This is part of the second step into an attempted reboot of this community: Rebooting Cognitive Sciences: a Suggested Approach
Since the very beginning of this site, there have been differing opinions on how inclusive we should be towards non-professionals. This discussion is summarized in the...
As part of writing my thesis, I was trying to reconstruct how exactly the research field of Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) is related to Human-Computer Interaction (HCI).
I have a decent understanding of the differences and overlap between the two, but was wondering to which degree t...
@StevenJeuris True. This is a pure hci question that barely touches psychology. But there are many questions that are better fit for here (e.g. caller's dilemma; oddly phrased question but in essence interesting).
Okay, .. so I am making notes, but I can already tell you now I would recommend to make that more clear earlier on (also in abstract).
I was missing a bit of the motivation for your focus on EEG, ... e.g., I wrote: "What is the objective ground truth here? I am a bit unclear on how this is assessed, thus what determines 'quality'. In addition, I do not see how EEG can measure this. A short introduction would be useful."
It was a bit confusing to only read that at the end of introduction. .... I would expect motivation higher up.
@StevenJeuris the actual motivation was: I had to write a proposal for a neuroscience course and thus coupled SA to EEG instead of EEG to SA. Then things got out of hand and there was my thesis :p But I indeed must justify that decision a little better
@StevenJeuris I was thinking about making a stronger link between the SA process theory and different metrics (probably eye tracking and EEG) and then explain why EEG is more interesting
@RobinKramer Why is it more interesting? (it doesn't have to be by the way) Measuring pupil dilation is quite straightforward, seems easier than wearable EEG.
Because of perceptual decoupling, you can look at info but actively perceive the information. Eyetracker would only tell well the eyes are fixated on, but not what the subject is thinking at that moment. EEG would be able to show how attentive one is (but, as a downside cannot see where it is focused).
@StevenJeuris true, and I don't know either exactly. at least I assume a relation between engagement (sort of attention) and workload at some point in the paper (where I describe how the SPAM is constructed)
They probably confirm plenty of your findings. The secondary task indeed can be quite disruptive, which makes me want to look into the studies where delayed RT was shown to be correlated with attention. :) It seems the effects of secondary tasks would negate that outcome indeed.
You are making it very difficult for me haha. Luckily I know a thing or two about interruptions and eyetracker (made a semi successful interruption management system based on pupil dilation (as a measure of workload))
Interruption studies measure the effects of short-lived secondary tasks interrupting a primary task, on both the primary and secondary task. A primary task here refers to higher-level goal-oriented work, like solving a Sudoku. Interruptions are short-term tasks which require suspension of the primary task, like answering a short question posed by a colleague. Interruptions can lead to annoyance and anxiety (Bailey, Konstan, & Carlis, 2001), and feelings of stress and frustration (Mark et al., 2008 and Mark et al., 2012). As summarized by Monk et al. (2008), some studies show people perform …
... there you go, in case you do not have access. ;p
@RobinKramer That does not make sense. Cite the ones I cite.
That is only part of my RW section.
I believe the Brumby one (2013) and the Monk et al (2008) are reviews.
Probably most suitable.
But you'd have to check.
Yeah ... for your purpose I guess the older Monk one is sufficient: " some studies show people perform post-interruption tasks more slowly, and that more errors are made compared to pre-interruption performance"
"The effect of interruption duration and demand on resuming suspended goals"
I've made a task interruption management system once based on pupil dilation (as a measure of workload). Was semi-successful even, but I didn't continue on it :(
@StevenJeuris Haha that's okay. Already glad with this feedback. And thank you. I'm quite happy with it too (at the moment, let's see how I feel in a year)
But what would you like to see in RW? Isn't that already described (perhaps very briefly) in the intro
Ah okay, going more in-depth thus. Thank you. I did that for my proposal but everything had to be briefer and shorter and even briefer yet again. So that's what I used here now too
Cool, I will have a look at that as well :) Should I integrate that in the "situation awareness relies on sustained attention" or should I make an new header somewhere else?
Intro generally can be broken down into three paragraphs (1) 'the world', the problem, the current situation in very non-scientific terms, (2) how research has addressed this (short summary relating back to (1)), (3) how you extend on that research, optionally with some overview of findings.
@RobinKramer I did that too for introduction. ;p Hope you don't mind, haha.
After introduction, RW digs in deep into the specifics of (2) from the introduction basically.
And then your study digs in deep into (3) of the introduction. :)
So something along the lines of (1) lack of awareness, disasters, crashing trains, (2) awareness defined as ..., can be measured x, y, z, correlated to ..., (3) however, correlation of EEG with attention (part of awareness) has not been measured (or at least not on this HW, or easily wearable stuff ...
@StevenJeuris Are you there? I am shuffling my entire introduction and I need some advise (a)
You suggested to bump up my motivation for using EEG, but I am unable to give it an appropriate place and context. I did mention it in the abstract now, but in the introduction I cannot move it much earlier, because the entire argumentation (from new definition to the importance of attention) leads up to the use of EEG
Doctor told me (long ago) that sneezing more than three times in a row is a sure sign for an allergy.
Now, me, if I have to sneeze, I rarely do with one sneeze, mostly, when I've
made up my mind and body, I will sneeze at least five times, sometimes up to twenty.
What is the biology behind tha...
Doctor told me (long ago) that sneezing more than three times in a row is a sure sign for an allergy.
Now, me, if I have to sneeze, I rarely do with one sneeze, mostly, when I've
made up my mind and body, I will sneeze at least five times, sometimes up to twenty.
What is the biology behind tha...
The Axon Terminal
The Axon Terminal