Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cognitive information flow analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The cognitive information flow analysis (CIFA) is introduced as a method to integrate results from cognitive task and work analyses in order to provide a focus on the necessary system information flow, which includes how information is produced, consumed, and transformed by the various system functions and users. CIFA can be used as a tool to augment cognitive task and work analyses. This paper presents the CIFA technique, provides a case study that applies the CIFA method to existing goal-directed task analysis and modified cognitive work analysis results, and provides insight into CIFA’s use for informing the design of a human-robot system. CIFA augments the results provided by cognitive task and work analyses and can guide system design and development. CIFA differs from existing information flow techniques in that it allows representation of systems containing large numbers of users for highly complex and uncertain domains. Existing cognitive task and work analyses integration methods rely heavily on relational tables. CIFA specifically expresses the interconnectivity of the various system subcomponents, including partial ordering and parallelism, by fundamentally focusing on the information flow. CIFA also identifies both existing and potential, information bottlenecks and highlights teamwork.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

CBRNE:

Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive devices

CIFA:

Cognitive information flow analysis

GDTA:

Goal-directed task analysis

mCWA:

Modified cognitive work analysis

WDA:

Work domain analysis

US:

Unmanned vehicle specialist

DT:

Direct human teammate

IT:

Indirect human teammate

TL:

Team leader

DC:

Division chief

OC:

Operations chief

LS:

Logistics specialist

AM:

Staging area manager

References

  • Adams JA, Humphrey CM, Goodrich MA, Cooper JL, Morse BS, Engh C, Rasmussen N (2009) Cognitive task analysis for developing UAV wilderness search support. J Cogn Eng Decis Mak 3(1):1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almirao FM, da Silva FB, Scott SD, Cummings M (2007) Designing decision and collaboration support technology for operators in multi-UAV operations teams, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Humans and Automation Laboratory. Technical Report #HAL2007-02, Cambridge, MA

  • Annett J, Cunningham D (2000) Analysing command team skills. In: Schraagen JM, Chipman SF, Shalin VL (eds) Cognitive task analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, pp 401–415

    Google Scholar 

  • Boy GA (1998a) Cognitive function analysis. Ablex Publishing Corporation, Stamford

    Google Scholar 

  • Boy GA (1998b). Cognitive function analysis for human-centered automation of safety-critical systems. In: Proceedings of the 1998 ACM SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 265–272

  • Boy GA (2005) Decision making: a cognitive function approach. In: Schraagen JMC (ed) Proceedings of the seventh international on naturalistic decision making conference. Amsterdam, The Netherlands

  • Boy GA (2009a) Authority I increasingly complex human and machine collaborative systems: application to the future air traffic management construction. In: Proceedings of the international ergonomics association triennial congress

  • Boy GA (2009b) The Orchestra: a conceptual model for function allocation and scenario-based engineering in multi-agent safety-critical systems. In: Proceedings of the IEEE energy conversion congress and exposition, pp 187–193

  • Boy GA (ed) (2011) Cognitive function analysis I the design of human and multi-agent systems. In: The handbook of human-machine interaction: a human-centered design approach. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Surrey

  • Boy GA, Ferro D (2004) Using cognitive function analysis to prevent controlled flight into Terrain. In: Harris D (ed) Human factors for civil flight deck design. Ashgate, Burlington, pp 55–68

  • Crandall B, Klien G, Hoffman RR (2006) Working minds: A practitioner’s guide to cognitive task analysis. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings M (2003) Designing decision support systems for a revolutionary command and control domains. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA

  • Dennis J (1974) First version of a data flow procedure language. Programming Symposium. Institut de Programmation, University of Paris, Paris, France, pp 362–376

  • Dennis JB, Misunas DP (1974) A preliminary architecture for a basic data-flow processor. SIGARCH Comput Archit News 3(4):126–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diaper D, McKearney S, Hurne J (1998) Integrating task and data flow analyses using the pentanalysis technique. Ergonomics 41:1553–1582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drury J, Scholtz J, Yanco H (2003) Awareness in human-robot interactions. IEEE Int Conf Syst Man Cybern 1:912–918

    Google Scholar 

  • Endsley M, Bolté B, Jones D (2003) Designing for situation awareness: an approach to user-centered design. Taylor and Francis, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Essens JMD, Post WM, Rasker PC (2000) Modeling a command center. In: Schraagen JM, Chipman SF, Shalin VL (eds) Cognitive task analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, pp 385–399

    Google Scholar 

  • Flach J, Mulder M, van Paassen MM (2004) The concept of the situation in psychology. In: Banbury S, Tremblay S (eds) A cognitive approach to situation awareness: theory and application. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., Aldershot, pp 42–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez C (2004) Learning to make decisions in dynamic environments: effects of time constraints and cognitive abilities. Hum Factors 46(3):449–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E (ed) (2003) Handbook of cognitive task design. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey C (2009) Information abstraction visualization for human-robot interaction. PhD Thesis, Computer Science, Vanderbilt University. URL: http://www.vuse.vanderbilt.edu/~adamsja/Papers/HumphreyDissertation.pdf

  • Humphrey C, Adams JA (2009) Robotic tasks for CBRNE incident response. Adv Robotics 23:1217–1232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey C, Adams JA (2010) General visualization abstraction algorithm for directable interfaces: component performance and learning effects. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Hum Syst 40(6):1156–1167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphrey C, Adams JA (2011) Analysis of complex team-based systems: augmentations to goal-directed task analysis and cognitive work analysis. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 12(2):149–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson GA, Miller CA, Ho WH, Vicente KJ (2007) Integrating task- and work domain-based work analyses in ecological interface design: a process control case study. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A 37(6):887–905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston WM, Hanna JRP, Millar RJ (2004) Advances in dataflow programming languages. ACM Comput Surv 36(1):1–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaber DB, Segall N, Greene RS, Entzian K, Junginger S (2006) Using multiple cognitive task analysis methods for supervisory control interface design in high-throughput biological screening processes. Cogn Technol Work 8:237–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahn G (1974) The semantics of a simple language for parallel programming. In: Rosenfeld J (ed) Information processing. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp 471–475

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirwan B, Ainsworth LK (eds) (1992) A guide to task analysis. Taylor & Francis, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Laberge J, Ward N, Rakauskas M, Creaser J (2007) A comparison of work domain and task analyses for identifying information requirements: A case study of rural intersection decision support systems. In: Proceedings of the 51st human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, pp 298–302

  • Miller CA, Vicente KJ (2001) Comparison of display requirements generated via hierarchical task and abstraction-decomposition space analysis techniques. Int J Cogn Ergon 5(3):335–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murthy P, Lee E (2002) Multidimensional synchronous dataflow. IEEE Trans Signal Process 50(7):3306–3309

    Google Scholar 

  • Naikar N, Moylan A, Pearce B (2006) Analysing activity in complex systems with cognitive work analysis: concepts, guidelines and case study for control task analysis. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 7(4):371–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nehme CE, Scott SD, Cummings M, Furusho CY (2006) Generating requirements for futuristic heterogenous unmanned systems. In: Human factors and ergonomics society 50th annual meeting proceedings, vol 50, pp 235–239

  • Salmon PM, Stanton NA, Walker GH, Baber C, Jenkins DP, McMaster R, Young MS (2008) What is really going on? Review of situation awareness models for individuals and teams. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 9(4):297–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholtz J, Antonishek B, Young J (2005) Implementation of a situation awareness assessment tool for evaluation of human-robot interfaces. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A 35(4):450–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraagen JM, Rasker P (2003) Team design. In: Hollnagel E (ed) Handbook of cognitive task design. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, pp 753–786

    Google Scholar 

  • Schraagen JM, Chipman SF, Shalin VL (eds) (2000) Cognitive task analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Vicente K (1999) Cognitive work analysis: toward safe, productive and healthy computer-based work. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Yanco H, Drury J (2004) “Where am I?” Acquiring situation awareness using a remote robot platform In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on systems, man and cybernetics, vol 3, pp 2835–2840

  • Zachary WW, Ryder JM, Hicibothom JH (2000) Building cognitive task analyses and models of a decision-making team in a complex real-time environment. In: Schraagen JM, Chipman SF, Shalin VL (eds) Cognitive task analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, pp 365–383

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Nashville Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management and a long list of subject matter experts. The work was partially supported by a Vanderbilt University Discovery grant and NSF grants IIS-0519421 and IIS-0643100. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of these supporting organizations.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Vanderbilt University, VU Station B #351824, 2301 Vanderbilt Place, Nashville, TN, 37235-1824, USA

    Curtis M. Humphrey & Julie A. Adams

Authors
  1. Curtis M. Humphrey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julie A. Adams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie A. Adams.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Humphrey, C.M., Adams, J.A. Cognitive information flow analysis. Cogn Tech Work 15, 133–152 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-011-0198-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-011-0198-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation