Jonathan Back
University College London Interaction Centre, United Kingdom
Dominic Furniss
University College London Interaction Centre, United Kingdom
Ann Blandford
University College London Interaction Centre, United Kingdom
Ladda ner artikel
Ingår i: Proceedings of the Resilience Engineering Workshop; 25-27 June; 2007; Vadstena; Sweden
Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 23:1, s. 1-6
Publicerad: 2007-07-28
ISBN:
ISSN: 1650-3686 (tryckt), 1650-3740 (online)
Identifying cognitive strategies that people use to support resilient performance has rarely been the focus of experimental work. Our experiments have found that the pervasiveness of failures during human computer interaction can be recognized by individuals; but underlying cognitive and attentional causes cannot. Understanding how individuals recover from failure and adapt to new environmental demands can be studied in the laboratory; however; this requires a paradigmatic shift away from developing traditional ’single cause’ explanations. Previous research has strongly suggested that individuals are reliant on ’bottom-up’ cues from the environment when planning future actions. By systematically manipulating factors that influence an individual’s awareness of environmental cues; work reported in this paper has revealed some novel insights. Resilient individuals are able to spontaneously generate new strategies in-action that support response to regular disturbances. Furthermore when provided with a ’window of opportunity’ to reflect-on-action; individuals can rehearse future actions so that the influence of any residual strain (or load) can be mitigated against (feedforward strategy). Further work on understanding strategies adopted by resilient individuals may facilitate the development of systems that explicitly support cognitive resilience.
Back; J.; Blandford; A. & Curzon; P. (2007a). Recognising erroneous and exploratory interactions. To appear in Proceedings of INTERACT 2007.
Back; J.; Blandford; A. & Curzon; P. (2007b). Slip errors and cue salience. To appear in Proceedings of ECCE2007.
Byrne; M. & Bovair; S. (1997). A working memory model of a common procedural error. Cognitive Science; 21 (1); 31-69.
Dekker; S. (2005). Ten questions about human error: a new view of human factors and system safety. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gray; W. D. (2000) The nature and processing of errors in interactive behavior. Cognitive Science; 24 (2); 205-248.
Hollnagel; E.; Mancini; G. & Woods; D. (1988). Cognitive engineering in complex dynamic worlds. Academic Press.
Nathanael; D. & Marmas; N. (2006). The interplay between work practices and prescription: a key issue for organisational resilience. In E. Hollnagel & E. Rigaud (Eds.)
Proceedings of the Second Resilience Engineering Symposium (pp. 229-237); 8-11 November 2006; Juan-Les-Pins; France.
Miller; G. (1956). Human memory and the storage of information. Transactions on Info Theory; IT-2 (3); 128-137.
Payne; S. J. (1991). Display-based action at the user interface. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies; 35; 275-289.
Rasmussen; J.; Jensen; A. (1974). Mental procedures in real-life tasks. Ergonomics; 17; 293-307.
Schön; D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Woods; D. D.; Johannesen; L. J.; Cook; R. I. & Sarter; N. B. (1994). Behind human error: Cognitive systems; computers; complexity and hindsight. CSERIAC; 94-01.
Woods; D. D. & Hollnagel; E. (2006). Prologue. In: Hollnagel; E.; Woods; D. D. & Leveson; N. Resilience engineering: Concepts and precepts (pp. 1-7). Aldershot; UK: Ashgate.
