Search

Complexity is the key element of software quality. This article investigates the problem of measuring code complexity and discusses the results of a controlled experiment to compare different views and methods to measure code complexity. Participants (27 programmers) were asked to read and (try to) understand a set of programs, while the complexity of such programs is assessed through different methods and perspectives: (a) classic code complexity metrics such as McCabe and Halstead metrics, (b) cognitive complexity metrics based on scored code constructs, (c) cognitive complexity metrics from state-of-the-art tools such as SonarQube, (d) human-centered metrics relying on the direct assessment of programmers’ behavioral features (e.g., reading time, and revisits) using eye tracking, and (e) cognitive load/mental effort assessed using electroencephalography (EEG). The human-centered perspective was complemented by the subjective evaluation of participants on the mental effort required to understand the programs using the NASA Task Load Index (TLX). Additionally, the evaluation of the code complexity is measured at both the program level and, whenever possible, at the very low level of code constructs/code regions, to identify the actual code elements and the code context that may trigger a complexity surge in the programmers’ perception of code comprehension difficulty. The programmers’ cognitive load measured using EEG was used as a reference to evaluate how the different metrics can express the (human) difficulty in comprehending the code. Extensive experimental results show that popular metrics such as V(g) and the complexity metric from SonarSource tools deviate considerably from the programmers’ perception of code complexity and often do not show the expected monotonic behavior. The article summarizes the findings in a set of guidelines to improve existing code complexity metrics, particularly state-of-the-art metrics such as cognitive complexity from SonarSource tools.

Error-related electroencephalographic (EEG) signals have been widely studied concerning the human cognitive capability of differentiating between erroneous and correct actions. Midfrontal error-related negativity (ERN) and theta band oscillations are believed to underlie post-action error monitoring. However, it remains elusive how early monitoring activity is trackable and what are the pre-response brain mechanisms related to performance monitoring. Moreover, it is still unclear how task-specific parameters, such as cognitive demand or motor control, influence these processes. Here, we aimed to test pre- and post-error EEG patterns for different types of motor responses and investigate the neuronal mechanisms leading to erroneous actions. We implemented a go/no-go paradigm based on keypresses and saccades. Participants received an initial instruction about the direction of response to be given based on a facial cue and a subsequent one about the type of action to be performed based on an object cue. The paradigm was tested in 20 healthy volunteers combining EEG and eye tracking. We found significant differences in reaction time, number, and type of errors between the two actions. Saccadic responses reflected a higher number of premature responses and errors compared to the keypress ones. Nevertheless, both led to similar EEG patterns, supporting previous evidence for increased ERN amplitude and midfrontal theta power during error commission. Moreover, we found pre-error decreased theta activity independent of the type of action. Source analysis suggested different origin for such pre- and post-error neuronal patterns, matching the anterior insular cortex and the anterior cingulate cortex, respectively. This opposite pattern supports previous evidence of midfrontal theta not only as a neuronal marker of error commission but also as a predictor of action performance. Midfrontal theta, mostly associated with alert mechanisms triggering behavioral adjustments, also seems to reflect pre-response attentional mechanisms independently of the action to be performed. Our findings also add to the discussion regarding how salience network nodes interact during performance monitoring by suggesting that pre- and post-error patterns have different neuronal sources within this network.

The ability to perceive and feel another person’ pain as if it were one’s own pain, e.g., pain empathy, is related to brain activity in the “pain-matrix” network. A non-core region of this network in Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex (DLPFC) has been suggested as a modulator of the attentional-cognitive dimensions of pain processing in the context of pain empathy. We conducted a neurofeedback experiment using real-time functional magnetic resonance imaging (rt-fMRI-NF) to investigate the association between activity in the left DLPFC (our neurofeedback target area) and the perspective assumed by the participant (“first-person”/“Self” or “third-person”/“Other” perspective of a pain-inducing stimulus), based on a customized pain empathy task. Our main goals were to assess the participants’ ability to volitionally modulate activity in their own DLPFC through an imagery task of pain empathy and to investigate into which extent this ability depends on feedback. Our results demonstrate participants’ ability to significantly modulate brain activity of the neurofeedback target area for the “first-person”/”Self” and “third-person”/”Other” perspectives. Results of both perspectives show that the participants were able to modulate (with statistical significance) the activity already in the first run of the session, in spite of being naïve to the task and even in the absence of feedback information. Moreover, they improved modulation throughout the session, particularly in the “Self” perspective. These results provide new insights on the role of DLPFC in pain and pain empathy mechanisms and validate the proposed protocol, paving the way for future interventional studies in clinical populations with empathic deficits 631E-936F-DCED | Ana Carolina Gonçalves Sousa Travassos N/A