did not lead in any
direct way into the body of theory we find sparking and directing the present broad
expansion of research in human cognitive psychology (p. 15).
The cognitive revolution is characterized by the widespread adoption of the
human information-processing approach to psychological research and theory
(e.g., Lachman et al., 1979). The basic idea behind this approach is that theories
can be developed that describe, at levels ranging from high-level plans to neural
events, the way in which information pertaining to overt stimuli and responses
is represented and processed by human and nonhuman organisms. The ap-
proach uses a range of specific behavioral and psychophysiological methods to
evaluate the nature of the elementary codes, the operations that act on them,
and alternative models concerning the structure of the information-processing
system and the flow of information through it when performing specific tasks.
As David, Mircea, and Opre (2004) noted in a recent special issue of the Journal of
Clinical Psychology devoted to implications of the cognitive revolution for clini-
cal psychology,
2.1. Significance
FIGURE 1 Time line illustrating some of the major work in human information pro-
cessing from its inception to 2006.
256 Proctor and Vu
Posner (1986), in his overview of the section of the Handbook of Perception and Perfor-
mance devoted to information processing, stated clearly the value of the informa-
tion-processing approach and its historical roots. He began the overview with a
heading, Information Processing Language, in which he emphasized that the concepts
of the information-processing approach are crucial to its success. According to
Posner,
Posners quote captures well the important point that the success of the informa-
tion-processing approach is due in large part to its providing a language that en-
ables interaction and unification across a broad range of psychological, behavioral,
and neurophysiological concerns.
In agreement with G. A. Miller (2003), Posner (1986) noted, The information/
processing language has been influenced by computers (Simon, 1969) and by the
mathematics and insights of information and control theory (Shannon & Weaver,
1949) (p. V-3). He went on in the next sentence, though, to emphasize, its empiri-
cal base rests mainly in experimental studies of human performance (p. V-3). This
linking of data and modeling is crucial to the success of the approach. As Simon
(1991) indicated,
into machine and human subsystems, and each can be analyzed further. The con-
cepts, methods, and theories for analyzing the processes of the human subsystem
are provided by the human information-processing approach. Posner (1986)
stated, Indeed, much of the impetus for the development of this kind of empirical
study stemmed from the desire to integrate description of the human within over-
all systems (p. V-6). More recently, in a chapter on human information processing
in air traffic control (ATC), Roske-Hofstrand and Murphy (1998) noted this relation
between the systems approach and human information processing, stating, Hu-
man factors engineers apply knowledge about human information-processing ca-
pabilities and limitations (the domain of cognitive psychology) to the design of the
ATC system, i.e., its technologies, interfaces, procedures, and so on (p. 66). They
concluded their chapter by noting, As long as there is a human role in ATC, hu-
man information-processing capabilities will continue to be critical components of
the system (p. 107).
The hope is that, in not too many years, human brains and computing machines will be
coupled together very tightly, and that the resulting partnership will think as no human
brain has ever thought and process data in a way not approached by the informa-
tion-handling machines we know today. (p. 4 of reprint)
From 25 or 30 years doing research on HCI, two things became very clear. First of all, this
kind of technology was not really like the technologies we had before. We were really
faced with the challenge of figuring out how it was that you would integrate different
cognitive capabilities, like memory, problem solving, language, and so on. (as cited in
Reynolds & Tansey, 2003, p. 24)
Although many other approaches to HCI have been developed in recent years (see,
e.g., Carroll, 2003), Stewart (2003) still made the point in the introduction to a recent
Promise of Information Processing 259
special issue of Behaviour & Information Technology devoted to computer use that
cognitive issues are both fascinating and vital to successful human-computer in-
teraction (p. i).
Human information-processing analyses have at least three main uses in HCI
(see, e.g., Dumais & Czerwinski, 2001). First, basic facts and theories about informa-
tion-processing capabilities can be taken into account when designing interfaces and
tasks. Second, information-processing methods are used in HCI to conduct empiri-
cal studies evaluating the cognitive requirements of various tasks in which a human
interacts with a computer. Third, computational models based on specific cognitive
architectures are employed to describe the information processing of a user interact-
ing with a computer while performing specific tasks and to provide quantitative pre-
dictions of human performance with alternative interfaces.
current data and theory concerning compatibility effects to assist in the design of
compatible interfaces (Proctor & Vu, 2006a).
In essence, G. Millers findings that people are only able to make quick, accurate deci-
sions with a small handful of objects at a time has had wide support across studies, and
may provide useful guidance in the design of web hyperlinks across pages. (p. 26)
Larson and Czerwinski (1998) went on to test the implication of the magic num-
ber 7 2 for the structure of Web sites. They had users search for target items in a
Web site with one of three possible categorization structures: a three-level (8 8 8)
structure or two different two-level (16 32 and 32 16) structures. Task comple-
tion time was shortest for the 16 32 structure and longest for the 8 8 8 struc-
ture, indicating the broader structures led to better performance than deeper ones.
In addition, users deviated from the optimal path for locating the target item more
with the 8 8 8 structure than with the 16 32 structure.
Based on their findings, Larson and Czerwinski (1998) concluded that the depth
variable was a stronger predictor of performance than the number of items within a
level. However, they found a correlation between performance and a memory span
pretest for the two broader structures but not the deeper one, suggesting that work-
ing memory capacity becomes a significant factor when the breadth of the structure
is large enough to impose a high memory load. Tullis, Catani, Chadwick-Dias, and
Cianchette (2005) pointed out that although broader Web structures tend to yield
262 Proctor and Vu
better performance than deeper structures in complex tasks of the type examined
by Larson and Czerwinski, a deeper structure is often better than a broader one for
simpler tasks.
The second example of an area of HCI that has profited from basic research on hu-
man information processing is that of cursor positioning. Two laws of human perfor-
mance discovered in the early days of human information-processing research are
the HickHyman law (or Hicks law; Hick, 1952; Hyman, 1953) and Fitts law (Fitts,
1954). Both of these laws were based initially on information theory, with the former
relating reaction time to the amount of uncertainty among the stimulus-response al-
ternatives and the latter relating the time for aimed movements to the area and dis-
tance of the target. Although both laws have direct implications for HCI, the
HickHyman law has been investigated primarily in other domains, whereas Fitts
law has been the subject of considerable research within HCI (Seow, 2005).
Card, English, and Burr (1978) are usually credited with conducting the first HCI
study based on Fitts law. They evaluated the efficiency of text keys, step keys, a
mouse, and an isometric joystick for performing a text-selection task on a screen.
Users were to select the text by positioning the cursor on the desired area and press-
ing a button or key. Card et al. found that positioning time for the continuous con-
trol devices conformed to Fitts law, with the mouse and joystick both yielding
faster performance than the discrete entry-key methods. Moreover, the mouse was
more efficient than the joystick for this positioning task.
Since Card et al.s (1978) study, the amount of HCI research devoted to Fitts law
has been sufficiently great for an entire 2004 issue of the International Journal of Hu-
manComputer Studies to be devoted to studies commemorating Fitts (1954) work
50 years earlier. In the introduction to the issue, the editors noted, Fitts law has
proven highly applicable in HumanComputer Interaction (HCI), making it possi-
ble to predict reliably the minimum time for a person in a pointing task to reach a
specified target (Guiard & Beaudouin-Lafon, 2004). Articles in the issue provide
recommendations on use of Fitts law as a predictor of performance on a variety of
computing tasks and for evaluating alternative positioning devices. Furthermore,
the articles illustrate numerous applications of Fitts law to current technology and
to future virtual enhancements to reduce pointing times.
It is perhaps appropriate to end this section with a statement made more than 40
years ago by Paul Fitts (1964), the discoverer of stimulus-response compatibility ef-
fects and Fitts law, both of which have had enduring impact on basic and applied
research and theory:
that is relevant to a broad range of issues in HCI. Many of the facts about human-in-
formation processing have been incorporated into computational models and cog-
nitive architectures that are applicable to HCI (Byrne, in press; John, 2003). Compu-
tational models are computer programs developed to simulate and predict
performance of specific tasks within a cognitive architecture that depicts the infor-
mation-processing structure and flow. One intent is to be able to use these models
in different phases of the design cycle in HCI. In this regard, Yoshikawa (2003) em-
phasized, The cognitive aspect is the most indispensable one from the viewpoint
of applying the relevant knowledge during the various phases of design, analysis,
and evaluation for HCI (p. 119).
The Model Human Processor (MHP) and GOMS (Goals, Operators, Methods,
and Selection rules) analysis, developed by Card et al. (1983), are regarded as defin-
ing events in the application of cognitive models to HCI. Card et al. argued that to
be useful for engineering, application of human information processing should be
based on task analysis (which establishes the users goals), calculation (laws of
parametric variation, p. 10), and approximation (the calculations should be sim-
plified and should not need fitting to new empirical data). The MHP is a cognitive
architecture based on (a) processors for the information-processing stages of per-
ception, cognition, and motor execution (with mean cycle times of 100, 70, and 70
ms, respectively); (b) working and long-term memory stores, and (c) principles of
operation. By specifying the operations required to perform a task, response time
can be predicted from the time estimates for the elemental operations. For example,
a task that involves one operation of each of the three types would be estimated to
take 240 ms, using the mean cycle times.
The first step for implementing the MHP is to perform a cognitive task analysis,
which is the purpose of GOMS. A GOMS analysis describes the task in terms of goals
and subgoals, the methods for obtaining these goals, the elemental operators that
make up the methods, and when there are competing methods, rules for selecting be-
tween the alternative methods (Strybel, 2005). This analysis of the hierarchy of proce-
dural knowledge and the sequence of operators needed to perform a task allows
quantitative predictions to be derived from the MHP for the time to perform the task.
As summarized by John (2003), since the work of Card et al. (1983), a family of GOMS
models has been developed that has had many successful applications in HCI, in-
cluding text editors, operating systems, and Web pages. John emphasized,
The concepts associated with GOMS are a mixture of several types: task-analysis tech-
niques from the human factors and system design literature, models of human perfor-
mance on specific tasks, computational models of human cognitive architecture, and
loosely defined concepts about human cognition and information processing. (pp.
6263)
Scientific progress sometimes comes not from new methods, but from new concepts,
new ways of framing old problems. The cognitive revolution is a wonderful example of
this. The language of information processing and computation provided a new way of
thinking about what the brain does. (p. 7)
A quick scan of journals, job announcements, and grant initiatives reveals that cog-
nitive neuroscience is a rapidly emerging field, probably the hottest area in psy-
chology today. For example, a brief announcement of a National Science Founda-
tion initiative in cognitive neuroscience in the 2002 American Psychological Society
Observer stated,
The last decade has seen cognitive neuroscience emerge as an influential discipline,
growing out of an interaction between cognitive sciences, neurology, neuroscience, and
other fields. This cross-disciplinary integration has generated rapid growth in knowl-
edge about sensory processes, higher cognitive functions, language, and social pro-
cesses. Among other things, it is anticipated that cognitive neuroscience research will
help pinpoint functional brain organization, such as the operations performed by a par-
ticular brain area. (p. 25)
As noted earlier, the major goal of research in the area of cognitive neuroscience
is to analyze the brain mechanisms responsible for cognitive functioning. The
knowledge gained from behavioral studies of human information processing pro-
vides the foundation for much of this research. This point is acknowledged explic-
itly in the instructions for authors for the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, which
state, The Journal publishes papers that bridge the gap between descriptions of in-
formation processing and specifications of brain activity (see http://
jocn.mitpress.org/misc/ifora.shtml).
Indeed, a recent special issue of the journal Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews
was devoted to Neurobiology of Cognition in Laboratory Animals: Challenges
and Opportunities, with the editors having noted in their introductory editorial
that investigators are increasingly concerned with the assessment of cognitive
functions in laboratory animals (Sarter & Sutherland, 2004, p. 643). In his article on
methodological issues, Sarter indicated, Cognitive psychology has defined im-
portant variables of cognitive processes, particularly with respect to different types
of material (e.g. learning or recalling time and place versus memory for procedural
skills) and levels of processing (e.g. automatic versus effortful) (2004, p. 647) and
recommended that animal researchers take these variables into account when de-
266 Proctor and Vu
signing and interpreting their experiments. The special issue includes articles on
the content topics of memory, spatial navigation, executive functioning, and inter-
pretation of response times. It should be apparent that the gap between descrip-
tions of information processing and specifications of brain activity indicated in the
instructions cited here for the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience would not exist were
it not for the success of research on human information processing.
A 2003 special issue of the journal Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science was de-
voted to the topic of neuroergonomics. The editor, Parasuraman, stated,
Neuroergonomics is the study of brain and behaviour at work. As the name implies,
this emerging area comprises two disciplines that are themselves interdisciplinary, neu-
roscience and ergonomics . Neuroergonomics focuses on investigations of the neural
bases of such perceptual and cognitive functions as seeing, hearing, attending, remem-
bering, deciding and planning in relation to technologies and settings in the real world.
(p. 5)
At the close of the 20th century, basic science understanding of the human brain began to
provide quantitative insight on how the human brain functioned at the most basic ele-
mental levels and how human thought and performance was associated with brain
functioning. The human brain revolution provided the beginnings of a detailed knowl-
edge of human thought processing, functioning and performance. (p. xvii)
Promise of Information Processing 267
The authors of one of the proceedings papers, Patrey and Kruse (2005), were
even more explicit in acknowledging the contributions of cognitive psychology
and human information processing, stating,
Over the last decade, significant advances in the fields of neuroscience, cognitive psy-
chology, and physiology have occurred. These developments have revolutionized the
way we understand cognitive functioning at a basic level, as well as the more abstract
features of human information processing (situational awareness, decision making)
(p. 43)
Clearly, Parasuraman (2003) and Schmorrow (2005), among others, envision ma-
jor advances in application beginning to occur as a function of the developing
knowledge in cognitive neuroscience, which is based on human information-pro-
cessing analyses. To the extent that the gap between descriptions of information
processing and specifications of brain activity is bridged successfully, the advances
in neuroergonomics and augmented cognition envisioned by Parasuraman and
Schmorrow will become reality.
The main proposition of evolutionary biology and behavioral ecology is that the
information-processing mechanisms evolved in response to adaptive problems
such as cooperation among friends and competition between groups. Cosmides
(2006) proposed, Natural selection will have engineered distinct computational
specializations for each [adaptive problem] (p. 7). She indicated,
Given content-specific theories of the adaptive problems our brains evolved to solve, we
can now search for previously unknown computational systems, ones that are well en-
gineered by selection for producing evolutionarily functional outcomes. This will lead
to a field populated by topics far different from those to which we are accustomed. (p. 23)
Cosmides envisioned that the boundaries between different areas of behavioral sci-
ence will disappear:
Mundale (2003) argued that there are obstacles resulting from the particular in-
formation-processing (IP) model of cognition (p. 229), adopted by Cosmides
(2006) and many other evolutionary psychologists, because it is inspired by a
functionalist theory of mind (p. 229). Basically, Mundale contended that the func-
tional approach taken by the information-processing model does little to foster in-
tegration with lower level neurophysiological explanations because it assumes that
the manner in which the cognitive processes are physically instantiated is a sepa-
rate issue. She claimed similarly that the individual-cognizer perspective of the IP
model inhibits integration with the cultural, anthropological, and perhaps even po-
litical theories required for understanding group dynamics (p. 232).
We think that the evidence from cognitive neuroscience and social cognition (as
described in the following section) argues against Mundales (2003) argument that a
functional analysis of human information processing inhibits integration with lower
and higher levels of analysis. However, even if one accepts Mundales negative as-
sessment of the value of the standard information-processing approach for evolu-
tionary psychology, she is emphatic that IP models as such need pose no difficulties
for the progress of evolutionary psychology (p. 229). Rather, Mundale proposed,
by abandoning certain functionalist commitments, the information-processing
model can be retained; primarily this would involve recasting IP descriptions to in-
clude more fine-grained, biologically specific levels of analysis (pp. 239240). Thus,
regardless of whether or not one accepts the current information-processing model
as the most adequate, the vigor and potential of evolutionary psychology still de-
rives in large part from the information-processing approach.
Promise of Information Processing 269
Human information processing has had, and continues to have, considerable im-
pact on research in social psychology, primarily through the approach called social
cognition (Moskowitz, 2005). As noted by E. R. Smith (2000), social cognition as-
sumes that the same basic information-processing principles apply in both social
and nonsocial domains (p. 326). Consequently, social cognition researchers use
variants of many of the methods and theories developed within the human infor-
mation-processing tradition to study the nature of the processing involved in social
interactions. Information-processing analyses have been applied to such topics as
attributions, stereotyping, and attitudes.
The impact of social cognition within social psychology has been, and continues
to be, considerable. E. R. Smith (2000) said, Virtually all topic areas of social psy-
chology have been influenced to varying degrees by the social cognitive perspec-
tive (p. 327). Kunda (1999) elaborated on this point, saying,
Building on a long tradition of research and theory in social psychology, and invigorated
by an infusion of new ideas and methods emerging from cognitive psychology, so-
cial-cognition researchers have shed new light on many classic social psychological
questions, and also have endeavored into previously uncharted areas of investigation.
(p. 1)
Kunda (1999) indicated that in the early days of research on social cognition, the
emphasis was on cold cognitions that excluded emotion and motivation. She
went on to say,
More recently there has been renewed interest in the relatively hot cognitions under-
lying motivation and affect, leading social cognition researchers to examine how our
goals, desires, and feelings can influence the way we remember and make sense of social
events. This research has led to renewed theoretical efforts to integrate cognition, moti-
vation, and affect. (p. 3)
One of the major themes of recent research is that much of social information
processing is automatic, or implicit, and takes place outside of conscious aware-
ness. Bargh and Williams (2006) summarized the implications of this research as
follows:
Much of social life is experienced through mental processes that are not intended and
about which one is fairly oblivious. These processes are automatically triggered by fea-
tures of the immediate social environment, such as the group memberships of other peo-
ple, the qualities of their behavior, and features of social situations (e.g., norms, ones rel-
ative power). Recent research has shown these unconscious influences to extend
beyond the perception and interpretation of the social world to the actual guidance,
over extended time periods, of ones important goal pursuits and social interactions.
(p. 1)
270 Proctor and Vu
The potential impact of social cognition on HCI is recognized in the call for pa-
pers for the 2006 Americas Conference on Information Systems. Its track on HCI in-
cludes a minitrack on social cognition in computing. The description of the track
stated,
HCI research is limited in its exposure to a rich and fruitful school of thinking known as
Social Cognition in the psychology literature. Judgments, decision making, and visual
perceptions are all well understood and reasonably reliable in testing in the social cogni-
tion studies of priming, person perception, and social judgment. Exposing the IT [Infor-
mation Technology] research community to this mature and robust field of reference
discipline theory will provide for fresh and important perspectives as we begin to exam-
ine computer mediated social interactions, computer persuasion, and user perceptions
of the trustworthiness of computer media sources. (Association for Information Sys-
tems, 2006)
Since the earliest days of the cognitive revolution, the human information-process-
ing approach has had its detractors and has been challenged on many grounds.
Critics have championed alternative approaches, several of which currently have
some degree of popularity. In this section, we consider some of the arguments
raised against the information-processing approach and take into account its rela-
tion to other approaches. Our arguments in this section are an elaboration on an ini-
tial, briefer treatment we provided in a recent chapter (Proctor & Vu, in press).
At a general level, T. J. Smith and Henning (2005) recently stated, The basic sci-
entific problem with information processing models that have come to dominate
cognitive science in the past four decades is that they are non-refutable (p. 641). In
our view, this argument is inaccurate and irrelevant. The theoretical framework of
the information-processing approach indeed makes fundamental assumptions
that are not subjected to empirical test, but it has been known since Kuhns (1962)
analysis of scientific paradigms that this is true for all theoretical frameworks. For
example, Lakatos (1970) distinguished the hard core of a research program, which
is the theoretical and methodological commitments that are immune to empirical
272 Proctor and Vu
test, from a protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses that are not. The important point
is that the specific models and theories developed within the human informa-
tion-processing framework are subjected to test and thus are refutable, a fact at-
tested to by decades of research spent developing and testing alternative models
(see, e.g., Logan, 2004).
The issue in evaluating the information-processing approach is its relative suc-
cess at providing solutions to issues of theoretical and applied importance. As
Pashler (1998), who takes an information-processing approach to the study of at-
tention, noted, The success or failure of information-processing psychology can
be assessed only on the basis of the insights that do or do not emerge from the re-
search it spawns (p. 7). We might add to this statement that such an evaluation
must be based on how the approach fares relative to alternative theoretical ap-
proaches (Proctor & Capaldi, 2006). Given the continued prominence of the infor-
mation-processing approach in contemporary research in psychology and in hu-
man factors and HCI, it is clear that the assessment of many researchers is that it has
fared well on numerous counts.
Among the strongest critics of the information-processing approach have been be-
havior analysts who follow in the tradition of B. F. Skinner. The experimental analy-
sis of behavior focuses on functional analyses of behavior, with an emphasis on
contingencies between behavior and reinforcing events. Much of this research has
been conducted with laboratory animals, but in recent years there has been growth
in basic and applied analysis of human behavior.
Skinner remarked in an address to the American Psychological Association in
1990, shortly before his death, As far as Im concerned, cognitive science is the
creationism of psychology (as cited in Bales, 1990, p. 6). Recently, Schlinger (2005),
a behavior analyst, offered the similarly negative opinion of the cognitive revolu-
tion: The cognitive revolution was a major step backward. Although its goals
were laudable, its insistence on a return to mental constructs as its subject matter
has stood in the way of psychology developing into a true natural science (p. 8).
Schlinger (2004) elaborated on this statement in an article entitled Why Psy-
chology Hasnt Kept Its Promises. In that article, he contended that psychology
has produced very few noteworthy discoveries: it has offered few if any satisfac-
tory explanatory concepts (p. 124). Contrast this assessment with that of Graham
Richards of the Applied Psychology Unit, who said, Psychology has absolutely
penetrated into everything from the development of military psychology to the de-
sign of traffic layouts. Absolutely all areas of modern technological society have
had psychological input somewhere along the line (as cited in Reynolds & Tansey,
2003, p. 69). Needless to say, we think that Richards assessment of the impact of
cognitive psychology, to which he is referring, is much closer to reality than that of
Schlinger.
Schlinger (2004) continued on to conclude that, in the sad state of affairs that he
perceived for psychology, the main culprit is psychologists continued emphasis
Promise of Information Processing 273
The problem is that objects on computer screens are not physical objects and we can in-
teract with them only indirectly by using a computer mouse. There are no direct physical
affordances in a computer interface. Thus, to be useful, we must develop a cognitive
274 Proctor and Vu
With respect to the Web, Aziz and Macredie (2005) indicated, The use of
web-based information system[s] mainly involves processing of information (p.
1). Because such environments are similar to those studied in basic human informa-
tion-processing experiments, the approach has much to offer for analyzing and un-
derstanding the tasks performed in them.
For HCI tasks of a more ecological nature, such as navigating in a virtual world,
understanding the information available to an observer/actor in the environment
being simulated is clearly essential. As an example, Schvaneveldt (2005) noted that
he and his colleagues focused their recent studies of aviation on analyses of the in-
formation in the flight environment that allows pilots to perform effectively during
different stages of flight. From an information-processing perspective, although
such ecological analyses are valuable, and indeed necessary, they must be incorpo-
rated within information-processing models (e.g., Ullman, 1980).
Although the human information-processing approach has been applied suc-
cessfully to many issues in motor control and learning (e.g., Schmidt, 1975), an eco-
logical/dynamical systems approach that emphasizes coordinative structures and
movement constraints has been advocated by many researchers in the past 26 years
(e.g., Kugler, Kelso, & Turvey, 1980). Recently, Anson, Elliott, and Davids (2005)
compared these two approaches and concluded that the models of motor-skill ac-
quisition developed from each are more similar than they are different. Among
other points made by Anson et al. is that the development of what they call the con-
straints-based approach was based to a large extent on a misunderstanding about
human information processing. They placed great emphasis on Fitts (1964) pio-
neering work on skill acquisition and stated,
ception and cognition. T. J. Smith and Henning (2005), who advocated a cybernetic
approach, took a strong position against the information-processing approach,
stating,
This block diagram model of the human is important because it not only models the flow
of information and commands between the vehicle and the human, it also enables access
to the internal state of the human at various parts of the process. This allows the model-
ing of what a cognitive measurement system might have access to (internal to the hu-
man), and how that measurement might then be used as part of a closed-loop hu-
man-machine interface system. (pp. 261262)
Although T. J. Smith and Henning (2005) may have been correct that researchers
should place more emphasis on the role of sensory feedback produced by actions,
in our opinion they mistakenly attributed a simplifying tactic used by researchers
to fundamental assumptions underlying the human information-processing ap-
proach. Recollect that human information processing has its roots in control theory,
as emphasized by Fitts (1964) in his classic chapter on perceptual-motor skill learn-
ing: Several very general concepts of significance for psychological theory have
been borrowed from control systems (p. 249).
In the past 20 years, several alternative approaches to HCI with different specific
emphases have been introduced. Carrolls (2003) edited book provides an excellent
276 Proctor and Vu
If the message of the [situated action] community is taken to be that traditional ap-
proaches neglect the importance of the environment, then not only is the message an im-
portant one, but the typical symbol processing system is guilty as charged. However,
this does not mean that, in principle, symbol processing systems must have this limita-
tion. The two approaches can work hand-in-hand to produce more general and more ac-
curate computational models. (p. 118)
Another approach oriented toward the work environment is activity theory. Ac-
cording to Bertelsen and Bdker (2003), activity theory adopts a participatory action
research approach and is concerned mainly with introducing computer technology
into the workplace. As with participatory action research in general (see, e.g., Fine et
al., 2003), activity theory emphasizes cooperation and interaction among researchers
and intended users instead of studying performance of users in experiments and us-
ability tests. Bertelsen and Bdker indicated that activity theory was developed to
remedy several perceived shortcomings of cognitive science-based theories, includ-
ing emphasis on a generic user, utilization of novice users for validation purposes,
lack of concern with real-life action and the work environment, and focus on the indi-
vidual user rather than user interactions. According to them, because of these short-
comings, it was necessary to move outside cognitive science-based HCI to find or de-
velop the necessary theoretical platform (p. 293).
As should be apparent by now, our view is that the perceived shortcomings of
the information-processing approach do not reflect fundamental limitations. As
with Anson et al.s (2005) position regarding alternative approaches to percep-
tual-motor skill, we view activity theory as complementary to the human informa-
tion-processing approach and not in opposition to it. Norman (2005) seemed to
take this view in his advocacy of activity-centered design, which he indicated was
motivated by activity theory, over human-centered design. Norman argued, Suc-
cessful devices are those that fit gracefully into the requirements of the underlying
activity, supporting them in a manner understandable by people (p. 15), empha-
sizing that this does not necessarily mean that the devices are easy to use. However,
he went on to state that activity-centered design is much like human-centered de-
sign, indicating that although both require understanding of users, the former also
requires a deep understanding of the technology, of the tools, and of the reasons
for the activities (p. 16). Again, the primary point is not that an understanding of
human information processing is unnecessary, just that more is required.
The extent to which the principles and theories developed from information-pro-
cessing research conducted in the laboratory generalize to other contexts is an empir-
ical issue. Although the evidence is not all in, the widespread application of informa-
tion-processing principles and theories to human factors and HCI (e.g., Wickens,
Lee, Liu, & Becker, 2004) suggests that what has been learned about human informa-
tion processing is applicable to a variety of domains. Thus, although environmental
context is important and may constrain the generalizability of specific laboratory
phenomena, basic processes such as those of attention and memory are much more
278 Proctor and Vu
general that what a situated action approach would imply. Moreover, in HCI, these
basic principles can help guide the design process so that user testing in the context of
the task can be limited to a small number of possible systems.
5. CONCLUSION
Fifty years have passed since 1956, the year cited by Newell and Simon (1972) and
G. A. Miller (2003) as pivotal in the rise of the human information-processing ap-
proach. Given the technological and scientific advances that have occurred during
this period and the tendency for fads to come and go in psychology and human fac-
tors, it is perhaps remarkable that the information-processing approach is as alive
and vibrant today as it was 50 years ago. The approach provides the foundation for
much of contemporary cognitive science, cognitive neuroscience, human factors,
and HCI. By almost any measure, the empirical and theoretical knowledge today is
much greater, more sophisticated, and better integrated than when this period be-
gan. For example, Logan (2004) indicated that his review of formal theories of at-
tention document[s] cumulative progress in theoretical understanding of atten-
tion from the 1950s to the present (p. 207). Similar assessments could be made of
the progress in many other research areas as well. Thus, our answer to the question
posed in the title is Yes, the promise of the human information-processing ap-
proach has been fulfilled.
What accounts for the success of the information-processing approach? We be-
lieve that the answer lies in Posners (1986) emphasis on the common language and
concepts it provides for integrating across different domains, levels, systems, and
disciplines. Information-processing language allows integration of knowledge
across (a) humans, computers, and other machines; (b) humans and other species;
(c) perception, cognition, and action; (d) cognition and emotion; (e) conscious expe-
rience, mind, and brain; and (f) basic research and application, as well as within
and between disciplines. Computational models can be developed that incorporate
the full spectrum of factors that influence human performance, allowing accurate
predictions to be derived for various purposes.
Despite the success of the information-processing approach, it has had numer-
ous critics. Although any scientific framework has limitations, we think that
many of the criticisms of the approach are misguided. Critics often attribute per-
ceived deficiencies in existing models and theories to fundamental defects in the
approach when instead they reflect only shortcomings of the current state of af-
fairs. Rarely is a serious alternative posed that can be shown to provide a better
explanation of the phenomena than the information-processing approach does
for the domain in question. For cases in which a competing alternative is offered,
as in the constraints-based approach to motor skill, close analysis reveals more
similarity than difference. Moreover, jettisoning the information-processing ap-
proach for one domain comes at a cost of severing the connections to related do-
mains and areas. Whether ones interests are in evaluating interactions of users
with Web sites or of team members in a work environment, human information
processing provides a foundation on which to base a broader understanding of
these interactions.
Promise of Information Processing 279
REFERENCES
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capac-
ity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 8197.
Miller, G. A. (2003). The cognitive revolution: A historical perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sci-
ences, 7, 141144.
Moskowitz, G. B. (2005). Social cognition: Understanding self and others. New York: Guilford.
Mundale, J. (2003). Evolutionary psychology and the information-processing model of cog-
nition. In S. J. Scher & F. Rauscher (Eds.), Evolutionary psychology: Alternative approaches
(pp. 229241). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Nattkemper, D., & Ziessler, M. (2004). Cognitive control of action: The role of action effects.
Psychological Research, 68, 7173.
Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.
Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Newell, A., Shaw, C., & Simon, H. A. (1957). Empirical explorations of the logic theory ma-
chine: A case study in heuristics. Proceedings of the Western Joint Computer Conference, spon-
sored by the Association for Computing Machinery, 218239.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Norman, D. A. (2005). Human-centered design considered harmful. interactions, 12(4),
1419.
Parasuraman, R. (2003). Neuroergonomics: Research and practice. Theoretical Issues in Ergo-
nomics Science, 4, 520.
Pashler, H. (1998). The psychology of attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Patrey, J., & Kruse, A. A. (2005). The cognitive pyramidFundamental components that in-
fluence human information processing. In D. D. Schmorrow (Ed.), Foundations of aug-
mented cognition (pp. 4344). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Peirce, C. S. (1957). Essays in the philosophy of science (V. Tomas, Ed.). New York: Liberal Arts
Press.
Perry, M. (2003). Disributed cognition. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), HCI models, theories, and frame-
works: Toward a multidisciplinary science (pp. 193223). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
Pirolli, P. (2003). Exploring and finding information. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), HCI models, theo-
ries, and frameworks: Toward a multidisciplinary science (pp. 157191). San Francisco: Mor-
gan Kaufmann.
Pirolli, P. (2005). Rational analyses of information foraging on the Web. Cognitive Science, 29,
343373.
Posner, M. I. (1986). Overview. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of
perception and human performance Vol. II: Cognitive processes and performance (pp. V3V10).
New York: Wiley.
Prinz, W., & Hommel, B. (Eds.). (2002). Common mechanisms in perception and action: Attention
and performance XIX. New York: Oxford University Press.
Proctor, R. W., & Capaldi, E. J. (2006). Why science matters: Understanding the methods of psycho-
logical research. Malden, NJ: Blackwell.
Proctor, R. W., & Van Zandt, T. (1994). Human factors in simple and complex systems. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2003). Action selection. In A. F. Healy & R. W. Proctor (Eds.), Ex-
perimental psychology. Vol 4. Handbook of psychology (pp. 293316). New York: Wiley.
Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006a). Location and arrangement of displays and control actu-
ators. In W. Karwowski (Ed.), Handbook of standards and guidelines in ergonomics and human
factors (pp. 399409). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (2006b). Stimulus-response compatibility principles: Data, theory,
and application. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Promise of Information Processing 283
Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K.-P. L. (in press). Human information processing: An overview for hu-
man-computer interaction. In J. A. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), The humancomputer interaction
handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies, and emerging applications (2nd ed.). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Reynolds, L. A., & Tansey, E. M. (Eds.). (2003). The MRC Applied Psychology Unit. Vol. 16.
Wellcome witnesses to twentieth-century medicine. London: Wellcome Trust.
Rosenbaum, D. A. (2005). The Cinderella of psychology: The neglect of motor control in the
science of mental life and behavior. American Psychologist, 60, 308317.
Roske-Hofstrand, R. J., & Murphy, E. D. (1998). Human information processing in air traffic
control. In M. W. Smolensky & E. S. Stein (Eds.), Human factors in air traffic control (pp.
65114). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Sarter, M. (2004). Animal cognition: Defining the issues. Neurociences & Biobehavioral Reviews,
28, 645650.
Sarter, M., & Sutherland, R. (2004). Neurobiology of cognition in laboratory animals: Chal-
lenges and opportunities. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 28, 643.
Schlinger, H. D. (2004). Why psychology hasnt kept its promises. The Journal of Mind and Be-
havior, 25, 123144.
Schlinger, H. (2005). Psychology: Can it be a natural science? Monitor on Psychology, 36(10), 4, 8.
Schmidt, R. A. (1975). A schema theory of discrete motor skill learning. Psychological Review,
82, 225260.
Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2005). Motor control and learning (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Hu-
man Kinetics.
Schmorrow, D. D. (Ed.). (2005). Foundations of augmented cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Schvaneveldt, R. W. (2005). Finding meaning in psychology. In A. F. Healy (Ed.), Experimen-
tal cognitive psychology and its applications (pp. 211235). Washington, DC: American Psy-
chological Association.
Seow, S. C. (2005). Information theoretic models of HCI: A comparison of the HickHyman
law and Fitts law. HumanComputer Interaction, 20, 315352.
Sheridan, T. B., Rossmeissl, P. G., & Howell, W. C. (2002). Human-factors engineering. In
AccessScience@McGraw-Hill. Retrieved February 11, 2006, from http://
www.accessscience.com (DOI 10.1036/1097-8542.324510).
Simon, H. A. (1991). Mind as machine: The cognitive revolution in behavioral science. In R.
Jessor (Ed.), Perspectives on behavioral science: The Colorado lectures (pp. 3752). Boulder,
CO: Westview.
Smith, E. R. (2000). Social cognition. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encylopedia of psychology (Vol. 7,
pp. 324329). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Smith, T. J., & Henning, R. A. (2005). Cybernetics of augmented cognition as an alternative to
information processing. In D. D. Schmorrow (Ed.), Foundations of augmented cognition (pp.
641650). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Stewart, T. (2003). Editorial. Behaviour & Information Technology, 22, iii.
Strybel, T. Z. (2005). Task analysis for the design of Web applications. In R. W. Proctor & K.-P.
L. Vu (Eds.), Handbook of human factors in Web design (pp. 385407). Mahwah, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Trevarthen, C. B. (1968). Two mechanisms of vision in primates. Psychologische Forschung, 31,
299337.
Tullis, T. S., Catani, M., Chadwick-Dias, A., & Cianchette, C. (2005). Presentation of informa-
tion. In R. W. Proctor & K.-P. L. Vu (Eds.), Handbook of human factors in Web design (pp.
107133). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ullman, S. (1980) Against direct perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 373415.
284 Proctor and Vu
Unema, P. J., Pannasch, S., Joos, M., & Velchovsky, B. M. (2005). Time course of information
processing during scene perception: The relationship between saccade amplitude and
fixation duration. Visual Cognition, 12, 473494.
van Tilburg, M., & Briggs, T. (2005). Web-based collaboration. In R. W. Proctor & K.-P. L. Vu
(Eds.), Handbook of human factors in Web design (pp. 551569). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ward, R. (2002). Independence and integration of perception and action: An introduction.
Visual Cognition, 9, 305391.
Ware, C. (2003). Design as applied perception. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), HCI models, theories, and
frameworks: Toward a multidisciplinary science (pp. 1126). San Francisco: Morgan
Kaufmann.
Wickens, C. D., & Carswell, C. M. (2006). Information processing. In G. Salvendy (Ed.),
Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (3rd ed., pp. 111149). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Wickens, C. D., Lee, J., Liu, Y., & Becker, S. E. (2004). Introduction to human factors engineering
(2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Wolfe, J. M. (1998). Visual search. In H. Pashler (Ed), Attention (pp. 1373). Hove, England:
Psychology Press.
Workman, L., & Reader, W. (2004). Evolutionary psychology: An introduction. New York: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Yoshikawa, H. (2003). Modeling humans in human-computer interaction. In J. A. Jacko & A.
Sears (Eds.), The humancomputer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies
and emerging applications (pp. 118146). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Young, P. M., Clegg, B. A., & Smith, C. A. P. (2004). Dynamic models of augmented cognition.
International Journal of HumanComputer Interaction, 17, 259273.