Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective:

A distributed cognitive system is a system in which cognitive processes are distributed between brain-based internal and environment-based external resources. In the current experiment, we examined the influence of metacognitive processes on external resource use (i.e., cognitive offloading) in such systems.

Background:

High-tech working environments oftentimes represent distributed cognitive systems. Because cognitive offloading can both support and harm performance, depending on the specific circumstances, it is essential to understand when and why people offload their cognition.

Method:

We used an extension of the mental rotation paradigm. It allowed participants to rotate stimuli either internally as in the original paradigm or with a rotation knob that afforded rotating stimuli externally on a computer screen. Two parameters were manipulated: the knob’s actual reliability (AR) and an instruction altering participants’ beliefs about the knob’s reliability (believed reliability; BR). We measured cognitive offloading proportion and perceived knob utility.

Results:

Participants were able to quickly and dynamically adjust their cognitive offloading proportion and subjective utility assessments in response to AR, suggesting a high level of offloading proficiency. However, when BR instructions were presented that falsely described the knob’s reliability to be lower than it actually was, participants reduced cognitive offloading substantially.

Conclusion:

The extent to which people offload their cognition is not based solely on utility maximization; it is additionally affected by possibly erroneous preexisting beliefs.

Application:

To support users in efficiently operating in a distributed cognitive system, an external resource’s utility should be made transparent, and preexisting beliefs should be adjusted prior to interaction.

Keywords

human systems integration situated cognition metacognition distributed cognition HCI

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Attneave

Arnoult

M. D.

(1956). The quantitative study of shape and pattern perception. Psychological Bulletin, 53(6), 452.

Bahner

J. E.

Hüper

A.-D.

Manzey

(2008). Misuse of automated decision aids: Complacency, automation bias and the impact of training experience. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(9), 688–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.06.001

Bakeman

(2005). Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs. Behavior Research Methods, 37(3), 379–384.

Benjamini

Hochberg

(1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 289–300.

Brainard

D. H.

(1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856897x00357

Cary

Reder

L. M.

(2002). Metacognition in strategy selection. In Metacognition (pp. 63–77). Boston, MA: Springer.

Cochran

W. G.

Cox

G. M.

(1950). Experimental designs. Oxford, England: Wiley.

Collin

C. A.

McMullen

P. A.

(2002). Using Matlab to generate families of similar Attneave shapes. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 34(1), 55–68.

Dunn

T. L.

Risko

E. F.

(2016). Toward a metacognitive account of cognitive offloading. Cognitive Science, 40(5), 1080–1127. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12273

10.

Gilbert

S. J.

(2015). Strategic use of reminders: Influence of both domain-general and task-specific metacognitive confidence, independent of objective memory ability. Consciousness and Cognition, 33, 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2015.01.006

11.

Gray

W. D.

W.-T.

(2004). Soft constraints in interactive behavior: the case of ignoring perfect knowledge in-the-world for imperfect knowledge in-the-head. Cognitive Science, 28(3), 359–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsci.2003.12.001

12.

Gray

W. D.

Sims

C. R.

W.-T.

Schoelles

M. J.

(2006). The soft constraints hypothesis: A rational analysis approach to resource allocation for interactive behavior. Psychological Review, 113(3), 461–482. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.3.461

13.

Hollan

Hutchins

Kirsh

(2000). Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 7(2), 174–196.

14.

Hollander

Wolfe

D. A.

(1973). Nonparametric statistical methods. New York, NY: Wiley.

15.

Huang

J. Y.

Tsai

C.-H.

Huang

S.-T.

(2012). The next generation of GPS navigation systems. Communications of the ACM, 55(3), 84–93.

16.

Hutchins

(1995). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19(3), 265–288. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1903_1

17.

Koriat

(1997). Monitoring one’s own knowledge during study: A cue-utilization approach to judgments of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(4), 349.

18.

Koriat

Helstrup

(2007). Metacognitive aspects of memory. In Magnussen

Helstrup

(Eds.), Everyday Memory (1st ed., p. 26). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

19.

Melton

A. W.

(1947). Apparatus Tests (Research Report). Washington, DC: Army Air Forces Aviation Psychology Program.

20.

Mueller

S. T.

Piper

B. J.

(2014). The psychology experiment building language (PEBL) and PEBL test battery. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 222, 250–259.

21.

National Transportation Safety Board. (1994). Stall and loss of control on final approach (Aircraft accident report No. 6308A).

22.

O’Hara

K. P.

Payne

S. J.

(1998). The effects of operator implementation cost on planfulness of problem solving and learning. Cognitive Psychology, 35(1), 34–70. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1997.0676

23.

Olejnik

Algina

(2003). Generalized eta and omega squared statistics: Measures of effect size for some common research designs. Psychological Methods, 8(4), 434.

24.

Parasuraman

Manzey

D. H.

(2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 52(3), 381–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720810376055

25.

Parasuraman

Molloy

Singh

I. L.

(1993). Performance consequences of automation-induced “complacency.” The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(1), 1–23.

26.

Parasuraman

Riley

(1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39(2), 230–253.

27.

Pelli

D. G.

(1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 437–442. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856897X00366

28.

Risko

E. F.

Dunn

T. L.

(2015). Storing information in-the-world: Metacognition and cognitive offloading in a short-term memory task. Consciousness and Cognition, 36, 61–74.

29.

Risko

E. F.

Gilbert

S. J.

(2016). Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 676–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002

30.

Risko

E. F.

Medimorec

Chisholm

Kingstone

(2014). Rotating with rotated text: A natural behavior approach to investigating cognitive offloading. Cognitive Science, 38(3), 537–564.

31.

Shepard

R. N.

Metzler

(1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171(3972), 701–703.

32.

Siegler

R. S.

Lemaire

(1997). Older and younger adults’ strategy choices in multiplication: Testing predictions of ASCM using the choice/no-choice method. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(1), 71.

33.

Storm

B. C.

Stone

S. M.

(2015). Saving-Enhanced Memory The benefits of saving on the learning and remembering of new information. Psychological Science, 26(2), 182–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614559285

34.

Walsh

M. M.

Anderson

J. R.

(2009). The strategic nature of changing your mind. Cognitive Psychology, 58(3), 416–440.

35.

Ward

A. F.

Duke

Gneezy

Bos

M. W.

(2017). Brain drain: The mere presence of one’s own smartphone reduces available cognitive capacity. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(2), 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1086/691462

36.

Wickens

C. D.

Dixon

S. R.

(2007). The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: A synthesis of the literature. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8(3), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220500370105

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.27 MB

Using Tools to Help Us Think: Actual but Also Believed Reliability Modulates Cognitive Offloading

Abstract

Objective:

Background:

Method:

Results:

Conclusion:

Application:

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material