Advertisement

The Attentional Perspective on Smart Devices: Empirical Evidence for Device-Specific Cognitive Ergonomics

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 777)

Abstract

Digital transformation of work expands in manual labor areas, providing the need to assess cognitive ergonomics of smart devices. Evaluating cognitive workload imposed on the worker and attentional processes are especially relevant. We compared human performance between two smart devices in the context of a simulated order picking task. To this end, we combined a task switching paradigm with a flanker task. Response times, error rates and subjective task load indices were registered. Participants were slower in using smart glasses compared to a headset, however, with smart glasses they were less distraction-prone and more flexible in their responses. The performance differences may be explained by modality-specific transformations from sensory input to manual responses. In sum, results suggest that smart glasses may be more suitable for conveying information in rather complex tasks relying on visual information whereas headsets may be more suitable for simple tasks in uncluttered environments.

Keywords

Human factors Cognitive ergonomics Smart devices Selective attention 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the National Centre of Excellence for Logistics and IT, Dortmund, Germany. We would like to thank Linda Tchuendem for data collection.

References

  1. 1.
    Lee, J.D., Wickens, C.D., Liu, Y., Boyle, L.N.: Designing for People: An Introduction to Human Factors Engineering. CreateSpace, Charleston (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Theis, S., Mertens, A., Wille, M., Rasche, P., Alexander, T., Schlick, C.E. (eds.) Effects of Data Glasses on Human Workload and Performance During Assembly and Disassembly Tasks (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guo, A., Wu, X., Shen, Z., Starner, T., Baumann, H., Gilliland, S.: Order picking with head-up displays. Computer 48, 16–24 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kreutzfeldt, M., Stephan, D.N., Willmes, K., Koch, I.: Shifts in target modality cause attentional reset: evidence from sequential modulation of crossmodal congruency effects. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 23, 1466–1473 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A.M., Koch, I.: Control and interference in task switching—a review. Psychol. Bull. 136, 849 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hart, S.G., Wickens, C.D.: Workload assessment and prediction. In: Booher, H.R. (ed.) Manprint, pp. 257–296. Springer, Dordrecht (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eriksen, B.A., Eriksen, C.W.: Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Percept. Psychophys. 16, 143–149 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Petersen, S.E., Posner, M.I.: The attention system of the human brain: 20 years after. Ann. Rev. Neurosci. 35, 73–89 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grosse, E.H., Glock, C.H., Neumann, W.P.: Human factors in order picking: a content analysis of the literature. Int. J. Prod. Res. 55, 1260–1276 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Funk, M., Shirazi, A.S., Mayer, S., Lischke, L., Schmidt, A.: Pick from here! An interactive mobile cart using in-situ projection for order picking. In: Mase, K., Langheinrich, M., Gatica-Perez, D., Gellersen, H., Choudhury, T., Yatani, K. (eds.) The 2015 ACM International Joint Conference, pp. 601–609 (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Renner, P., Pfeiffer, T.: Attention guiding techniques using peripheral vision and eye tracking for feedback in augmented-reality-based assistance systems. In: 2017 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI), Proceedings, 18–19 March 2017, Los Angeles, CA, USA, pp. 186–194. IEEE, Piscataway (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grosse, E.H., Glock, C.H., Jaber, M.Y., Neumann, W.P.: Incorporating human factors in order picking planning models: framework and research opportunities. Int. J. Prod. Res. 53, 695–717 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zijlstra, F.R.H.: Efficiency in Work Behaviour: A Design Approach for Modern Tools. Delft University Press, Delft (1993)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hart, S.G., Staveland, L.E.: Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock, P.A., Meshkati, N. (eds.) Human Mental Workload, North-Holland, vol. 52, pp. 139–183 (1988)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Logan, G.D., Schneider, D.W.: Interpreting instructional cues in task switching procedure: the role of mediator retrieval. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 32, 347–363 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Baddeley, A., Chincotta, D., Adlam, A.: Working memory and the control of action: evidence from task switching. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 130, 641–657 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Emerson, M.J., Miyake, A.: The role of inner speech in task switching: a dual-task investigation. J. Mem. Lang. 48, 148–168 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Meiran, N.: Modeling cognitive control in task-switching. Psychol. Res. 63, 234–249 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Logan, G.D., Gordon, R.D.: Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychol. Rev. 108, 393–434 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kreutzfeldt, M., Stephan, D.N., Willmes, K., Koch, I.: Modality-specific preparatory influences on the flexibility of cognitive control in task switching. J. Cognit. Psychol. 29, 607–617 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human FactorsDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations