Considering Etiquette in the Design of an Adaptive System

In this article, the authors empirically assess the costs and benefits of designing an adaptive system to follow social conventions regarding the appropriateness of interruptions. Interruption management is one area within the larger topic of automation etiquette. The authors tested these concepts in an outdoor environment using the Communications Scheduler, a wearable adaptive system that classifies users’ cognitive state via brain and heart sensors and adapts its interactions. Designed to help dismounted soldiers, it manages communications in much the same way as a good administrative assistant. Depending on a combination of message priority, user workload, and system state, it decides whether to interrupt the user’s current tasks. The system supports decision makers in two innovative ways: It reliably measures a mobile user’s cognitive workload to adapt its behavior, and it implements rules of etiquette adapted from human-human interactions to improve human-computer interactions. Results indicate costs and benefits to both interrupting and refraining from interrupting. When users were overloaded, primary task performance was improved by managing interruptions. However, overall situation awareness on secondary tasks suffered. This work empirically quantifies costs and benefits of “appropriate” interruption behaviors, demonstrating the value of designing adaptive agents that follow social conventions for interactions with humans.

[1]  Andrew T. Duchowski,et al.  Eye Tracking Methodology: Theory and Practice , 2003, Springer London.

[2]  T. Bickmore When Etiquette Really Matters: Relational Agents and Behavior Change , 2002 .

[3]  Penelope Brown,et al.  Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage , 1989 .

[4]  David Woods,et al.  The alarm problem and directed attention in dynamic fault management , 1995 .

[5]  P. Hancock,et al.  Human Mental Workload , 1988 .

[6]  Christopher A. Miller,et al.  Trust and etiquette in high-criticality automated systems , 2004, CACM.

[7]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Etiquette equality: exhibitions and expectations of computer politeness , 2004, CACM.

[8]  Santosh Mathan,et al.  An Evaluation of Real-Time Cognitive State Classification in a Harsh Operational Environment , 2007 .

[9]  A. Kramer,et al.  Physiological metrics of mental workload: A review of recent progress , 1990, Multiple-task performance.

[10]  Michael C. Dorneich,et al.  Towards a Characterization of Adaptive Systems: a Framework for Researchers and System Designers , 2017 .

[11]  S. Hart,et al.  Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research , 1988 .

[12]  A. Pope,et al.  Biocybernetic system evaluates indices of operator engagement in automated task , 1995, Biological Psychology.

[13]  James P. Bliss,et al.  The Effects of Relative System Reliability and Prioritization on Alarm Reaction Patterns , 2006 .

[14]  Kara A. Latorella,et al.  The Scope and Importance of Human Interruption in Human-Computer Interaction Design , 2002, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[15]  Misha Pavel,et al.  Neurophysiologically driven image triage: a pilot study , 2006, CHI EA '06.

[16]  Santosh Mathan,et al.  Neurophysiological Estimation of Interruptibility: Demonstrating Feasibility in a Field Context , 2007 .

[17]  Misha Pavel,et al.  Supporting Real-Time Cognitive State Classification on a Mobile Individual , 2007 .

[18]  Santosh Mathan,et al.  A joint human-automation cognitive system to support rapid decision-making in hostile environments , 2005, 2005 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics.

[19]  D. Damos Multiple-task performance , 2020 .

[20]  C. Miller,et al.  The Current Bottleneck for Computer-Based Culture Training – Who Cares about Etiquette? , 2010 .

[21]  P. Hancock Human Factors Psychology , 1987 .

[22]  Denis Fize,et al.  Speed of processing in the human visual system , 1996, Nature.

[23]  F. Freeman,et al.  A Closed-Loop System for Examining Psychophysiological Measures for Adaptive Task Allocation , 2000, The International journal of aviation psychology.

[24]  Eric Horvitz,et al.  Principles of mixed-initiative user interfaces , 1999, CHI '99.

[25]  Santosh Mathan,et al.  Automation Etiquette in the Augmented Cognition Context , 2005 .

[26]  Christopher A. Miller,et al.  Associates with Etiquette: Meta-Communication to Make Human-Automation Interaction more Natural, Productive and Polite , 2001 .

[27]  C. Miller,et al.  Human-Computer Etiquette: Cultural Expectations and the Design Implications They Place on Computers and Technology , 2010 .

[28]  Brian P. Bailey,et al.  Towards an index of opportunity: understanding changes in mental workload during task execution , 2004, CHI.

[29]  Jeffrey S. Shell,et al.  EyePliances: attention-seeking devices that respond to visual attention , 2003, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[30]  Roel Vertegaal,et al.  Towards a Physiological Model of User Interruptability , 2007, INTERACT.

[31]  Roel Vertegaal,et al.  Using mental load for managing interruptions in physiologically attentive user interfaces , 2004, CHI EA '04.

[32]  Michael C. Dorneich,et al.  Closing the Loop of an Adaptive System with Cognitive State , 2004 .

[33]  Mustapha Mouloua,et al.  Automation and Human Performance : Theory and Applications , 1996 .

[34]  Siobhan Chapman Logic and Conversation , 2005 .

[35]  A. Gevins,et al.  Neurophysiological measures of working memory and individual differences in cognitive ability and cognitive style. , 2000, Cerebral cortex.

[36]  Annette Kluge,et al.  Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting , 2010 .

[37]  Infomania: Why we can't afford . . . , 2007 .

[38]  Christopher G. Atkeson,et al.  Predicting human interruptibility with sensors: a Wizard of Oz feasibility study , 2003, CHI '03.

[39]  Dylan D. Schmorrow,et al.  Foundations of Augmented Cognition , 2013, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

[40]  P. Hancock,et al.  Adaptive control in human-machine systems , 1987 .

[41]  E. Stein,et al.  A parametric manipulation of central executive functioning. , 2000, Cerebral cortex.

[42]  Brian P. Bailey,et al.  A method, system, and tools for intelligent interruption management , 2005, TAMODIA '05.

[43]  James Fogarty,et al.  Examining the robustness of sensor-based statistical models of human interruptibility , 2004, CHI.

[44]  Santosh Mathan,et al.  Neuro-Physiologically-Driven Adaptive Automation to Improve Decision Making Under Stress , 2006 .

[45]  C. Wickens Engineering psychology and human performance, 2nd ed. , 1992 .

[46]  P. Welch The use of fast Fourier transform for the estimation of power spectra: A method based on time averaging over short, modified periodograms , 1967 .

[47]  T. Jung,et al.  Changes in alertness are a principal component of variance in the EEG spectrum , 1995, Neuroreport.

[48]  Daphne N. Yu,et al.  High-resolution EEG mapping of cortical activation related to working memory: effects of task difficulty, type of processing, and practice. , 1997, Cerebral cortex.

[49]  Tian Lan,et al.  Cognitive State Estimation Based on EEG for Augmented Cognition , 2005, Conference Proceedings. 2nd International IEEE EMBS Conference on Neural Engineering, 2005..

[50]  Nadya Belov,et al.  Augmented Cognition for Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control System Operators , 2006 .

[51]  J. G. Hollands,et al.  Engineering Psychology and Human Performance , 1984 .

[52]  Mark W. Scerbo,et al.  Theoretical Perspectives on Adaptive Automation , 2019, Human Performance in Automated and Autonomous Systems.

[53]  D. Broadbent,et al.  What makes interruptions disruptive? A study of length, similarity, and complexity , 1989 .