当一个模型给你混合的信号:认知效果和视觉行为。

Process science Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2025-10-06 DOI:10.1007/s44311-025-00022-8
Amine Abbad-Andaloussi, Marco Franceschetti, Hugo A López, Clemens Schreiber, Barbara Weber
{"title":"当一个模型给你混合的信号:认知效果和视觉行为。","authors":"Amine Abbad-Andaloussi, Marco Franceschetti, Hugo A López, Clemens Schreiber, Barbara Weber","doi":"10.1007/s44311-025-00022-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ambiguity in business process models can result in multiple interpretations by model readers. This leads to undesirable outcomes such as misunderstandings, unclear allocation of responsibilities, and unexpected behaviors. Despite these potential consequences, the impact of ambiguity on model readers has received limited attention so far. This article presents an eye-tracking study designed to investigate the effects of various types of ambiguity (i.e., layout, semantic, syntactic, and lexical) on readers' cognitive load, comprehension, and visual associations while interpreting process models. In addition, the study delves into the behaviors of model readers when resolving ambiguity in process models. These behaviors are investigated following a qualitative approach combining both eye-tracking and think-aloud data. The results demonstrate that ambiguities significantly influence cognitive load, comprehension, and visual associations, emphasizing the negative effects of ambiguity. Moreover, the qualitative insights suggest that participants exhibit specific behaviors when trying to resolve ambiguities. These findings underscore the need for advanced mechanisms to detect and mitigate ambiguity in process models.</p>","PeriodicalId":520481,"journal":{"name":"Process science","volume":"2 1","pages":"19"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12500769/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"When a model gives you mixed signals: cognitive effects and visual behavior.\",\"authors\":\"Amine Abbad-Andaloussi, Marco Franceschetti, Hugo A López, Clemens Schreiber, Barbara Weber\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s44311-025-00022-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Ambiguity in business process models can result in multiple interpretations by model readers. This leads to undesirable outcomes such as misunderstandings, unclear allocation of responsibilities, and unexpected behaviors. Despite these potential consequences, the impact of ambiguity on model readers has received limited attention so far. This article presents an eye-tracking study designed to investigate the effects of various types of ambiguity (i.e., layout, semantic, syntactic, and lexical) on readers' cognitive load, comprehension, and visual associations while interpreting process models. In addition, the study delves into the behaviors of model readers when resolving ambiguity in process models. These behaviors are investigated following a qualitative approach combining both eye-tracking and think-aloud data. The results demonstrate that ambiguities significantly influence cognitive load, comprehension, and visual associations, emphasizing the negative effects of ambiguity. Moreover, the qualitative insights suggest that participants exhibit specific behaviors when trying to resolve ambiguities. These findings underscore the need for advanced mechanisms to detect and mitigate ambiguity in process models.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520481,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Process science\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"19\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12500769/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Process science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s44311-025-00022-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/10/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Process science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s44311-025-00022-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/10/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

业务流程模型中的模糊性可能导致模型读者产生多种解释。这会导致不希望的结果,如误解、责任分配不明确和意外行为。尽管存在这些潜在的后果,但歧义对模式读者的影响迄今为止受到的关注有限。本文介绍了一项眼动追踪研究,旨在探讨不同类型的歧义(即布局、语义、句法和词汇)对读者在解释过程模型时的认知负荷、理解和视觉联想的影响。此外,本研究还探讨了模型读者在解决过程模型歧义时的行为。这些行为是通过结合眼动追踪和有声思维数据的定性方法进行调查的。结果表明,歧义显著影响认知负荷、理解和视觉联想,并强调了歧义的负面影响。此外,定性的见解表明,参与者在试图解决歧义时表现出特定的行为。这些发现强调需要先进的机制来检测和减轻过程模型中的模糊性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

When a model gives you mixed signals: cognitive effects and visual behavior.

When a model gives you mixed signals: cognitive effects and visual behavior.

When a model gives you mixed signals: cognitive effects and visual behavior.

When a model gives you mixed signals: cognitive effects and visual behavior.

Ambiguity in business process models can result in multiple interpretations by model readers. This leads to undesirable outcomes such as misunderstandings, unclear allocation of responsibilities, and unexpected behaviors. Despite these potential consequences, the impact of ambiguity on model readers has received limited attention so far. This article presents an eye-tracking study designed to investigate the effects of various types of ambiguity (i.e., layout, semantic, syntactic, and lexical) on readers' cognitive load, comprehension, and visual associations while interpreting process models. In addition, the study delves into the behaviors of model readers when resolving ambiguity in process models. These behaviors are investigated following a qualitative approach combining both eye-tracking and think-aloud data. The results demonstrate that ambiguities significantly influence cognitive load, comprehension, and visual associations, emphasizing the negative effects of ambiguity. Moreover, the qualitative insights suggest that participants exhibit specific behaviors when trying to resolve ambiguities. These findings underscore the need for advanced mechanisms to detect and mitigate ambiguity in process models.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信