Once More with Feeling: Augmenting Recognition Primed Decision Making with Affective Factors

2002 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 303-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Hudlicka ◽  
Jonathan Pfautz
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Factors ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Computational Models ◽  
Cognitive Architecture ◽  
Human Perception ◽  
Cognitive Engineering ◽  
Affective States ◽  
Affective Factors

Although quintessentially human, emotions have, until recently, been largely ignored in the human factors cognitive engineering / decision-making area. This is surprising, as extensive empirical evidence indicates that emotions, and personality traits, influence human perception and decision-making. This is particularly the case in crisis situations, when extreme affective states may arise (e.g., anxiety). The development of more complete and realistic theories of human perception and decision-making, and associated computational models, will require the inclusion of personality and affective considerations. In this paper, we propose an augmented version of the recognition-primed decision-making theory, which takes into consideration trait and state effects on decision-making. We describe a cognitive architecture that implements this theory, and a generic methodology for modeling trait and state effects within this architecture. Following an initial prototype demonstration, the full architecture is currently being implemented in the context of a military peacekeeping scenario.

Hierarchical Bayesian Parameter Estimation for Modeling and Analysis of User Affective Influence

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Feng Zhou ◽  
Jianxin (Roger) Jiao
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Interior Design ◽  
Computational Models ◽  
Human Perception ◽  
Model Parameters ◽  
Hierarchical Bayesian ◽  
Affective States ◽  
Modeling And Analysis ◽  
Human Decision

Traditional user experience (UX) models are mostly qualitative in terms of its measurement and structure. This paper proposes a quantitative UX model based on cumulative prospect theory. It takes a decision making perspective between two alternative design profiles. However, affective elements are well-known to have influence on human decision making, the prevailing computational models for analyzing and simulating human perception on UX are mainly cognition-based models. In order to incorporate both affective and cognitive factors in the decision making process, we manipulate the parameters involved in the cumulative prospect model to show the affective influence. Specifically, three different affective states are induced to shape the model parameters. A hierarchical Bayesian model with a technique called Markov chain Monte Carlo is used to estimate the parameters. A case study of aircraft cabin interior design is illustrated to show the proposed methodology.

Cognitive Human Factors in Litigation

2011 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-20
Author(s):  
Kenneth Nemire
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Factors ◽  
Cognitive Science ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Human Perception

Seemingly simple acts can go terribly wrong. Sometimes they result in litigation. Forensic human factors based in cognitive science can reveal some limitations in human perception, decision making, and action and how the design of things can fail to accommodate our limitations. The case studies indicate how design or maintenance could have prevented the injury incidents.

scholarly journals Corrigendum

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 94-94
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Factors ◽  
Online Publication ◽  
Cognitive Engineering ◽  
A Value ◽  
Interaction Modeling ◽  
Levels Of Automation

Jamieson, G. A., & Skraaning, G. (2017). Levels of automation in human factors models for automation design: Why we might consider throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making. Advance online publication. (Original DOI: 10.1177/1555343417732856) Kaber, D. B. (2017). Reflections on commentaries on “Issues in human–automation interaction modeling.” Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making. Advance online publication. (Original DOI: 10.1177/1555343417749376) In the OnlineFirst version of the article “Levels of Automation in Human Factors Models for Automation Design: Why We Might Consider Throwing the Baby Out With the Bathwater,” published in this issue, the last line of Table 1 listed a value of “–1” in the SA column. This should be “1.” The erroneous value was referred to in the OnlineFirst version of the article “Reflections on Commentaries on ‘Issues in Human–Automation Interaction Modeling.’” Both have been corrected for the online and print versions of the articles.

Minimizing Missed Opportunities: Modeling Relationships between the State and Business in Russia

2009 ◽  
pp. 42-61
Author(s):  
A. Oleynik
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Common Good ◽  
The State ◽  
Power Relationships ◽  
Individual Decision ◽  
Missed Opportunities ◽  
Power Domination ◽  
Individual Decision Making ◽  
Optimal Outcomes

Power involves a number of models of choice: maximizing, satisficing, coercion, and minimizing missed opportunities. The latter is explored in detail and linked to a particular type of power, domination by virtue of a constellation of interests. It is shown that domination by virtue of a constellation of interests calls for justification through references to a common good, i.e. a rent to be shared between Principal and Agent. Two sources of sub-optimal outcomes are compared: individual decision-making and interactions. Interactions organized in the form of power relationships lead to sub-optimal outcomes for at least one side, Agent. Some empirical evidence from Russia is provided for illustrative purposes.

Is the Deductive Falsification Approach a Better Basis for Clinical Trial Appraisal?

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 224-228
Author(s):  
Steffen Mickenautsch
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Inductive Reasoning ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Future Trial ◽  
Grading Systems ◽  
Component Scores ◽  
Current Clinical Trial

Background: Inductive reasoning relies on an infinite regress without sufficient factual basis and verification is at any time vulnerable to single contrary observation. Thus, appraisal based on inductive verification, as applied in current clinical trial appraisal scales, checklists or grading systems, cannot prove or justify trial validity. Discussion: Trial appraisal based on deductive falsification can identify invalid trials and give evidence for the recommendation to exclude these from clinical decision-making. Such appraisal remains agnostic towards corroborated trials that pass all appraisal criteria. The results of corroborated trials cannot be considered more robust than falsified trials since nothing within a particular set of complied trial criteria can give certainty for trial compliance with any other appraisal criterion in future. A corroborated trial may or may not reflect therapeutic truth and may thus be the basis for clinical guidance, pending results of any future trial re-appraisal. Conclusion: Trial grading following appraisal based on deductive falsification should be binary (0 = Invalid or 1 = Unclear) and single component scores should be multiplied. Appraisal criteria for the judgment of trial characteristics require a clear rationale, quantification of such rationale and empirical evidence concerning the effect of trial characteristics on trial results.

A Comparative Analysis of Investor and Auditor Materiality Judgments

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 149-166 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Todd DeZoort ◽  
Travis P. Holt ◽  
Jonathan D. Stanley
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Professional Standards ◽  
Policy Capturing ◽  
Cue Utilization ◽  
Critical Domain ◽  
Extant Literature

SUMMARY Materiality remains a challenging concept for auditors to implement in practice. The challenges underlying auditor materiality assessments are compounded by the fact that courts, regulation, and professional standards emphasize that materiality should be based on a “reasonable investor” perspective. Despite the investor orientation and ambiguous nature of the “reasonable investor” criterion, the extant literature lacks empirical evidence about investor materiality judgments and decision-making. To address this problem, we model sophisticated and unsophisticated investors' materiality judgments in a policy-capturing study and compare them to experienced auditors charged with assessing materiality from an investor perspective. The results indicate significant differences in materiality judgments, judgment consensus, and cue utilization among the three participant groups. We conclude the paper with discussion of the study's implications, highlighting that the overall results suggest the need for further consideration of ways to help auditors meet standards and expectations in this critical domain.

Evaluations for New Healthcare Environment Commissioning and Operational Decision Making Using Simulation and Human Factors: A Case Study of an Interventional Trauma Operating Room

2021 ◽  
pp. 193758672199966
Author(s):  
Mirette Dubé ◽  
Jason Laberge ◽  
Elaine Sigalet ◽  
Jonas Shultz ◽  
Christine Vis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Factors ◽  
Operating Room ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Healthcare Team ◽  
Healthcare Environment ◽  
New Process ◽  
Timely Access ◽  
Operational Decision Making

Purpose: The aim of this article is to provide a case study example of the preopening phase of an interventional trauma operating room (ITOR) using systems-focused simulation and human factor evaluations for healthcare environment commissioning. Background: Systems-focused simulation, underpinned by human factors science, is increasingly being used as a quality improvement tool to test and evaluate healthcare spaces with the stakeholders that use them. Purposeful real-to-life simulated events are rehearsed to allow healthcare teams opportunity to identify what is working well and what needs improvement within the work system such as tasks, environments, and processes that support the delivery of healthcare services. This project highlights salient evaluation objectives and methods used within the clinical commissioning phase of one of the first ITORs in Canada. Methods: A multistaged evaluation project to support clinical commissioning was facilitated engaging 24 stakeholder groups. Key evaluation objectives highlighted include the evaluation of two transport routes, switching of operating room (OR) tabletops, the use of the C-arm, and timely access to lead in the OR. Multiple evaluation methods were used including observation, debriefing, time-based metrics, distance wheel metrics, equipment adjustment counts, and other transport route considerations. Results: The evaluation resulted in several types of data that allowed for informed decision making for the most effective, efficient, and safest transport route for an exsanguinating trauma patient and healthcare team; improved efficiencies in use of the C-arm, significantly reduced the time to access lead; and uncovered a new process for switching OR tabletop due to safety threats identified.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document