Peter, there is some important recent work attempting to combine
eyetracking and EEG/ERPs. There are some difficult technical challenges
to overcome (including the artefacts in the EEG waveform generated by
the eye movements themselves) but several groups have been working on
methods (statistical and otherwise) to handle these. If you google
"eyetracking and ERP" you should find these groups.
I remember when this list-serve was a primary channel of scholarly
activity in the eye movement community. No longer, it seems. I'm now
going to do what I suspect most other serious researchers have already
done and move on to one of the other vision science list-serves. I hope
the last person to leave turns off the lights and locks the door behind
them.
Charles Willock wrote:
> I agree that some controversy has surrounded both EMDR and NLP
> however, as with Georgios post it would be disappointing if the
> scientifically interesting aspects of both were ignored just because
> of popular over-extension (in the case opf NLP) or (perhaps more
> in the case of EMDR) because the proposed theoretical underpinnings
> don't seem to withstand close scrutiny.
>
> NLP is popularly presented in a couple of ways. As a marketing /
> selling tool "how to get people to buy (more) stuff". Another common
> representation is as a crime-investigating, eye-movement-watching,
> deception-detecting tool. While there is some element of truth in
> those perspectives neither really do it justice.
>
> A better way of understanding NLP can be gained from considering its
> origins. My apologies in advance for the deviation into linguistics -
> the justification for doing so (and its relevance to EM and HCI) will
> become apparent.
>
> Put simply: (i) take an expert in a field (in the case of NLP,
> therapy), (ii) analyse and model in detail what they say and how they
> interact and (iii) identify the canonical characteristics of their
> technique(s). For NLP those essential characteristics are linguistic
> and subsequently EM.
>
> How successful/useful the results are then becomes, inter alia,
> a matter of:
>
> o. how well the interaction model matches reality (Ashby/requisite
> variety if cybernetics is your thing).
>
> o. how representative/relevant the expert (or, in the case of
> NLP, the experts) as model(s) of the intended application.
>
> o. how skilful are the expert(s)
>
> o. the nature and quality of the analysis.
>
> o. usability/ease of application
>
>
> The first and second-last aspects in particular deserve further
> examination.
>
> NLP is based on linguistic analysis using Chomsky's Transformational (*)
> Grammar (TG) and that, as list members may know, has been
> shifting/improving with time (by Chomsky and others) to Government and
> Binding theory and more recently competing with other models often
> incorporating different levels of pragmatics and semantics.
>
> (*) FWIW, here "transformational" refers to linguistic transformations
> not psychological ones.
>
> If the purpose is to provide an accurate synthesis/generative tool for
> applications such as text translation (which might more properly be
> termed CHI rather than HCI) then some kind of heavy duty generalised
> phrase structure grammar might be desirable. On the other hand, if
> behavioural modelling of human interaction in casual speech
> translation is required then some kind og functional systemic
> linguistics (eg Halliday's) or some similar functional approach
> incorporating aspects of pragmatics, semantics and semiotics might
> well be preferred.
>
> Although relatively simple, Transformational Grammar as explained by
> John Grinder (the linguist of NLP) in 'Structure of Magic-I' provides
> a useful introduction into linguistic transformations in English (in
> essence, how parts of sentences can be swapped around yet still convey
> pretty much the same meaning). SoM-I also provides a valuable
> explanation of the concepts of surface, deep structures (and its later
> extension to S-Structure/D-Structure) and presuppositions
>
> Understanding "structures" and presuppositions can be important in
> semantics of computer-human interaction.
>
> A second characteristic of NLP is the modelling of cognitive
> processing along sensory (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic) lines. Some
> users also add a joint taste-and-smell channel and a self-talk
> (audio-internal) channel. The suggestion is that one can categorise
> people by listening to their preferred language usage (so if they use
> language such as "do you see what I mean?" then that would distinguish
> them as "V" (visual) rather than (A) auditory "do you hear what I'm
> saying", and (K) "does that feel right for you".
>
> There is some kind of reasonableness in relating sensory preference to
> the words people use - if you are a painter you use visual/seeing type
> words, if you are into sound you use hearing type words. The concept
> seems to work well enough for example with learning styles (Howard Gardner
> amongst others).
>
>
> So what's with NLP and eye-movement?
>
> In the standard interpretation, a person remembering things in a
> visual mode (ie visualising an actual event) would look up and to
> their left, while if they looked up (V mode) and to their right (Vc)
> they would be visualising a "c"onstructed memory (ie visually
> accessing or at least filling in, imagined content). More detail
> can be found at one of the many websites such as:
>
> http://www.nlp-now.co.uk/eye_accessing.htm
>
> What seems to be uncertain is
>
> o. why (even if those EM patterns do show for the primary
> sensory modes) would a set of "constructed" ones show
> differentiated patterns.
>
> o. why all subjects would show the same EM patterns.
>
> Also, purely from channel bandwidth and competition for eye access
> considerations it seems unlikely that a set of just six eye-movement
> patterns could account for (or reveal) all cognitive processing.
>
> Incidently, the NLP Representational system Wiki indicates that NLP
> people don't always require the standard pattern (see eye access
> diag ... although I'm not sure why they make that claim)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representational_systems_(NLP)
>
> Also worth looking at a provisional analysis (circa 1985)
>
> http://www.mheap.com/nlp1.pdf
>
> at what parts work (or not as the case may be).
>
>
> What is potentially scientifically interesting is
>
> o. using computer recognition and suitable classifiers
> some kind of "individual sensory processing modes" might
> be recognisable (regardless of whether they correspond
> to the current models or not)
>
> o. it may be possible to denurgle the "sensory processing mode"
> patterns from the other eye accessing behaviour
>
>
> That's nowhere as simple as a one model fits all solution, but it
> might be more realistic.
>
> On the other hand, such experimentation would be dealing with higher
> level behaviour and involves more intangibles such as the meaning of
> processing, mood and emotion or other suprasegmental parameters. The
> equipment might be simpler (eg may only need to detect gross eye movements
> but the interpretation might be more complex.
>
>
> EMDR is interesting in a different way, and it is worth looking at
> Francine Shapiro's original book (Eye Movement De-sensitisation and
> Reprogramming) to understand its origins. As of 2004, US government
> guidelines approve it as a preferred treatment for some kind of
> management of post-traumatic stress.
>
> http://www.guideline.gov/summary/summary.aspx?doc_id=5187 (search for EMDR)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_Movement_Desensitization_and_Reprocessing
> http://www.skepdic.com/emdr.html
>
> Shapiro's appears to have highlighted an important observation.
> However, since that involves inconsistent patterns of eye-movement
> (non-cohesive in the Halliday-Hasan linguistic sense or even disjunctive)
> this suggests that EM experiments might well give "inconsistent" or
> quite ideosynchratic results. Explaining those results and especially
> explaining how they are resolved for individuals with traumatic memories
> could be particularly valuable.
>
> (Shapiro suggests re-integration via something akin to REM sleep as an
> analog but the validity of that may be questionable especially as
> it appears that the same results can be achieved by similar pattern
> "re-integration" without involving the eyes).
>
>
> Certainly read the popular expositions of NLP and EMDR on the web if
> you are that way inclined, including the Bandler and Grinder wikis and
> the skeptical assessment at:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Grinder
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Bandler
> http://www.skepdic.com/neurolin.html
>
> but maybe worth keeping one's mind open at least until reading Grinder
> and Bandler's original work (Structure of Magic: A Book about Language
> and Therapy ... and Structure of Magic II) ... while being aware of what
> they were trying to achieve ... along with the constraints of the times.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Charlesw
>
>
> Bandler and Grinder [1975], "The Structure of Magic". 225 pp
> Grinder and Bandler [1976], "The Structure of Magic II". 198 pp
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 12:58:45PM +0100, Georgios Diamantopoulos wrote:
>
>> Dear Michael and other readers,
>>
>> It is the job of a scientist and academic to cast his or her genuine
>> curiosity on anything and everything.
>> On that note, I'd like to point out that there is quite a lot of research
>> especially on NLP as well as EMDR.
>>
>> Both models emerged without any academic-style research so, yes, they
>> haven't followed "protocol".
>>
>> On the other hand, as academics tackle the same subjects, there is so far
>> quite some overlap.
>>
>> EMDR - has been shown to be effective (as effective or more than other
>> exposure therapies), at least for particular subject groups. There is
>> controversy over the eye-movement component; the current research suggests
>> that they make exposure to traumatic memories tolerable so that therapy can
>> continue. The reason is unknown though there are a few theories out there
>> and we also know it's not a distraction effect.
>>
>> NLP - various research items support ideas that are presented in NLP. E.g.
>> rapport (mirror neurons, phi brainwaves etc), embodiment of experience and
>> so on.
>>
>> My research is with regards to the eye-movement model of NLP. One of the
>> unsubstantiated parts of NLP.
>> It is quite clear from past research that eye-movements are correlated to
>> mental processes, in some, unknown so far, way. If the mapping that NLP
>> suggests has any "truth" in it, it is to be found.
>>
>> I can provide references for anyone interested on any of the above. Also, I
>> made a presentation at the First International NLP Research Conference at
>> the University of Surrey, UK entitled " A CRITICAL REVIEW OF PAST RESEARCH
>> INTO THE NEURO-LINGUISTIC PROGRAMMING EYE-ACCESSING CUES MODEL". Abstract
>> attached below and slides with full references are available for interested
>> parties.
>>
>> Georgios Diamantopoulos
>> Doctoral Researcher
>> University of Birmingham, UK
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael MacAskill [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: 27 July 2008 22:19
>> Subject: Re: Benefit of eyetracking to speech, muscle activity and brain
>> waves.
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I was under the impression that this was a list for discussions
>> relevant to the science of eye movement control. I am therefore
>> somewhat saddened when a genuine question is responded to with two
>> pointers to what could (at best) be described as pseudo-science (eye
>> movement desensitisation & reprogramming, and neurolinguistic
>> programming). Will iridology be next?
>>
>> Peter, it would be useful to know more about what the specific goals
>> of the system would be. Many of these measures (to which you could add
>> galvanic skin response and heart rate if you are interested in
>> emotion) are remarkably non-specific and their suitability can only
>> really be assessed in relation to the specific purpose to which they
>> are to be applied.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Michael MacAskill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> In addition to coherence of information you may also wish to consider
>>> understanding disjuction between EM and those other modes. Eg the
>>> work
>>> on EMDR and cognitive re-integration in cases of PTSD.
>>>
>>> http://www.emdr.com/
>>>
>>> Hi Peter,
>>> it might b of interest to check the kiterature on neurolinguistic
>>> programming (NLP). THe NLP proponents maintain that they can interpret
>>> some though content from eze gaze.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hello dear eyetracking community,
>>>>
>>>> I am working in the ET area since two years now as a computer
>>>> scientist in the field of HCI. I lately was asked what eyetracking
>>>> could add for additonal information if a system collaborating with
>>>> the human would measure his/her speech, muscle activity, and brain
>>>> waves. Since I have only little knowledge especially concerning
>>>> muscle
>>>> activity and brain waves I had to admit that I am only guessing that
>>>> the three measures mentioned "only" give hints concerning the
>>>> emotional state of the human and that eyetracking of course could
>>>> additionally give the clue where the human is looking, so where is
>>>> his/her attention.
>>>> I think that is the main point. But I am not sure to which extent the
>>>> brain data already could provide this too. - Does anybody know the
>>>> state of the art concerning this, how good this works and how great
>>>> the effort is? Additionally of course eyetracking could contribute
>>>> to the emotional state measurement using blink rate and pupillometric
>>>> data and via the attention also on intention.
>>>>
>>>> That are my thoughts so far. I would be very pleased if someone could
>>>> help me here to continue this interesting discussion, e.g. whether I
>>>> missed some important points.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you in advance,
>>>>
>>>> kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Peter.
>>>>
>> --
>> Michael R. MacAskill, PhD [log in to unmask]
>> Research Fellow
>> Van der Veer Institute for Parkinson's & Brain Research
>> University of Otago, Christchurch
>> 66 Stewart St
>> Christchurch Ph: +64 3 3786 072
>> NEW ZEALAND Fax: +64 3 3786 080
>>
>> --
>> EYE-MOVEMENT mailing list ([log in to unmask])
>> N.B. Replies are sent to the list, not the sender
>> To unsubscribe, etc. see
>> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/files/eye-movement/introduction.html
>> Other queries to list owner at [log in to unmask]
>>
>> --
>> EYE-MOVEMENT mailing list ([log in to unmask])
>> N.B. Replies are sent to the list, not the sender
>> To unsubscribe, etc. see http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/files/eye-movement/introduction.html
>> Other queries to list owner at [log in to unmask]
>>
>
> "Creativity and innovation are measured not by what is done,
> but by what could have been done ... but wasn't"
>
> Disclaimer: http://www.eng.unsw.edu.au/emaildis.htm
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Charles Willock [log in to unmask]
> c/- School of Computer Science and Engineering
> University of New South Wales,
> New South Wales Australia 2052 http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~charlesw
>
> --
> EYE-MOVEMENT mailing list ([log in to unmask])
> N.B. Replies are sent to the list, not the sender
> To unsubscribe, etc. see http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/files/eye-movement/introduction.html
> Other queries to list owner at [log in to unmask]
>
>
--
Prof John M. Henderson
Visual Cognition Unit
Psychology Department
7 George Square
University of Edinburgh
Edinburgh, EH8 9JZ
United Kingdom
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
--
EYE-MOVEMENT mailing list ([log in to unmask])
N.B. Replies are sent to the list, not the sender
To unsubscribe, etc. see http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/files/eye-movement/introduction.html
Other queries to list owner at [log in to unmask]
|
