China 
Africa 
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
The Multi-Aspect Measurement Approach: Rationale, Technologies, Tools, and Challenges for Systems Design
Published in Pamela Savage-Knepshield, John Martin, John Lockett, Laurel Allender, Designing Soldier Systems, 2018
Kelvin S. Oie, Stephen Gordon, Kaleb McDowell
For example, the P300 is an ERP comprising a positive voltage deflection that appears approximately 300 milliseconds after stimulus presentation when a subject is actively engaged in the task of target detection (Picton 1992), and it has been suggested to reflect brain processes of “context updating,” wherein an individual’s internal model of the environment must be revised (Donchin and Coles 1988). Another ERP, the contingent negative variation (CNV), has been observed between the appearance of successive stimuli when the first is perceived to act as a warning that a response signaled by the second stimulus is required (Walter et al. 1964). The CNV is a long-lasting, negative voltage deflection, differences in which have also been linked to reaction time, levels of attention, and cognitive effort (Andreassi 2000). Motor potentials are ERPs that occur in preparation for and during execution of voluntary movements, even if the subject is only thinking about performing the movement (Pfurtshceller et al. 2003). One specific type of motor potential is the readiness potential, which is a slow-rising negative wave that begins approximately 500–1000 milliseconds before a voluntary movement and peaks at the time of response (Kutas and Donchin 1974).
Bringing Together Ergonomic Concepts and Cognitive Mechanisms for Human—AI Agents Cooperation
Published in International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 2023
Marin Le Guillou, Laurent Prévot, Bruno Berberian
To our understanding and given the definition of cooperation we adopt, planned coordination is necessary in human/AA cooperation. Knoblich and his co-authors have found that in effective planned coordination situations, agents performing joint-action represents both their own task and their co-actors’: agents have a shared task representation. Shared task representation between human co-actors is not only supported by behavioral studies (social Simon effect, (Sebanz et al., 2005), but also with brain imaging and electrophysiological studies (Ramnani & Miall, 2004; Sebanz et al., 2006). In Sebanz et al. (2005), the authors perform experiments in order to show that participants involved in joint action do not only represent their co-actor’s actions, but also their co-actor’s task. The demonstration starts from Simon’s finding about slower response times (RTs) from participants to a color stimulus when an irrelevant spatial information is presented whether than a relevant, e.g.: participants have a green button under their left hand they must press when a green stimulus is showed on a screen, and a red one under their right hand they must press when a red stimulus is showed on the screen. Simon’s results (Craft & Simon, 1970; Simon, 1990) show that there is a significantly slower RTs when the green (respectively red) stimulus is presented incompatibly on the right (respectively left) side of the screen than on the compatible left side (respectively right). In Sebanz et al. (2003), Sebanz and colleagues showed that this effect is also social by measuring significantly slower RTs with both compatible, neutral and incompatible spatial information when a go/nogo action (e.g., in response to a green stimuli) is performed spatially along someone performing the same action in response to another color (e.g., red) than when the same go/nogo task is performed alone. This suggests that when people think being engaged in joint-action, they at least share a representation of their actions. Finally, in Sebanz et al. (2005), the authors want to elicit whether participants engaged in joint-action simply share actions representations or also task representations: in this experiments, a participant sitting left must respond to a spatial stimulus (finger pointing left) while another one sitting right must respond to a color stimulus (green ring on the finger). The experiment shows significantly slower RTs in “double response situation”—meaning that both the finger was pointing left and the ring green—than when only one of the two participants had to respond (either only finger pointing left with red ring or green ring with finger pointing right). This result suggests that co-actors do not only represent their partner’s action, but also their partner’s task. It was later enforced with electroencephalography (EEG) studies: (Kourtis et al., 2013) shows by using an electrophysiological evidence (contingent negative variation, CNV) that “joint action planning involves cognitive and motor representations of the action partner’s task” and later in Kourtis et al. (2014) shows that CNV is similar when asking participants to clink two glasses by themselves or to clink one glass with another participant’s glass.