Search

Evidence accumulation models (EAMs) are a class of computational cognitive model used to understand the latent cognitive processes that underlie human decisions and response times (RTs). They have seen widespread application in cognitive psychology and neuroscience. However, historically, the application of these models was limited to simple decision tasks. Recently, researchers have applied these models to gain insight into the cognitive processes that underlie observed behaviour in applied domains, such as air-traffic control (ATC), driving, forensic and medical image discrimination, and maritime surveillance. Here, we discuss how this modelling approach helps researchers understand how the cognitive system adapts to task demands and interventions, such as task automation. We also discuss future directions and argue for wider adoption of cognitive modelling in Human Factors research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests None declared by authors., (Crown Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Humans increasingly use automated decision aids. However, environmental uncertainty means that automated advice can be incorrect, creating the potential for humans to act on incorrect advice or to disregard correct advice. We present a quantitative model of the cognitive process by which humans use automation when deciding whether aircraft would violate requirements for minimum separation. The model closely fitted the performance of 24 participants, who each made 2,400 conflict-detection decisions (conflict vs. nonconflict), either manually (with no assistance) or with the assistance of 90% reliable automation. When the decision aid was correct, conflict-detection accuracy improved, but when the decision aid was incorrect, accuracy and response time were impaired. The model indicated that participants integrated advice into their decision process by inhibiting evidence accumulation toward the task response that was incongruent with that advice, thereby ensuring that decisions could not be made solely on automated advice without first sampling information from the task environment.

Event-based prospective memory (PM) refers to the cognitive processes required to perform a planned action upon encountering a future event. Event-based PM studies engage participants in an ongoing task (e.g., lexical decision-making) with an instruction to make an alternative PM response to certain items (e.g., items containing "tor"). The Prospective Memory Decision Control (PMDC) model, which provides a quantitative process account of ongoing-task and PM decisions, proposes that PM and ongoing-task processes compete in a race to threshold. We use PMDC to test whether, as proposed by the Delay Theory of PM costs, PM can be improved by biasing decision-making against a specific ongoing-task choice, so that the PM process is more likely to win the race. We manipulated bias in a lexical decision task with an accompanying PM intention. In one condition, a bias was induced against deciding items were words, and in another, a bias was induced against deciding items were non-words. The bias manipulation had little effect on PM accuracy but did affect the types of ongoing-task responses made on missed PM trials. PMDC fit the observed data well and verified that the bias manipulation had the intended effect on ongoing-task processes. Furthermore, although simulations from PMDC could produce an improvement in PM accuracy due to ongoing-task bias, this required implausible parameter values. These results illustrate the importance of understanding event-based PM in terms of a comprehensive model of the processes that interact to determine all aspects of task performance.

Performing deferred actions in the future relies upon Prospective Memory (PM). Often, PM demands arise in complex dynamic tasks. Not only can PM be challenging in such environments, the processes required for PM may affect the performance of other tasks. To adapt to PM demands in such environments, humans may use a range of strategies, including flexible allocation of cognitive resources and cognitive control mechanisms. We sought to understand such mechanisms by using the Prospective Memory Decision Control (Strickland, Loft, Remington, & Heathcote, 2018) model to provide a comprehensive, quantitative account of dual task performance in a complex dynamic environment (a simulated air traffic control conflict detection task). We found that PM demands encouraged proactive control over ongoing task decisions, but that this control was reduced at high time pressure to facilitate fast responding. We found reactive inhibitory control over ongoing task processes when PM targets were encountered, and that time pressure and PM demand both affect the attentional system, increasing the amount of cognitive resources available. However, as demands exceeded the capacity limit of the cognitive system, resources were reallocated (shared) between the ongoing and PM tasks. As the ongoing task used more resources to compensate for additional time pressure demands, it drained resources that would have otherwise been available for PM task processing. This study provides the first detailed quantitative understanding of how attentional resources and cognitive control mechanisms support PM and ongoing task performance in complex dynamic environments. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Remembering to perform a planned action upon encountering a future event requires event-based Prospective Memory (PM). PM is required in many human factors settings in which operators must process a great deal of complex, uncertain information from an interface. We study event-based PM in such an environment. Our task, which previous research has found is very demanding (Palada, Neal, Tay, & Heathcote, 2018), requires monitoring ships as they cross the ocean on a display. We applied the Prospective Memory Decision Control Model (Strickland, Loft, Remington, & Heathcote, 2018) to understand the cognitive mechanisms that underlie PM performance in such a demanding environment. We found evidence of capacity sharing between monitoring for PM items and performing the ongoing surveillance task, whereas studies of PM in simpler paradigms have not (e.g., Strickland et al., 2018). We also found that participants applied proactive and reactive control (Braver, 2012) to adapt to the demanding task environment. Our findings illustrate the value of human factors simulations to study capacity sharing between competing task processes. They also illustrate the value of cognitive models to illuminate the processes underlying adaptive behavior in complex environments. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Human performance in complex multiple-task environments depends critically on the interplay between cognitive control and cognitive capacity. In this paper we propose a tractable computational model of how cognitive control and capacity influence the speed and accuracy of decisions made in the event-based prospective memory (PM) paradigm, and in doing so test a new quantitative formulation that measures two distinct components of cognitive capacity (gain and focus) that apply generally to choices among two or more options. Consistent with prior work, individuals used proactive control (increased ongoing task thresholds under PM load) and reactive control (inhibited ongoing task accumulation rates to PM items) to support PM performance. Individuals used cognitive gain to increase the amount of resources allocated to the ongoing task under time pressure and PM load. However, when demands exceeded the capacity limit, resources were reallocated (shared) between ongoing task and PM processes. Extending previous work, individuals used cognitive focus to control the quality of processing for the ongoing and PM tasks based on the particular demand and payoff structure of the environment (e.g., higher focus for higher priority tasks; lower focus under high time pressure and with PM load). Our model provides the first detailed quantitative understanding of cognitive gain and focus as they apply to evidence accumulation models, which - along with cognitive control mechanisms - support decision-making in complex multiple-task environments., (Crown Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)