Cited by 321Embodied and Extended CognitionSocial Robot Interaction and HRIInteractive and Immersive Displays

Soft constraints in interactive behavior: the case of ignoring perfect knowledge in-the-world for imperfect knowledge in-the-head*1, *2

GRAY, W·2004·Cognitive Science

Abstract

Abstract Constraints and dependencies among the elements of embodied cognition form patterns or microstrategies of interactive behavior. Hard constraints determine which microstrategies are possible. Soft constraints determine which of the possible microstrategies are most likely to be selected. When selection is non‐deliberate or automatic the least effort microstrategy is chosen. In calculating the effort required to execute a microstrategy each of the three types of operations, memory retrieval, perception, and action, are given equal weight; that is, perceptual‐motor activity does not have a privileged status with respect to memory. Soft constraints can work contrary to the designer's intentions by making the access of perfect knowledge in‐the‐world more effortful than the access of imperfect knowledge in‐the‐head. These implications of soft constraints are tested in two experiments. In experiment 1 we varied the perceptual‐motor effort of accessing knowledge in‐the‐world as well as the effort of retrieving items from memory. In experiment 2 we replicated one of the experiment 1 conditions to collect eye movement data. The results suggest that milliseconds matter. Soft constraints lead to a reliance on knowledge in‐the‐head even when the absolute difference in perceptual‐motor versus memory retrieval effort is small, and even when relying on memory leads to a higher error rate and lower performance. We discuss the implications of soft constraints for routine interactive behavior, accounts of embodied cognition, and tool and interface design.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0364-0213(04)00005-9

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Raising the costs of externalisations increases the use of internal strategies such as memory-based processing, whereas lowering the costs of externalisations increases the use of technical tools.

    “Raising the costs of externalisations (e.g., by adding additional physical or temporal demands) increases the use of internal strategies such as memory-based processing, whereas lowering the costs of externalisations increases the use of technical tools (e.g., Cary & Carlson, 2001; Gray & Fu, 2004; Gray et al., 2006; Morgan & Patrick, 2013; O’Hara & Payne, 1998; Schönpflug, 1986).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
GRAY, W.
Affiliations
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (US)
Corresponding author
GRAY, W
ORCID
GRAY, W
Venue
Cognitive Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-05
Volume
28
Issue
3
Pages
359-382
ISSN
0364-0213 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4237293291
Cited by
321
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 20
FWCI
5.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cognitive Science (publishedVersion)
  • Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Robot Interaction and HRI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Interactive and Immersive Displays
Keywords
soft constraints, embodied cognition, interactive behavior, MicroStrategy, eye movements, routines

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review