skip to main content
10.1145/3173225.3173265acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesteiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Work in Progress

Augmented Metacognition: Exploring Pupil Dilation Sonification to Elicit Metacognitive Awareness

Published:18 March 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Metacognitive awareness enables people to make conscious decisions about their own cognitions, and adapt to meet task performance goals. Despite the role of metacognition in task performance, technologies that effectively augment metacognition are scarce. We explore a novel approach to augment metacognition based on making the eye's pupil dilations, which associate with a variety of cognitions, audible via sonification in real-time. In this exploratory study, we investigated whether pupil dilation sonification can elicit metacognitive awareness. Our findings suggest that correlations between a variety of cognitions, e.g., attentional focus and depth of thinking, and sounds generated by the sonification can emerge spontaneously and by instruction. This justifies further research into the use of pupil dilation sonification as a means to augment metacognitive abilities.

References

  1. Baker, L. (2010). Metacognition. International encyclopedia of education, 204--210.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Beatty, J., & Wagoner, B. L. (1977). Pupillometric signs of brain activation vary with level of cognitive processing (No. TR-9). University of California.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell, F. W., & Gubisch, R. W. (1966). Optical quality of the human eye. The Journal of Physiology, 186(3), 558--578.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. Cycling '74 (2017). Retrieved at 26-07--2017 from https://cycling74.com/products/maxGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. de Rooij, A., Corr, P. J., & Jones, S. (2015). Emotion and creativity: Hacking into cognitive appraisal processes to augment creative ideation. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity and Cognition, 265--274. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. de Rooij, A., & Jones, S. (2015). (E) motion and creativity: Hacking the function of motor expressions in emotion regulation to augment creativity. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, 145--152. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. de Rooij, A., van Dartel, M., Ruhl, A., Schraffenberger, H., van Melick, B., Bontje, M., Daams, M., & Witter, M. (2017). Sensory Augmentation: Toward a Dialogue between the Arts and Sciences. In Proceedings of the 6th EAI International Conference: ArtsIT, Interactivity & Game Creation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Eckstein, M. K., Guerra-Carrillo, B., Singley, A. T. M., & Bunge, S. A. (2017). Beyond eye gaze: What else can eyetracking reveal about cognition and cognitive development?. Developmental cognitive neuroscience, 25, 69--91.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Ehlers, J., Strauch, C., Georgi, J., & Huckauf, A. (2016). Pupil size changes as an active information channel for biofeedback applications. Applied psychophysiology and biofeedback, 41(3), 331--339.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Filingeri, D., Fournet, D., Hodder, S., & Havenith, G. (2014). Why wet feels wet? A neurophysiological model of human cutaneous wetness sensitivity. Journal of neurophysiology, 112(6), 1457--1469.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive--developmental inquiry. American psychologist, 34(10), 906.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Fleming, S. M., & Frith, C. D. (Eds.). (2014). The cognitive neuroscience of metacognition. Springer Science & Business Media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Paulsen, K., Bryant, J. D., & Hamlett, C. L. (2005). The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 493Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Gerjets, P., Walter, C., Rosenstiel, W., Bogdan, M., & Zander, T. O. (2014). Cognitive state monitoring and the design of adaptive instruction in digital environments: lessons learned from cognitive workload assessment using a passive brain-computer interface approach. Frontiers in neuroscience, 8, 385.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Gilzenrat, M. S., Nieuwenhuis, S., Jepma, M., & Cohen, J. D. (2010). Pupil diameter tracks changes in control state predicted by the adaptive gain theory of locus coeruleus function. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 10(2), 252--269.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Goldberg et al., (2014). Enhancing self-regulated learning through metacognitively-aware intelligent tutoring systems. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the Learning Sciences.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Kahneman, D., & Beatty, J. (1966). Pupil diameter and load on memory. Science, 154(3756), 1583--1585.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Kleitman, S., & Stankov, L. (2007). Self-confidence and metacognitive processes. Learning and Individual Differences, 17(2), 161--173.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. McLaren, J. W., Erie, J. C., & Brubaker, R. F. (1992). Computerized analysis of pupillograms in studies of alertness. Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 33(3), 671--676.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Moore, B. C. (2012). An introduction to the psychology of hearing. Brill.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Novich, N. (2015). Sound-to-touch sensory substitution and beyond. Doctoral thesis. Rice University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Ocumpaugh, J., Baker, R., Gowda, S., Heffernan, N., & Heffernan, C. (2014). Population validity for Educational Data Mining models: A case study in affect detection. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 487--501.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Omurtag, A., Aghajani, H., & Keles, H. O. (2017). Decoding human mental states by whole-head EEG+FNIRS during category fluency task performance. Journal of neural engineering, pre-print.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Reimer, J., McGinley, M. J., Liu, Y., Rodenkirch, C., Wang, Q., McCormick, D. A., & Tolias, A. S. (2016). Pupil fluctuations track rapid changes in adrenergic and cholinergic activity in cortex. Nature communications, 7, 13289.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Roll, I., Aleven, V., McLaren, B. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2011). Improving students' help-seeking skills using metacognitive feedback in an intelligent tutoring system. Learning and instruction, 21(2), 267--280.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Rondeel, E. W., Van Steenbergen, H., Holland, R. W., & van Knippenberg, A. (2015). A closer look at cognitive control: differences in resource allocation during updating, inhibition and switching as revealed by pupillometry. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 9, 494.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science. 26, 113--125.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Smallwood, J., Brown, K. S., Tipper, C., Giesbrecht, B., Franklin, M. S., Mrazek, M. D., & Schooler, J. W. (2011). Pupillometric evidence for the decoupling of attention from perceptual input during offline thought. PloS one, 6(3), e18298.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Spielberger, C. D., Anton, W. D., & Bedell, J. (2015). The nature and treatment of test anxiety. Emotions and anxiety: New concepts, methods, and applications, 317--344.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Storbeck, J., & Clore, G. L. (2008). Affective arousal as information: How affective arousal influences judgments, learning, and memory. Social and personality psychology compass, 2(5), 1824--1843.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Swanson, H. L. (1992). The relationship between metacognition and problem solving in gifted children. Roeper Review, 15(1), 43--48.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. The Eye Tribe (2017). Retrieved at 26-07-2017 from http://www.theeyetribe.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Thiede, K. W., Anderson, M., & Therriault, D. (2003). Accuracy of metacognitive monitoring affects learning of texts. Journal of educational psychology, 95(1), 66.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Walcher, S., Körner, C., & Benedek, M. (2017). Looking for ideas: Eye behavior during goal-directed internally focused cognition. Consciousness and Cognition, 53, 165--175.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Walker, B. N., & Nees, M. A. (2011). Theory of sonification. The sonification handbook, 9--39.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Woodhouse, J. M., & Campbell, F. W. (1975). The role of the pupil light reflex in aiding adaptation to the dark. Vision research, 15(6), 649--653.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Augmented Metacognition: Exploring Pupil Dilation Sonification to Elicit Metacognitive Awareness

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        TEI '18: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction
        March 2018
        763 pages
        ISBN:9781450355681
        DOI:10.1145/3173225

        Copyright © 2018 Owner/Author

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 18 March 2018

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • Work in Progress

        Acceptance Rates

        TEI '18 Paper Acceptance Rate37of130submissions,28%Overall Acceptance Rate393of1,367submissions,29%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader