Use of complementary actions decreases with expertise Incollection
Carlson, Laura ; H"olscher, Christoph ; Shipley, Thomas (Ed.): Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 2709-2014, Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX, 2011.
@incollection{marc11csc,
title = {Use of complementary actions decreases with expertise},
author = { Marc Destefano and John K. Lindstedt and Wayne D. Gray},
editor = {Carlson, Laura and H"olscher, Christoph and Shipley, Thomas},
year = {2011},
date = {2011-01-01},
booktitle = {Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society},
pages = {2709-2014},
publisher = {Cognitive Science Society},
address = {Austin, TX},
abstract = {Evidence that the use of complementary (or epistemic) actions increases with expertise in the fast-paced interactive video game of Tetris has been previously reported (Kirsh, 1995; Kirsh & Maglio, 1994; Maglio & Kirsh, 1996). However, the range of expertise considered was small and classifying such actions can be difficult. We sample across a wide range of Tetris expertise and define complementary actions across multiple criterion of varying strictness. Contrary to prior work, our data suggest that complementary actions decrease with expertise, regardless of the criteria used. These findings cast into doubt the accepted wisdom on the role of complementary actions in expertise.},
keywords = {complementary action, embodied cognition, epistemic action, expertise, games, pragmatic action, soft constraints hypothesis, Tetris},
pubstate = {published},
tppubtype = {incollection}
}
Evidence that the use of complementary (or epistemic) actions increases with expertise in the fast-paced interactive video game of Tetris has been previously reported (Kirsh, 1995; Kirsh & Maglio, 1994; Maglio & Kirsh, 1996). However, the range of expertise considered was small and classifying such actions can be difficult. We sample across a wide range of Tetris expertise and define complementary actions across multiple criterion of varying strictness. Contrary to prior work, our data suggest that complementary actions decrease with expertise, regardless of the criteria used. These findings cast into doubt the accepted wisdom on the role of complementary actions in expertise.
