China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Situation Awareness and the Cognitive Management of Complex Systems
Published in Eduardo Salas, Aaron S Dietz, Situational Awareness, 2017
Marilyn Jager Adams, Yvette J Tenney, Richard W Pew
Any scenario that has an element of surprise will have more of an effect the first time it is encountered, which poses a problem for within-subjects designs. To control for the effects of first encounters and preserve the within-subjects design, Busquets et al. (1994) gave subjects one un-scored “naive” trial with each anomaly before testing them on the same anomalies under each display condition. Their design succeeded because traffic incursions are not trivial to handle, even if one is expecting them. In other cases, such as fault diagnosis, in which repeated trials with the same anomaly would not be effective because the solution would be obvious, between-subjects designs would be required.
Marker versus Markerless Augmented Reality. Which Has More Impact on Users?
Published in International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 2018
Pedro Quelhas Brito, Jasmina Stoyanova
Surprise is the briefest of all the emotions, lasting only a few seconds, and possibly transforming into fear, amusement, relief, anger, disgust, or no emotion at all (Ekman, 2003). This theory is supported in the literature, and surprise is considered to be a neutral and ephemeral emotion (Meyer, Reisenzein, & Schützwohl, 1997; Rainer Reisenzein, 2000; Schützwohl, 1998). Surprise is subjective in nature (e.g., personal feeling), physiological (e.g., changes in the respiration rates), and behaviorally expressive (e.g., raised eyebrows and opened eyes, interruption of ongoing activities, focusing of attention on the stimulus triggering the surprise reaction) (e.g., Meyer et al., 1997; R Reisenzein, Meyer, & Schutzwohl, 1996; Vanhamme & Snelders, 2003). Surprise cannot be anticipated; by definition it is an unexpected event (Ekman & Friesen, 2003; Scherer, 1984). Surprise occurs when there is a mismatch between prior and posterior beliefs. Russell (1980) defined surprise as an emotional high state in activation and neutral in valence (e.g. neither unpleasant nor pleasant). Surprise (as well as puzzlement or uncertainty) may be accompanied by grimaces of so-called jaw-drop, where in the expressing of interest or excitement “the brows lift or lower slightly, the eyes open wide and fixate, and the lips may be parted” (Izard, 1971, p. 242). Since surprise is frequently elicited by products in terms of consumer experience (Desmet, 2002; Richins, 1997), it can be beneficial, because it allows customers to experience or learn something new.
Fitts’ law on the flight deck: evaluating touchscreens for aircraft tasks in actual flight scenarios
Published in Ergonomics, 2023
Yubin Xie, Ronggang Zhou, Jianhong Qu
According to feedback from aviation accident investigation data, pilots often use the terms ‘startle’ and ‘surprise’ to describe unexpected situations. Startling is usually caused by a sudden strong stimulus. This stimulus will produce an involuntary physiological reflex, similar to involuntary manipulation or cowering reactions, and a conditional behaviour-shock reaction, such as attention shift. Attention shifts to things that cause shock and disrupt cognition: sympathetic nervous system weakness is related to stress (Blumenthal et al. 2005; Bradley, Cuthbert, and Lang 1993; Koch 1999). Surprise is defined as a cognitive-emotional response to unexpected things, which is caused by a mismatch between one’s psychological expectations and environmental perception. Surprise can be described as a combination of physiological, cognitive, and behavioural responses, including the following: (1) Increased heart rate and increased blood pressure; (2) Inability to understand and analyse, or remember proper operating standards; (3) Loss of situational awareness (Horstmann and Bauland 2006; Meyer et al. 1991; Schützwohl and Borgstedt 2005). Startle and surprise have many adverse effects on aviation. Landman et al. (2017) speculated that in extreme cases, surprise may impair a crew’s troubleshooting capabilities. They proposed that the interfaces designed for use in surprising situations (e.g. upset recovery display aids) should be tested under conditions in which surprise is sufficiently and accurately simulated. Pilot psychology plays an important role in flight safety and work performance. Although many researchers have examined the influence of startle and surprise, existing studies have not focussed evaluating particular device such as touchscreens. In addition, there are fewer data on the performance of aviation touchscreens under startle and surprise conditions, especially in comparison with traditional interactive devices. Therefore, we propose H2b:
Pilots’ Responses to Unexpected Events: Conceptual, Theoretical, Methodological, and Analytical Issues
Published in The International Journal of Aerospace Psychology, 2022
P A. Hancock, Jessica Cruit, Janeen A. Kochan, Alexandra D. Kaplan, Yazmin Diaz, Shawn Pruchnicki
In the case study we began with, the pilots were certainly surprised by the “bang” and its sequelae, but as we have seen, fortunately, the change was insufficient to overcome their adaptive and incipiently resilient response capacities. Given the foregoing observations, we can now define surprise as: “an emotional and cognitive response to unexpected and difficult to explain events” (see Landman et al., 2017, p. 1162). However, here we have generated our own corollary since there is a purpose-specific definition for the domain of aviation, which indicates that surprise in this context is: “an unexpected event that violates a pilot’s expectations and can affect the mental processes used to respond to the event” (Federal Aviation Administration, 2015). This accords with our own unique epithet that surprise is the cognitive correlate of startle. Put in more formal terms, surprise provides a high rate of available information gain (and see Hancock, 1989; Hancock & Warm, 1989). This is because in both its spatial and temporal characteristics, surprise events address a significant degree of uncertainty. For example, if a snake is discovered in someone’s bed, there would be a need to quickly determine if the snake is a threat to personal safety (e.g., what type of snake is it? Is the snake venomous? How might the snake be safely removed?) This example conveys the surprise of finding a threat in a typically innocuous location where one must quickly decide on what to do with the available, stored information. In terms of formal information theory, the term “surprise” must connote a perceptual threshold (Meyer et al., 1997), which we can be safe in assuming, covaries with the nature, characteristics, and capacities of the particular individual involved (and see Hancock et al., 2009). For example, a “surprise” birthday party is, to a degree at least, contingent upon the individual’s knowledge that first, it is their own birthday and second that the individuals around them possess that knowledge alongside the propensity to throw such a party. In this example, we can see that context and personal knowledge each contributes to the occurrence, intensity, and/or degree of the surprise event.