=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2539/paper7
|storemode=property
|title=Cognitive Ergonomics is a Matter of Cognitive Factors
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2539/paper7.pdf
|volume=Vol-2539
|authors=Virpi Kalakoski
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ecce/Kalakoski19
}}
==Cognitive Ergonomics is a Matter of Cognitive Factors==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2539/paper7.pdf
Cognitive Ergonomics is a Matter of Cognitive Factors
Virpi Kalakoski
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Topeliuksenkatu 41 b, PO Box 40,
FI-00251 Helsinki, Finland,
virpi.kalakoski@ttl.fi
Abstract. We discuss two main possible reasons for the surprisingly modest vis-
ibility of the concept of cognitive ergonomics in both the research and application
literature, and suggest remedies. First, when using this concept, we should be
more explicit about the human cognitive limitations and abilities and their role in
human–system interaction. Second, the field of cognitive ergonomics should also
place more emphasis on the cognitive aspects of the socio-technical context part
of human factors. Although the focus of ergonomics, and human factors, is on
human–system interaction, it is essential to understand that one piece of this puz-
zle is a constant and the other is constantly changing. Human cognitive functions
and information-processing principles and their underlying brain structures have
remained approximately the same for at least 30 000 years. In contrast, the current
era of digitalization, automation, robotization, and big data has brought, and will
continue to bring, changes that also affect the cognitive demands of the socio-
technical context.1
Keywords: Cognitive ergonomics, Cognitive psychology, Applied cognitive
psychology
1 Introduction
Despite 40 years of cognitive ergonomics, surprisingly few articles use this concept.
When searching for ‘cognitive ergonomics’ or just ‘ergonomics’ in the Human Factors,
the Ergonomics, and the Applied Ergonomics journals, only 9 out of 79, 69 out of 776,
and 89 out of 1313 documents concern specifically cognitive ergonomics rather than
any ergonomics, respectively. In the whole Web of Science, ‘cognitive ergonomics’ is
present as a topic in 582 documents, which is relatively seldom if compared to ‘ergo-
nomics’ that can be found as a topic in 8747 documents. However, it is evident that
both practices and research do deal with cognitive ergonomics, but under different con-
cepts and constructions, such as ‘human factors’, ‘human-centred design’, and ‘cogni-
tive engineering’. When these are used together in a search (excluding ‘ergonomics’),
there are 8475 topic matches in the Web of Science. In sum, whereas all documents
1 Copyright © 2019 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative
Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CE is a Matter of Cognitive Factors 47
referring to ergonomics and related fields total more than 17 000, the concept of ‘cog-
nitive ergonomics’ is visible in the leading journals of our field in less than 170 docu-
ments. What is this concept and why is it relatively unpopular?
Ergonomics (or human factors) practices aim to ensure ‘appropriate interaction be-
tween work, product and environment, and human needs, capabilities and limitations’,
as defined by the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society [1]. The International Ergo-
nomics Association further describes three domains of specialization within the disci-
pline, one of which is cognitive ergonomics, which is concerned with ‘mental pro-
cesses, such as perception, memory, reasoning, and motor response, as they affect in-
teractions among humans and other elements of a system’ [2]. Both definitions name
the human and system parts of human factors and stress their successful interaction.
We suggest that, in the future, the field of cognitive ergonomics should place more
emphasis on the cognitive aspects of both the human and the socio-technical context
parts of human factors in order to increase our contribution to productive and healthy
human-system interaction. Cognitive ergonomics is a matter of cognitive factors. While
the significance of cognitive factors increases with the development of digitalization,
robotization, and artificial intelligence, also the field of cognitive ergonomics should
expand its contribution and impact.
1.1 Human cognition is still the same
Although the definition of cognitive ergonomics provides a comprehensive list of hu-
man cognitive functions, there is a need to describe human cognitive abilities and lim-
itations in more detail. What aspects and principles of cognitive functioning are relevant
when we study the interaction of human cognition with the socio-technical context?
Such knowledge already exists in the human factors field, but these theories and exam-
ples are often associated with specific types of tasks and context, and very often with
high-demand safety-critical tasks and environments. For example, the very useful con-
cept of situational awareness [3] combines several cognitive functions that are relevant
in demanding dynamic tasks such as air traffic control [4]. However, this concept refers
to a specific combination of cognitive functions and particular task demands and is not
directly applicable to other contexts. There is therefore a need to expand both the ap-
plication of knowledge on human cognitive functions and the scope of the socio-tech-
nical context.
The field of experimental and applied cognitive psychology offers a huge amount of
information on the limitations and capacities of the human cognitive system and the
factors that affect cognitive performance. For example, our capacity to rehearse and
process information in our short-term working memory is limited to 3–4 items [5-6].
We better recall the first and last items from serially presented information [7], there
are various cognitive tendencies that bias our decisions [8], and developing expert-level
knowledge and skills requires 10 000 hours of deliberate practice [9]. These and other
findings define the cognitive factors and information-processing principles that have
remained approximately the same for at least 30 000 years, as long as the underlying
brain structures have been the same [10]. They are shared by all humans and constrain
48 V. Kalakoski
their behaviour and performance, even when we are not aware of them. Cognitive er-
gonomics should expand the utilization of the large, deep scope of theories and findings
regarding experimental and applied cognitive psychology and bring the current under-
standing of the human information processor to the core of cognitive ergonomics re-
search and practice.
1.2 Changing socio-technical context creates new demands
It is not only the human part of human factors that requires a detailed description of
cognition; we should also clearly describe the cognitive aspects related to the changing
socio-technical context. In the definitions of (cognitive) ergonomics, the system parts
interacting with the human parts are tasks, jobs, products, systems, organizations, and
environments. It is essential to describe the cognitive demands of these systems and
contexts, which cognition functions are required when we interact with a specific socio-
technical context, and whether some conditions are cognitively straining and likely to
impair our cognitive performance.
Information and communication technology and artificial intelligence continue to
develop, which has provoked changes in all contexts and will continue to do so. In work
life, these changes can lead to job intensification and increase the cognitive demands in
work. For instance, a growing number of knowledge work tasks require working with
abstract knowledge and acquiring, creating and applying knowledge, as well as contin-
uous on-the-job learning [11-12]. Moreover, new technologies, work designs and envi-
ronments such as open-plan offices have made cognitive load prevalent in current work
and life: disruptions such as speech and office noise, interruptions, and information
overload manifested as multitasking or through new interaction technologies can have
harmful consequences and hinder task performance [13-17]. It is important that cogni-
tive ergonomics constantly updates its view on the changes in the socio-technical con-
text, related cognitive demands, and the relevance they have for human cognitive per-
formance and well-being [18].
2 Conclusions
We argue that the societal contribution of cognitive ergonomics will increase in the
future if we define both the cognitive human and the cognitive socio-technical context
in more detail and constantly update the relevance of new research findings from the
perspective of human–context interaction. In research, we need to apply the detailed
findings of cognitive psychology and demonstrate how cognitive limitations manifest
in conventional everyday tasks. Cognitive ergonomics can play a theory-building role
in providing applied cognitive psychology models that can handle complex everyday
tasks in which no single cognitive function is dominant, and in which different func-
tions work in concert [19].
As regards designing the socio-technical context, recognizing the changes in the cog-
nitive demands in the context allows the identification on the one hand, of the possibil-
ities they can provide in enhancing human cognitive performance, well-being, and
CE is a Matter of Cognitive Factors 49
productivity; and on the other hand, the risks to cognitive performance and well-being
if the new demands exceed human cognitive abilities and capacities and lead to cogni-
tive failure or impair (occupational) safety and health [20-21]. Cognitive ergonomics
can offer a detailed description of the cognitive aspects of the context and enhance the
study of the antecedents and moderating factors in the socio-technical context that pre-
dict human behaviour and interaction [22].
We also need new methods that quickly provide us with a general overview of the
cognitive demands and cognitively demanding conditions in the new contexts and
within any task. Changes in socio-technical contexts now pertain to all fields – not only
the high-demand and safety-critical tasks that have previously been the focus of human
factors studies. Some excellent examples update our view of specific socio-technical
contexts, such as models that describe the complexity of interruptions in health care
and their consequences [23]. However, whereas many of the job and task analysis meth-
ods currently in use are valuable in research, they are often too time-consuming and
expensive to be realistic options for design purposes or in conventional workplaces with
limited resources. Therefore, we have developed a new cognitive ergonomics method
at the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health. This method quickly provides both a
general overview of the prevalence of different types of cognitive demands at work,
and a more detailed picture of the cognitive demands of the specific tasks and the work
environment.
In sum, cognitive ergonomics is a field that can anticipate how the changing cogni-
tive context around us will affect the cognitive human; our performance and related
productivity, as well as well-being on individual, organizational, and institutional lev-
els. We suggest that the concept of cognitive ergonomics should be more clearly de-
fined as the part of human factors that focuses on the cognitive aspects of both the
human and the socio-technical parties, whose interaction is at the core of cognitive er-
gonomics. The more we understand both parts of the equation, the more successfully
we can anticipate their interaction, which is also changing in line with the context
changes. For design, cognitive ergonomics should provide the means to model and pre-
dict how the new products and applications to be developed would either support or
hinder human performance in this context. To the fields of work design and job crafting
[24-25], cognitive ergonomics can bring the cognitive edge that is essential for design-
ing reformed work life.
Acknowledgements
I acknowledge comments on this position paper from my colleagues Teemu Paajanen
and Teppo Valtonen, with whom I am co-developing methods for cognitive ergonomics
and collaborating in various research and development projects at the Finnish Institute
of Occupational Health. I am thankful to our multidisciplinary team for the interdisci-
plinary discussions that extend my view beyond the field of cognitive psychology.
50 V. Kalakoski
References
1. HFES Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Homepage, https://www.hfes.org/, last ac-
cessed 2019-06-09.
2. IEA International Ergonomics Association Homepage, https://www.iea.cc/, last accessed
2019-02-01.
3. Endsley, M.R.: Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors
37, 32-64 (1995).
4. Endsley, M.R., Rodgers, M.D.: Situation awareness information requirements analysis for
en route air traffic control. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Annual Meeting 38 (1), pp. 71-75 (1994).
5. Baddeley, A.D., Hitch, G.: Working memory. In: Bower, G.H. (Ed.)
The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory 8, pp. 47-
89. Academic Press, New York (1974).
6. Cowan N .: The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental stor-
age capacity. Behavioral & Brain Sciences 24(1), 87-185 (2001).
7. Glanzer, M., Cunitz, A.R..: Two storage mechanisms in free recall. Journal of Verbal Learn-
ing and Verbal Behavior 5, 351-360 (1966).
8. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science
211, 453–458 (1981).
9. Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T., Tesch-Römer, C.: The role of deliberate practice in the ac-
quisition of expert performance. Psychological Review 100, 363-363 (1993).
10. Neubauer, S., Hublin, J.J., Gunz, P.: The evolution of modern human brain shape. Science
Advances 4(1), eaao5961 (2018).
11. Pyöriä, P.: The concept of knowledge work revisited. Journal of Knowledge Management
9(3), 116-27 (2005).
12. Sørensen, O.H., Holman, D.A.: Participative intervention to improve employee well-being
in knowledge work jobs: a mixed-methods evaluation study. Work & Stress 28(1), 67-86
(2014).
13. Jahncke. H., Hygge, S., Halin, N., Green, A.M., Dimberg, K.: Open-plan office noise: cog-
nitive performance and restoration. Journal of Environmental Psychology 31(4), 373-82
(2011).
14. Couffe, C., Michael, G.A.: Failures due to interruptions or distractions: a review and a new
framework. American Journal of Psychology 130(2), 163-81 (2017).
15. Foroughi, C.K., Werner, N.E., Nelson, E.T., Boehm-Davis, D.A.: Do interruptions affect
quality of work? Human Factors 56(7), 1262-71 (2014).
16. Duggan, G.B., Johnson, H., Sørli, P.: Interleaving tasks to improve performance: users max-
imise the marginal rate of return. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 71(5),
533-50 (2013).
17. Rennecker, J., Godwin, L.: Delays and interruptions: a self-perpetuating paradox of com-
munication technology use. Information and Organization 15(3), 247-66 (2005).
18. Woods, D., Dekker, S.: Anticipating the effects of technological change: a new era of dy-
namics for human factors. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 1(3), 272-82 (2000).
19. Logie, R.H., Trawley, S., Law, A.: Multitasking: multiple, domain-specific cognitive func-
tions in a virtual environment. Memory & Cognition 39(8), 1561-1574 (2011).
20. Wallace, J.C., Chen, G.: Development and validation of a work-specific measure of cogni-
tive failure: implications for occupational safety. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-
tional Psychology 78(4), 615-32 (2005).
CE is a Matter of Cognitive Factors 51
21. Elfering, A., Grebner, S., Ebener, C.: Workflow interruptions, cognitive failure and near-
accidents in health care. Psychology, Health & Medicine 20(2), 139-47 (2015).
22. Kalakoski, V.: Cognitive ergonomics. In: OSH-wiki Homepage,
https://oshwiki.eu/wiki/Cognitive_ergonomics, last accessed 2019-02-01 (2016).
23. Werner, N.E., Holden, R.J.: Interruptions in the wild: development of a sociotechnical sys-
tems model of interruptions in the emergency department through a systematic review. Ap-
plied Ergonomics 51, 244–254 (2015).
24. Parker, S.K., Morgeson, F.P., Johns, G.: One hundred years of work design research: looking
back and looking forward. Journal of Applied Psychology 102, 403-420 (2015).
25. Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., Derks, D.: The impact of job crafting on job demands, job re-
sources, and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 18, 230-240 (2013).