The Experts below are selected from a list of 162 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Michael D Byrne - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
systematic Procedural Error
2006Co-Authors: Michael D ByrneAbstract:Abstract : Even when executing routine procedures with relatively simple devices, people make nonrandom Errors. Consequences range from the trivial to the fatal, with Navy personnel often operating at the more extreme end of this range. This problem has received surprisingly little attention from cognitive psychologists. The research summarized here examines such Errors in some detail both empirically and through computational cognitive modeling. There were several key results. First, many such Errors are sensitive not just to the structure of the task but also to the layout of controls and displays, contrary to the predictions of most current task analysis frameworks. Some such Errors seem to be mitigable by simple layout changes. Second, a particularly pervasive Error (termed postcompletion Error) was found to be highly resistant to cue-based mitigation, and though an effective cue was found, the requirements for such cues are difficult to meet in field contexts. Finally, cognitive computational models constructed using the ACT-R cognitive architecture suggested that certain interface manipulations (removing state information, adding additional extraneous controls) which appeared major would actually have limited impact on human task performance, and these predictions were validated empirically.
-
a working memory model of a common Procedural Error
Cognitive Science, 1997Co-Authors: Michael D Byrne, Susan BovairAbstract:Systematic Errors In performance are an important aspect of human behavior that have not received adequate explanation. One such systematic Error is termed postcompletion Error; a typical example is leaving one's card In the automatic teller after withdrawing cash. This type of Error seems to occur when people have an extra step to perform in a procedure after the main goal has been satisfied. The fact that people frequently make this type of Error, but do not make this Error every time, may best be explained by considering the working memory load at the time the step is to be performed: The Error is made when the load on working memory is high, but will not be made when the load is low. A model of performance In the task was constructed using Just and Carpenter's (1992) CAPS that predicted that high working memory load should be associated with postcompletion Errors. Two experiments confirmed that such Errors can be produced in a laboratory as well as a naturalistic setting, and that the conditions under which the CAPS model makes the Error are consistent with the conditions under which the Errors occur in the laboratory.
-
systematic Procedural Error as a result of interaction between working memory demand and task structure
1993Co-Authors: Michael D ByrneAbstract:Despite the presence of correct knowledge, people seem to systematically make Errors on tasks that share a particular structure, that of having some steps left to complete after the main goal has been fulfilled. An example of this kind of Error would be leaving one’s gas cap after filling up. Such Errors are termed post-completion Errors. Though little empirical or theoretical work has been done on this particular phenomenon, a synthesis of ideas from various sources suggests that such Errors are a result of an interaction between post-completion goal structure and working memory limitations. In particular, people should be prone to making post-completion Errors when working memory load is high. Preliminary research provided some support for this claim, so in further investigation a computational model of a complex task was constructed using CAPS (Just & Carpenter, 1992). The model does, in fact, make post-completion Errors when the working memory activation allowed to the system is reduced. A second experiment was conducted to evaluate the claims of the model, and results from the experiment are consistent with the CAPS simulation. Implications for the design of both human-machine systems and cognitive models are discussed.
Greg J Trafton - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a long term memory competitive process model of a common Procedural Error
Cognitive Science, 2013Co-Authors: Franklin P Tamborello, Greg J TraftonAbstract:Abstract : A novel computational cognitive model explains human Procedural Error in terms of declarative memory processes. This is an early version of a process model intended to predict and explain multiple classes of Procedural Error a priori. We begin with postcompletion Error (PCE) a type of systematic Procedural Error that people are prone to commit when there is one step to perform after they have accomplished their main task goal. Participants in an experiment demonstrated increased PCE rates following an interruption in a realistic form-filling task. The model explains PCE as a consequence of two declarative retrieval processes, spreading activation and base-level activation, competing with each other because of features of task and working memory structure. Our intention is to generalize the model to other classes of Procedural Error in complex task environments.
Franklin P Tamborello - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
CogSci - A Long-Term Memory Competitive Process Model of a Common Procedural Error
Cognitive Science, 2017Co-Authors: Franklin P Tamborello, J. Greg TraftonAbstract:Abstract : A novel computational cognitive model explains human Procedural Error in terms of declarative memory processes. This is an early version of a process model intended to predict and explain multiple classes of Procedural Error a priori. We begin with postcompletion Error (PCE) a type of systematic Procedural Error that people are prone to commit when there is one step to perform after they have accomplished their main task goal. Participants in an experiment demonstrated increased PCE rates following an interruption in a realistic form-filling task. The model explains PCE as a consequence of two declarative retrieval processes, spreading activation and base-level activation, competing with each other because of features of task and working memory structure. Our intention is to generalize the model to other classes of Procedural Error in complex task environments.
-
a long term memory competitive process model of a common Procedural Error part ii working memory load and capacity
2013Co-Authors: Franklin P Tamborello, J. Greg TraftonAbstract:Abstract : Postcompletion Error (PCE) is a type of systematic Procedural Error that people are prone to commit when there is one step to perform after they have accomplished their main task goal. A computational cognitive model developed previously for PCE in an interruption paradigm extends to a working memory load and capacity paradigm. The model explains PCE in terms of long-term declarative memory mechanisms opposing base-level activation with spreading activation.
-
a long term memory competitive process model of a common Procedural Error
Cognitive Science, 2013Co-Authors: Franklin P Tamborello, Greg J TraftonAbstract:Abstract : A novel computational cognitive model explains human Procedural Error in terms of declarative memory processes. This is an early version of a process model intended to predict and explain multiple classes of Procedural Error a priori. We begin with postcompletion Error (PCE) a type of systematic Procedural Error that people are prone to commit when there is one step to perform after they have accomplished their main task goal. Participants in an experiment demonstrated increased PCE rates following an interruption in a realistic form-filling task. The model explains PCE as a consequence of two declarative retrieval processes, spreading activation and base-level activation, competing with each other because of features of task and working memory structure. Our intention is to generalize the model to other classes of Procedural Error in complex task environments.
Susan Bovair - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a working memory model of a common Procedural Error
Cognitive Science, 1997Co-Authors: Michael D Byrne, Susan BovairAbstract:Systematic Errors In performance are an important aspect of human behavior that have not received adequate explanation. One such systematic Error is termed postcompletion Error; a typical example is leaving one's card In the automatic teller after withdrawing cash. This type of Error seems to occur when people have an extra step to perform in a procedure after the main goal has been satisfied. The fact that people frequently make this type of Error, but do not make this Error every time, may best be explained by considering the working memory load at the time the step is to be performed: The Error is made when the load on working memory is high, but will not be made when the load is low. A model of performance In the task was constructed using Just and Carpenter's (1992) CAPS that predicted that high working memory load should be associated with postcompletion Errors. Two experiments confirmed that such Errors can be produced in a laboratory as well as a naturalistic setting, and that the conditions under which the CAPS model makes the Error are consistent with the conditions under which the Errors occur in the laboratory.
Richard Satava - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Prospective, randomized assessment of transfer of training (ToT) and transfer effectiveness ratio (TER) of virtual reality simulation training for laparoscopic skill acquisition.
Annals of surgery, 2013Co-Authors: Anthony Gallagher, Julie-Anne Jordan-Black, Brendan P Bunting, Neal E Seymour, Kieran Mcglade, Richard SatavaAbstract:OBJECTIVES: We assessed the effectiveness of ToT from VR laparoscopic simulation training in 2 studies. In a second study, we also assessed the TER. ToT is a detectable performance improvement between equivalent groups, and TER is the observed percentage performance differences between 2 matched groups carrying out the same task but with 1 group pretrained on VR simulation. Concordance between simulated and in-vivo procedure performance was also assessed.\n\nDESIGN: Prospective, randomized, and blinded.\n\nPARTICIPANTS: In Study 1, experienced laparoscopic surgeons (n = 195) and in Study 2 laparoscopic novices (n = 30) were randomized to either train on VR simulation before completing an equivalent real-world task or complete the real-world task only.\n\nRESULTS: Experienced laparoscopic surgeons and novices who trained on the simulator performed significantly better than their controls, thus demonstrating ToT. Their performance showed a TER between 7% and 42% from the virtual to the real tasks. Simulation training impacted most on Procedural Error reduction in both studies (32-42%). The correlation observed between the VR and real-world task performance was r > 0·96 (Study 2).\n\nCONCLUSIONS: VR simulation training offers a powerful and effective platform for training safer skills.