Interactivity in map learning: The effect of cognitive load

Collaborative robots can augment human cognition in regret-sensitive tasks

Despite theoretical benefits of collaborative robots, disappointing outcomes are well documented by clinical studies, spanning rehabilitation, prostheses, and surgery. Cognitive load theory provides a possible explanation for why humans in the real world are not realizing the benefits of collaborative robots: high cognitive loads may be impeding human performance. Measuring cognitive availability using an electrocardiogram, we ask 25 participants to complete a virtual-reality task alongside an invisible agent that determines optimal performance by iteratively updating the Bellman equation. Three robots assist by providing environmental information relevant to task performance. By enabling the robots to act more autonomously-managing more of their own behavior with fewer instructions from the human-here we show that robots can augment participants' cognitive availability and decision-making. The way in which robots describe and achieve their objective can improve the human's cognitive ability to reason about the task and contribute to human-robot collaboration outcomes. Augmenting human cognition provides a path to improve the efficacy of collaborative robots. By demonstrating how robots can improve human cognition, this work paves the way for improving the cognitive capabilities of first responders, manufacturing workers, surgeons, and other future users of collaborative autonomy systems.

Task-Based Effectiveness of Interactive Contiguous Area Cartograms

Cartograms are map-based data visualizations in which the area of each map region is proportional to an associated numeric data value (e.g., population or gross domestic product). A cartogram is called contiguous if it conforms to this area principle while also keeping neighboring regions connected. Because of their distorted appearance, contiguous cartograms have been criticized as difficult to read. Some authors have suggested that cartograms may be more legible if they are accompanied by interactive features (e.g., animations, linked brushing, or infotips). We conducted an experiment to evaluate this claim. Participants had to perform visual analysis tasks with interactive and noninteractive contiguous cartograms. The task types covered various aspects of cartogram readability, ranging from elementary lookup tasks to synoptic tasks (i.e., tasks in which participants had to summarize high-level differences between two cartograms). Elementary tasks were carried out equally well with and without interactivity. Synoptic tasks, by contrast, were more difficult without interactive features. With access to interactivity, however, most participants answered even synoptic questions correctly. In a subsequent survey, participants rated the interactive features as "easy to use" and "helpful." Our study suggests that interactivity has the potential to make contiguous cartograms accessible even for those readers who are unfamiliar with interactive computer graphics or do not have a prior affinity to working with maps. Among the interactive features, animations had the strongest positive effect, so we recommend them as a minimum of interactivity when contiguous cartograms are displayed on a computer screen.

Does active learning benefit spatial memory during navigation with restricted peripheral field?

Spatial learning of real-world environments is impaired with severely restricted peripheral field of view (FOV). In prior research, the effects of restricted FOV on spatial learning have been studied using passive learning paradigms - learners walk along pre-defined paths and are told the location of targets to be remembered. Our research has shown that mobility demands and environmental complexity may contribute to impaired spatial learning with restricted FOV through attentional mechanisms. Here, we examine the role of active navigation, both in locomotion and in target search. First, we compared effects of active versus passive locomotion (walking with a physical guide versus being pushed in a wheelchair) on a task of pointing to remembered targets in participants with simulated 10° FOV. We found similar performance between active and passive locomotion conditions in both simpler (Experiment 1) and more complex (Experiment 2) spatial learning tasks. Experiment 3 required active search for named targets to remember while navigating, using both a mild and a severe FOV restriction. We observed no difference in pointing accuracy between the two FOV restrictions but an increase in attentional demands with severely restricted FOV. Experiment 4 compared active and passive search with severe FOV restriction, within subjects. We found no difference in pointing accuracy, but observed an increase in cognitive load in active versus passive search. Taken together, in the context of navigating with restricted FOV, neither locomotion method nor level of active search affected spatial learning. However, the greater cognitive demands could have counteracted the potential advantage of the active learning conditions.

Map learning and working memory: Multimodal learning strategies

The current research investigated whether learning spatial information from a map involves different modalities, which are managed by discrete components in working memory. In four experiments, participants studied a map either while performing a simultaneous interference task (high cognitive load) or without interference (low cognitive load). The modality of interference varied between experiments. Experiment 1 used a tapping task (visuospatial), Experiment 2 a backward counting task (verbal), Experiment 3 an articulatory suppression task (verbal) and Experiment 4 an n-back task (central executive). Spatial recall was assessed in two tests: directional judgements and map drawing. Cognitive load was found to affect spatial recall detrimentally regardless of interference modality. The findings suggest that when learning maps, people use a multimodal learning strategy, utilising resources from all components of working memory.

Psychosocial Dysfunction in Major Depressive Disorder-Rationale, Design, and Characteristics of the Cognitive and Emotional Recovery Training Program for Depression (CERT-D)

INTRODUCTION

Psychosocial dysfunction is associated with poor longitudinal course of depression and is not sufficiently addressed by existing pharmaceutical or psychological treatments. The aim of the current study is to evaluate the efficacy of a novel intervention designed to improve psychosocial function in depressed individuals. Impaired cognition, emotion processing, and social cognition appear to underlie (i.e., cause) psychosocial dysfunction in depression. The current treatment will target functioning in these domains (i.e., cognition, emotion, social cognition) with repeated training tasks, following the rationale that therapeutic benefits will arise in psychosocial functioning. It is expected that personalizing treatment by participants' baseline functioning will enhance clinical efficacy, by comparison with standard treatment in which baseline functioning is not considered.

METHODS

The study is a randomized, controlled treatment (RCT), in which the efficacy of a personalized and standard intervention will be compared. Sixteen treatment sessions will be administered over an 8-week period. These treatments are designed to improve cognition, emotion processing and social cognition. Assessments of psychosocial functioning, as well as a number of secondary outcomes, will occur at baseline, 4 weeks (mid-RCT), 8 weeks (end of RCT), and in the observational period at baseline (week 9) and 3 and 6 months post-RCT. Recruitment will commence in July 2017, including subjects diagnosed with major depressive disorder according to DSM-IV-TR criteria.

DISCUSSION

This research will provide new insight into the roles of cognition, emotion processing, and social cognition in psychosocial dysfunction in depression. In addition, the relative clinical efficacy of personalized versus standard treatment approaches will be assessed.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the human research ethics committees of the Royal Adelaide Hospital and the University of Adelaide (ethics code: R20170611). The study has been registered with the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Registration number: ACTRN12617000899347, web link: http://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12617000899347p. The results of the current study will be published in academic journals following completion of recruitment in 2019. Data will be owned and retained by the University of Adelaide, with access restricted to the research team responsible for the study.