More Like this

1. FlexType: Flexible Text Input with a Small Set of Input Gestures

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3581641.3584077  

   Gaines, Dylan ; Baker, Mackenzie M ; Vertanen, Keith ( March 2023 , Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces)

   In many situations, it may be impractical or impossible to enter text by selecting precise locations on a physical or touchscreen keyboard. We present an ambiguous keyboard with four character groups that has potential applications for eyes-free text entry, as well as text entry using a single switch or a brain-computer interface.We develop a procedure for optimizing these character groupings based on a disambiguation algorithm that leverages a long-span language model. We produce both alphabetically-constrained and unconstrained character groups in an offline optimization experiment and compare them in a longitudinal user study. Our results did not show a significant difference between the constrained and unconstrained character groups after four hours of practice. As expected, participants had significantly more errors with the unconstrained groups in the first session, suggesting a higher barrier to learning the technique.We therefore recommend the alphabetically-constrained character groups, where participants were able to achieve an average entry rate of 12.0 words per minute with a 2.03% character error rate using a single hand and with no visual feedback. 

   more » « less
2. Automated Construction of Lexicons to Improve Depression Screening with Text Messages

   https://doi.org/10.1109/JBHI.2022.3203345  

   Tlachac, ML ; Shrestha, Avantika ; Shah, Mahum ; Litterer, Benjamin ; Rundensteiner, Elke A. ( August 2022 , IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics)

   Given that depression is one of the most prevalent mental illnesses, developing effective and unobtrusive diagnosis tools is of great importance. Recent work that screens for depression with text messages leverage models relying on lexical category features. Given the colloquial nature of text messages, the performance of these models may be limited by formal lexicons. We thus propose a strategy to automatically construct alternative lexicons that contain more relevant and colloquial terms. Specifically, we generate 36 lexicons from fiction, forum, and news corpuses. These lexicons are then used to extract lexical category features from the text messages. We utilize machine learning models to compare the depression screening capabilities of these lexical category features. Out of our 36 constructed lexicons, 14 achieved statistically significantly higher average F1 scores over the pre-existing formal lexicon and basic bag-of-words approach. In comparison to the pre-existing lexicon, our best performing lexicon increased the average F1 scores by 10%. We thus confirm our hypothesis that less formal lexicons can improve the performance of classification models that screen for depression with text messages. By providing our automatically constructed lexicons, we aid future machine learning research that leverages less formal text. 

   more » « less
3. What We Can Learn from Jury Note Taking: A Content Analysis

   Denne, E. ( March 2020 , Annual Conference of the American Psychology-Law Society.)

   Abstract: Jury notetaking can be controversial despite evidence suggesting benefits for recall and understanding. Research on note taking has historically focused on the deliberation process. Yet, little research explores the notes themselves. We developed a 10-item coding guide to explore what jurors take notes on (e.g., simple vs. complex evidence) and how they take notes (e.g., gist vs. specific representation). In general, jurors made gist representations of simple and complex information in their notes. This finding is consistent with Fuzzy Trace Theory (Reyna & Brainerd, 1995) and suggests notes may serve as a general memory aid, rather than verbatim representation. Summary: The practice of jury notetaking in the courtroom is often contested. Some states allow it (e.g., Nebraska: State v. Kipf, 1990), while others forbid it (e.g., Louisiana: La. Code of Crim. Proc., Art. 793). Some argue notes may serve as a memory aid, increase juror confidence during deliberation, and help jurors engage in the trial (Hannaford & Munsterman, 2001; Heuer & Penrod, 1988, 1994). Others argue notetaking may distract jurors from listening to evidence, that juror notes may be given undue weight, and that those who took notes may dictate the deliberation process (Dann, Hans, & Kaye, 2005). While research has evaluated the efficacy of juror notes on evidence comprehension, little work has explored the specific content of juror notes. In a similar project on which we build, Dann, Hans, and Kaye (2005) found jurors took on average 270 words of notes each with 85% including references to jury instructions in their notes. In the present study we use a content analysis approach to examine how jurors take notes about simple and complex evidence. We were particularly interested in how jurors captured gist and specific (verbatim) information in their notes as they have different implications for information recall during deliberation. According to Fuzzy Trace Theory (Reyna & Brainerd, 1995), people extract “gist” or qualitative meaning from information, and also exact, verbatim representations. Although both are important for helping people make well-informed judgments, gist-based understandings are purported to be even more important than verbatim understanding (Reyna, 2008; Reyna & Brainer, 2007). As such, it could be useful to examine how laypeople represent information in their notes during deliberation of evidence. Methods Prior to watching a 45-minute mock bank robbery trial, jurors were given a pen and notepad and instructed they were permitted to take notes. The evidence included testimony from the defendant, witnesses, and expert witnesses from prosecution and defense. Expert testimony described complex mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) evidence. The present analysis consists of pilot data representing 2,733 lines of notes from 52 randomly-selected jurors across 41 mock juries. Our final sample for presentation at AP-LS will consist of all 391 juror notes in our dataset. Based on previous research exploring jury note taking as well as our specific interest in gist vs. specific encoding of information, we developed a coding guide to quantify juror note-taking behaviors. Four researchers independently coded a subset of notes. Coders achieved acceptable interrater reliability [(Cronbach’s Alpha = .80-.92) on all variables across 20% of cases]. Prior to AP-LS, we will link juror notes with how they discuss scientific and non-scientific evidence during jury deliberation. Coding Note length. Before coding for content, coders counted lines of text. Each notepad line with at minimum one complete word was coded as a line of text. Gist information vs. Specific information. Any line referencing evidence was coded as gist or specific. We coded gist information as information that did not contain any specific details but summarized the meaning of the evidence (e.g., “bad, not many people excluded”). Specific information was coded as such if it contained a verbatim descriptive (e.g.,“<1 of people could be excluded”). We further coded whether this information was related to non-scientific evidence or related to the scientific DNA evidence. Mentions of DNA Evidence vs. Other Evidence. We were specifically interested in whether jurors mentioned the DNA evidence and how they captured complex evidence. When DNA evidence was mention we coded the content of the DNA reference. Mentions of the characteristics of mtDNA vs nDNA, the DNA match process or who could be excluded, heteroplasmy, references to database size, and other references were coded. Reliability. When referencing DNA evidence, we were interested in whether jurors mentioned the evidence reliability. Any specific mention of reliability of DNA evidence was noted (e.g., “MT DNA is not as powerful, more prone to error”). Expert Qualification. Finally, we were interested in whether jurors noted an expert’s qualifications. All references were coded (e.g., “Forensic analyst”). Results On average, jurors took 53 lines of notes (range: 3-137 lines). Most (83%) mentioned jury instructions before moving on to case specific information. The majority of references to evidence were gist references (54%) focusing on non-scientific evidence and scientific expert testimony equally (50%). When jurors encoded information using specific references (46%), they referenced non-scientific evidence and expert testimony equally as well (50%). Thirty-three percent of lines were devoted to expert testimony with every juror including at least one line. References to the DNA evidence were usually focused on who could be excluded from the FBIs database (43%), followed by references to differences between mtDNA vs nDNA (30%), and mentions of the size of the database (11%). Less frequently, references to DNA evidence focused on heteroplasmy (5%). Of those references that did not fit into a coding category (11%), most focused on the DNA extraction process, general information about DNA, and the uniqueness of DNA. We further coded references to DNA reliability (15%) as well as references to specific statistical information (14%). Finally, 40% of jurors made reference to an expert’s qualifications. Conclusion Jury note content analysis can reveal important information about how jurors capture trial information (e.g., gist vs verbatim), what evidence they consider important, and what they consider relevant and irrelevant. In our case, it appeared jurors largely created gist representations of information that focused equally on non-scientific evidence and scientific expert testimony. This finding suggests note taking may serve not only to represent information verbatim, but also and perhaps mostly as a general memory aid summarizing the meaning of evidence. Further, jurors’ references to evidence tended to be equally focused on the non-scientific evidence and the scientifically complex DNA evidence. This observation suggests jurors may attend just as much to non-scientific evidence as they to do complex scientific evidence in cases involving complicated evidence – an observation that might inform future work on understanding how jurors interpret evidence in cases with complex information. Learning objective: Participants will be able to describe emerging evidence about how jurors take notes during trial. 

   more » « less
4. Author-Driven Computable Data and Ontology Production for Taxonomists

   https://doi.org/10.3897/biss.5.75741  

   Cui, Hong ; Ford, Bruce ; Starr, Julian ; Macklin, James ; Reznicek, Anton ; Giebink, Noah ; Longert, Dylan ; Léveillé-Bourret, Étienne ; Zhang, Limin ( September 2021 , Biodiversity Information Science and Standards)

   It takes great effort to manually or semi-automatically convert free-text phenotype narratives (e.g., morphological descriptions in taxonomic works) to a computable format before they can be used in large-scale analyses. We argue that neither a manual curation approach nor an information extraction approach based on machine learning is a sustainable solution to produce computable phenotypic data that are FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) (Wilkinson et al. 2016). This is because these approaches do not scale to all biodiversity, and they do not stop the publication of free-text phenotypes that would need post-publication curation. In addition, both manual and machine learning approaches face great challenges: the problem of inter-curator variation (curators interpret/convert a phenotype differently from each other) in manual curation, and keywords to ontology concept translation in automated information extraction, make it difficult for either approach to produce data that are truly FAIR. Our empirical studies show that inter-curator variation in translating phenotype characters to Entity-Quality statements (Mabee et al. 2007) is as high as 40% even within a single project. With this level of variation, curated data integrated from multiple curation projects may still not be FAIR. The key causes of this variation have been identified as semantic vagueness in original phenotype descriptions and difficulties in using standardized vocabularies (ontologies). We argue that the authors describing characters are the key to the solution. Given the right tools and appropriate attribution, the authors should be in charge of developing a project's semantics and ontology. This will speed up ontology development and improve the semantic clarity of the descriptions from the moment of publication. In this presentation, we will introduce the Platform for Author-Driven Computable Data and Ontology Production for Taxonomists, which consists of three components: a web-based, ontology-aware software application called 'Character Recorder,' which features a spreadsheet as the data entry platform and provides authors with the flexibility of using their preferred terminology in recording characters for a set of specimens (this application also facilitates semantic clarity and consistency across species descriptions); a set of services that produce RDF graph data, collects terms added by authors, detects potential conflicts between terms, dispatches conflicts to the third component and updates the ontology with resolutions; and an Android mobile application, 'Conflict Resolver,' which displays ontological conflicts and accepts solutions proposed by multiple experts. a web-based, ontology-aware software application called 'Character Recorder,' which features a spreadsheet as the data entry platform and provides authors with the flexibility of using their preferred terminology in recording characters for a set of specimens (this application also facilitates semantic clarity and consistency across species descriptions); a set of services that produce RDF graph data, collects terms added by authors, detects potential conflicts between terms, dispatches conflicts to the third component and updates the ontology with resolutions; and an Android mobile application, 'Conflict Resolver,' which displays ontological conflicts and accepts solutions proposed by multiple experts. Fig. 1 shows the system diagram of the platform. The presentation will consist of: a report on the findings from a recent survey of 90+ participants on the need for a tool like Character Recorder; a methods section that describes how we provide semantics to an existing vocabulary of quantitative characters through a set of properties that explain where and how a measurement (e.g., length of perigynium beak) is taken. We also report on how a custom color palette of RGB values obtained from real specimens or high-quality specimen images, can be used to help authors choose standardized color descriptions for plant specimens; and a software demonstration, where we show how Character Recorder and Conflict Resolver can work together to construct both human-readable descriptions and RDF graphs using morphological data derived from species in the plant genus Carex (sedges). The key difference of this system from other ontology-aware systems is that authors can directly add needed terms to the ontology as they wish and can update their data according to ontology updates. a report on the findings from a recent survey of 90+ participants on the need for a tool like Character Recorder; a methods section that describes how we provide semantics to an existing vocabulary of quantitative characters through a set of properties that explain where and how a measurement (e.g., length of perigynium beak) is taken. We also report on how a custom color palette of RGB values obtained from real specimens or high-quality specimen images, can be used to help authors choose standardized color descriptions for plant specimens; and a software demonstration, where we show how Character Recorder and Conflict Resolver can work together to construct both human-readable descriptions and RDF graphs using morphological data derived from species in the plant genus Carex (sedges). The key difference of this system from other ontology-aware systems is that authors can directly add needed terms to the ontology as they wish and can update their data according to ontology updates. The software modules currently incorporated in Character Recorder and Conflict Resolver have undergone formal usability studies. We are actively recruiting Carex experts to participate in a 3-day usability study of the entire system of the Platform for Author-Driven Computable Data and Ontology Production for Taxonomists. Participants will use the platform to record 100 characters about one Carex species. In addition to usability data, we will collect the terms that participants submit to the underlying ontology and the data related to conflict resolution. Such data allow us to examine the types and the quantities of logical conflicts that may result from the terms added by the users and to use Discrete Event Simulation models to understand if and how term additions and conflict resolutions converge. We look forward to a discussion on how the tools (Character Recorder is online at http://shark.sbs.arizona.edu/chrecorder/public) described in our presentation can contribute to producing and publishing FAIR data in taxonomic studies. 

   more » « less
5. Improving Automated Evaluation of Student Text Responses Using GPT-3.5 for Text Data Augmentation

   Cochran, Keith ; Cohn, Clayton ; Rouet, J.F. ; Hastings, Peter ( June 2023 , Springer, Cham.)

   Wang, N. (Ed.)

   In education, intelligent learning environments allow students to choose how to tackle open-ended tasks while monitoring performance and behavior, allowing for the creation of adaptive support to help students overcome challenges. Timely feedback is critical to aid students’ progression toward learning and improved problem-solving. Feedback on text-based student responses can be delayed when teachers are overloaded with work. Automated evaluation can provide quick student feedback while easing the manual evaluation burden for teachers in areas with a high teacher-to-student ratio. Current methods of evaluating student essay responses to questions have included transformer-based natural language processing models with varying degrees of success. One main challenge in training these models is the scarcity of data for student-generated data. Larger volumes of training data are needed to create models that perform at a sufficient level of accuracy. Some studies have vast data, but large quantities are difficult to obtain when educational studies involve student-generated text. To overcome this data scarcity issue, text augmentation techniques have been employed to balance and expand the data set so that models can be trained with higher accuracy, leading to more reliable evaluation and categorization of student answers to aid teachers in the student’s learning progression. This paper examines the text-generating AI model, GPT-3.5, to determine if prompt-based text-generation methods are viable for generating additional text to supplement small sets of student responses for machine learning model training. We augmented student responses across two domains using GPT-3.5 completions and used that data to train a multilingual BERT model. Our results show that text generation can improve model performance on small data sets over simple self-augmentation. 

   more » « less