ABSTRACT
This paper presents a follow-up to the ATM-Soar models presented at 1993 Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society and the CHI 1994 Research Symposium. The original work described the use of the Soar cognitive architecture to simulate user learning with different ATM interfaces. In particular, it focused on the relative effects of interface instructions (e.g., "Insert card into slot") and perceptual attentional cues (e.g., a flashing area around the card slot) on learning and performance. The study described here involves getting human data on the same tasks to test the predictions of the computational models. The ATM task is simulated on a PC in order to contrast three types of interface conditions: just instructions, instructions plus flashing, and just flashing. Subjects must insert a bank card, check the account balance, and withdraw money. They are asked to repeat the task four times so that the effects of training on performance and learning can be observed. The data suggests that subjects learn to perform the task faster with attentional attractors, as the Soar model predicted. More interestingly, the Soar model also predicted that people would do better without instructions when there are attentional attractors. This prediction was supported as well.
