JACIII Vol.17 No.3 pp. 425-432
doi: 10.20965/jaciii.2013.p0425


Activeness Improves Cognitive Performance in Human-Machine Interaction

Yusuke Tamura*1, Mami Egawa*2, Shiro Yano*3,
Takaki Maeda*4, Motoichiro Kato*4, and Hajime Asama*5

*1Faculty of Science and Engineering, Chuo University, 1-13-27 Kasuga, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 112-8551, Japan

*2Recruit Marketing Partners, Co., Ltd., 1-9-2 Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-6640, Japan

*3Research Organization of Science and Technology, Ritsumeikan University, 1-1-1 Nojihigashi, Kusatsu-shi, Shiga 525-8577, Japan

*4Department of Neuropsychiatry, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160-8582, Japan

*5Graduate School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan

November 14, 2012
March 12, 2013
May 20, 2013
activeness, sense of agency, prediction, reaction time

In human-machine interaction, automation brings both advantages and potentially unpredictable disadvantages to human cognitive performance. In this study, we hypothesized that active behavior improves cognitive performance in human-machine interaction, and verified this hypothesis through three experiments. Experiment 1 examined the relationship between activeness and reaction time in a target-search task. Experiments 2 and 3 analyzed the factors that improved cognitive performance. Experimental results demonstrated that activeness positively affects cognitive performance and suggested that predictability associated with activeness plays a key role in improving cognitive performance.

  1. [1] R. Parasuraman and V. Riley, “Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse,” Human Factors, Vol.39, No.2, pp. 230-253, 1997.
  2. [2] L. Bainbridge, “Ironies of Automation,” Automatica, Vol.19, No.6, pp. 775-779, 1983.
  3. [3] D. D. Woods, “Decomposing Automation: Apparent Simplicity, Real Complexity,” R. Parasuraman and M. Mouloua (Eds.), Automation and Human Performance: Theory and Applications, Erlbaum, pp. 3-17, 1996.
  4. [4] N. B. Sarter, D. D. Woods, and C. E. Billings, “Automation Surprises,” G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors & Ergonomics, second edition, Wiley, pp. 1926-1943, 1997.
  5. [5] M. R. Endsley, “Automation and Situation Awareness,” R. Parasuraman and M. Mouloua (Eds.), Automation and Human Performance: Theory and Applications, Erlbaum, pp. 163-181, 1996.
  6. [6] R. Parasuraman, T. B. Sheridan, and C. D. Wickens, “Situation Awareness, Mental Workload, and Trust in Automation: Viable, Empirically Supported Cognitive Engineering Constructs,” J. of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, Vol.2, No.2, pp. 140-160, 2008.
  7. [7] M. R. Endsley, “Situation Awareness in Aviation Systems,” D. J. Garland, J. A.Wise, and V. D. Hopkin (Eds.), Handbook of Aviation Human Factors, Erlbaum, pp. 257-276, 1999.
  8. [8] D. B. Kaber, E. Onal, and M. R. Endsley, “Design of Automation for Telerobots and The Effect on Performance, Operator Situation Awareness, and Subjective Workload,” Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, Vol.10, No.4, pp. 409-430, 2000.
  9. [9] S. Gallagher, “Philosophical Conceptions of The Self: Implications for Cognitive Science,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol.4, No.1, pp. 14-21, 2000.
  10. [10] P. Haggard, “Conscious Intention and Motor Cognition,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol.9, No.6, pp. 290-295, 2005.
  11. [11] C. Farrer and C. D. Frith, “Experiencing Oneself vs Another Person as Being The Cause of An Action: The Neural Correlates of The Experience of Agency,” NeuroImage, Vol.15, pp. 596-603, 2002.
  12. [12] C. Farrer, N. Franck, N. Georgieff, C. D. Frith, J. Decety, and M. Jeannerod, “Modulating The Experience of Agency: A Positron Emission Tomography Study,” NeuroImage, Vol.18, pp. 324-333, 2003.
  13. [13] P. Ruby and J. Decety, “Effect of Subjective Perspective Taking During Simulation of Action: A PET Investigation of Agency,” Nature Neuroscience, Vol.4, No.5, pp. 546-550, 2001.
  14. [14] P. Haggard, “Human Volition: Towards A Neuroscience of Will,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, Vol.9, pp. 934-946, 2008.
  15. [15] I. H. Jenkins, M. Jahanshahi, M. Jueptner, R. E. Passingham, and D. J. Brooks, “Self-Initiated Versus Externally Triggered Movements II. The Effect of Movement Predictability on Regional Cerebral Blood Flow,” Brain, Vol.123, pp. 1216-1228, 2000.
  16. [16] G. Rizzolatti, G. Luppino, and M. Matelli, “The Organization of The Cortical Motor System: New Concepts,” Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, Vol.106, pp. 283-296, 1998.
  17. [17] P. Haggard, “The Sources of Human Volition,” Science, Vol.324, pp. 731-733, 2009.
  18. [18] S.-J. Blakemore, D. A. Oakley, and C. D. Frith, “Delusions of Alien Control in The Normal Brain,” Neuropsychologia, Vol.41, pp. 1058-1067, 2003.
  19. [19] R. C.Miall, D. J.Weir, D. M. Wolpert, and J. F. Stein, “Is The Cerebellum A Smith Predictor?,” J. of Motor Behavior, Vol.25, No.3, pp. 203-216, 1993.
  20. [20] D. M. Wolpert, R. C. Miall, and M. Kawato, “Internal Models in The Cerebellum,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol.2, No.9, pp. 338-347, 1998.
  21. [21] H. Imamizu, S. Miyauchi, T. Tamada, Y. Sasaki, R. Takino, B. Pütz, T. Yoshioka, and M. Kawato, “Human Cerebellar Activity Reflecting An Acquired Internal Model of A New Tool,” Nature, Vol.403, pp. 192-196, 2000.
  22. [22] F. Konietschke and M. Pauly, “Bootstrapping and Permuting Paired t-test Type Statistics,” Statistics and Computing, 2013.
    DOI: 10.1007/s11222-012-9370-4
  23. [23] A. Sato and A. Yasuda, “Illusion of Sense of Self-Agency: Discrepancy Between The Predicted and Actual Sensory Consequences of Actions Modulates The Sense of Self-Agency, But Not The Sense of Self-Ownership,” Cognition, Vol.94, pp. 241-255, 2005.
  24. [24] T. Asai and Y. Tanno, “The Relationship Between The Sense of Self-Agency and Schizotypal Personality Traits,” J. of Motor Behavior, Vol.39, No.3, pp. 162-168, 2007.
  25. [25] S. Holm, “A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure,” Scandinavian J. of Statistics, Vol.6, No.2, pp. 65-70, 1979.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, IE9,10,11, Opera.

Last updated on Feb. 21, 2018