Cognitive complexity method

Although there are several accepted methods for assessing cognitive function in humans, this presents a more complex problem pre-clinically. Experimental paradigms vary enormously. Different animal species are used, such as nonhuman primates, rodents, and pigeons. Substrains in any given species (especially mice) often provide conflicting results, as can the age of the animal. Nearly 100 behavioral tasks used to assess various aspects of... 

The adsorbents produced by the latter two methods are the most interesting from either a practical or cognitive view-point. The processes of carbon matter formation from organic substances are in generally very complex, and depend on many factors [20]. The most general picture of the carburization process can be presented by the following scheme of the cracking of hydrocarbons [21] ... 

Since the successful use of biomedical products and systems is often critical, it is imperative that designers understand and accommodate the cognitive demands on and abilities of users not only with regard to use of specific tools but the broader activity and work context in which complex human-machine systems operate. This understanding and accommodation is achieved, in part, through the methods described below. 

Because of the complexity of involved with activity, we cannot begin to give task analysis adequate coverage here. A good resource for Task Analyses is Kirwan and Ainsworth (1992), A Guidebook to Task Analysis, a book that describes 41 different methods for task analysis (with detailed examples). Cognitive task analyses are described in Seamster et al. (1997). 

There is a clear need to broaden our evaluation methods so that we are better able to assess the impact of simulations, microworlds, intelligent tutoring systems, and other types of "complex" computer-based learning environments. In addition, there is a striking need to assess the impact of computers on coUege/university level audiences and particularly to document the impact of computer-assisted instruction on higher order cognitive processes at every school level. 

Meanwhile, the author realized that the methods of relying on only practical experience, only theoretical deduction, or only technical experiment all have their weaknesses. The reliable decision of engineering problems can only be obtained by using the synthesis of the knowledge from different sources. In some cases, it may even contribute to the solution of complex problems, and sometimes, the cognition and the following decision beyond the conventional understanding may be achieved. 

The task analysis technique has been developed mainly to handle human factors (in HAZID and other methods). In HAZID this is helpful in addressing human factors such as human error, man—machine interface, and procedural error. Of the various hazard identification techniques, task analysis is one of the most important. The other techniques are discussed in subsequent chapters, but here discussions will be on task analysis. Task analysis is the study of what users need to do, in terms of actions and/or cognitive processes, to achieve a task objective. There are several factors, such as task duration, repetitive frequency, task allocation, complexity, equipment, ambience, and environmental conditions, which are required for the task and they very much influence the performance. At times, tasks are often used interchangeably with process. 

Probably the most popular CTA approach is the Critical Decision Method (CDM) (Klein et al., 1989), which uses semistructured interviews and cognitive probes to analyze the cognitive processes underlying decision making in complex environments. Using this approach, critical incidents are decomposed into decision points and probes are nsed to identify the cognitive processes nnderlying operator performance at each decision point. A set of CDM probes that we have fonnd nseful in the past is presented in Table 3.2. 

Taxonomy-based HEI techniques use external error mode (EEM) taxonomies to identify potential errors within complex sociotechnical systems. Typically, EEMs are considered for each component step in a particular task or scenario to determine credible errors that may arise during human-machine interaction. Techniques such as the Systematic Human Error Reduction and Prediction Approach (SHERPA) (Embrey, 1986), the Human Error Template (HET) (Stanton et al., 2006), the Technique for the Retrospective and Predictive Analysis of Cognitive Errors (TRACEr) (Shorrock and Kirwan, 2002), and the Cognitive Reliability and Error Analysis Method (CREAM) (Hollnagel, 1998) all use domain-specific EEM taxonomies. Taxonomic approaches to HEI are typically the most successful in terms of sensitivity and are also the least expensive, quickest, and easiest to use however,... 

---