Jump to content

Draft:Socio-cognitive engineering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socio-Cognitive Engineering (SCE) is a transdisciplinary methodology for designing, developing, and evaluating hybrid human–artificial intelligence systems, emphasizing the integration of cognitive science, systems engineering, human factors, ethics, and practical expertise from domain experts. SCE facilitates human-centered design innovation through iterative, evidence-based, and value sensitive design processes involving diverse stakeholders. It aims to ensure that interactive intelligent systems are not only functionally effective but also intelligible, adaptive, and aligned with human needs and societal values.

Origins and Theoretical Foundations

[edit]

The term socio-cognitive reflects the mutual influence between individual cognitive processes and social dynamics, a central concern in educational psychology, social cognition, and human–computer interaction.[1] SCE evolved from foundational work in Cognitive Systems Engineering (CSE), which emerged in the 1980s to improve human performance in complex and high-risk domains such as aviation, nuclear power, and process control.[2]

The first notion of Socio-Cognitive Engineering as a design methodology was presented by Sharples et al. (2002), who proposed a stakeholder-centered process that integrates cognitive models, usability evaluation, and task analysis in human-centered system design.[3]

Subsequently, Neerincx and Lindenberg (2008) introduced Situated Cognitive Engineering (SCE), extending CSE principles with scenario-based design and cognitive task modeling for mission-critical applications.[4] The evolution into Socio-Cognitive Engineering was further formalized in Neerincx et al. (2019) through its application in health robotics. This work established a structured methodology for designing socially and ethically aware cognitive agents, exemplified by a robotic partner supporting children with type 1 diabetes.[5]

Methodological Framework

[edit]

SCE involves an iterative, four-phase methodology grounded in transdisciplinary research, design and empirical validation. Key sources informing its methodology include:

1. Foundation

[edit]

The foundation stage synthesizes core requirements and insights from three areas:

  • Operational Demands: For example, task and domain analysis grounded in ethnographic studies, work domain analysis [10], and goal-directed task modeling [11].
  • Human Factors and Cognitive Theories: For example, application of workload theory[12], mental models[13], and situation awareness frameworks [14] to support effective human interaction.
  • Technological Constraints and Opportunities: For example, exploration of AI architectures, interaction modalities, and sensor-actuator capabilities relevant to the use context.

2. Design Specification

[edit]

This phase defines system behavior and interaction in terms of:

  • Use Cases: Concrete, scenario-based schemes and narratives describing system functionality and user interaction[8].
  • Claims Analysis: Structured representations of hypothesized or evidence-based cause–effect relations between system features and user outcomes.[15]

3. Evaluation

[edit]

Evaluation is integral and recursive, informed by principles of mixed methods research:

  • Prototypes: Functional or partial implementations (physical or virtual artifacts, possibly with simulations) used to elicit user feedback and perform empirical testing.
  • Evaluation Methods: Quantitative (e.g., task performance, usability metrics) and qualitative (e.g., interviews, observations) techniques are combined to assess claims and guide refinements. The combination of methods (e.g., controlled experiments, cognitive walkthroughs, ethnographic observation, and field trials) allows for triangulation of results.[16][17]

4. Abstraction for Coherence and Reuse

[edit]

To establish generalization and ensure scalability and long-term value, SCE supports knowledge abstraction through:

  • Values: Ethical and societal values are articulated and operationalized as design requirements and evaluation criteria[9].
  • Design Patterns: Reusable configurations of features and interactions that address common design challenges across contexts [18].
  • Ontologies: Formal representations of domain knowledge, user tasks, and system functions to support model-driven engineering, system coherence and interoperability[19].

Applications

[edit]

SCE has been applied across various domains where human–AI collaboration is critical:

  • Health and Wellbeing: E-coaches, serious games, and social robots supporting chronic disease management and behavioral change.[5]
  • Space Exploration: Intelligent cognitive agents for astronaut support, such as ESA's MECA project.[20]
  • Traffic Management: Responsible agent-based workload harmonization in traffic management teams.[12]
  • Disaster Response: Robot-support and coordination platforms for emergency responders.[21]
  • Defense and Security: Human-machine teaming for situational awareness, threat assessment, and tactical decision-making.[22]

Significance

[edit]

SCE represents a mature and flexible methodology for hybrid intelligence design, enabling the development of interactive systems that are adaptive, intelligible, and socially embedded. By combining empirical methods, theoretical grounding, and value sensitivity, SCE contributes to the broader goal of creating responsible AI systems that respect and enhance human agency, well-being, and collaboration.

It aligns with emerging paradigms of human-centered AI, hybrid intelligence, and AI for social good, offering a practical and principled pathway for interdisciplinary design.

See Also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Sociocognitive. Wikipedia.
  2. ^ Rasmussen, Pejtersen, & Goodstein, 1994; Hollnagel & Woods, 2005.
  3. ^ Sharples, M., Jeffries, H., du Boulay, B., Teather, D., & du Boulay, G. (2002). Socio-cognitive engineering: A methodology for the design of human-centred technology. European Journal of Operational Research, 136(2), 310–323.
  4. ^ Neerincx, M. A., & Lindenberg, J. (2008). Situated cognitive engineering for complex task environments. Ashgate Publishing.
  5. ^ a b Neerincx, M. A., Van Vught, W., Blanson Henkemans, O., Oleari, E., Broekens, J., Peters, R., ... & Bierman, B. (2019). Socio-cognitive engineering of a robotic partner for child's diabetes self-management. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 6, 118. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2019.00118
  6. ^ Norman, D. A. (1986). The design of everyday things. Basic Books.
  7. ^ Vicente, K. J. (1999). Cognitive Work Analysis: Toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. CRC Press.
  8. ^ a b Carroll, J. M. (2000). Making use: scenario-based design of human–computer interactions. MIT Press.
  9. ^ a b Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H., & Borning, A. (2006). Value sensitive design and information systems. In Human-computer interaction and management information systems: Foundations, 348–372.
  10. ^ Vicente, K. J. (1999). Cognitive work analysis: Toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. CRC press.Endsley (1995)
  11. ^ Neerincx, M. A. (2003). Cognitive task load analysis: Allocating tasks and designing support. In D. A. Schraagen, S. F. Chipman, & V. L. Shalin (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive task design (pp. 283–306). CRC Press.
  12. ^ a b Harbers, M., & Neerincx, M. A. (2017). Value sensitive design of a virtual assistant for workload harmonization in teams. Cognition, Technology & Work, 19(2–3), 329–343.
  13. ^ Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Harvard University Press.
  14. ^ Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human factors, 37(1), 32-64.
  15. ^ McCrickard, D. S., Catrambone, R., Chewar, C. M., & Stasko, J. T. (2003). Establishing tradeoffs that leverage attention for utility: Empirically evaluating information display in notification systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(5), 547–582.
  16. ^ Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
  17. ^ Taherdoost, H. (2022). What are different research approaches? Comprehensive review of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method research, their applications, types, and limitations. Journal of Management Science & Engineering Research, 5(1), 53–63.
  18. ^ Van Zoelen, E., Mioch, T., Tajaddini, M., Fleiner, C., Tsaneva, S., Camin, P., ... & Neerincx, M. A. (2023). Developing team design patterns for hybrid intelligence systems. In HHAI 2023: Augmenting Human Intellect (pp. 3-16). IOS Press.
  19. ^ Rijgersberg-Peters, R., van Vught, W., Broekens, J., & Neerincx, M. A. (2023). Goal Ontology for Personalized Learning and Its Implementation in Child's Health Self-Management Support. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 17, 903-918.
  20. ^ Neerincx, M. A. (2011). Situated cognitive engineering for crew support in space. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 15(5), 445–456.
  21. ^ Kruijff-Korbayová, I., Colas, F., Gianni, M., Pirri, F., de Greeff, J., Hindriks, K., ... & Worst, R. (2015). Tradr project: Long-term human-robot teaming for robot assisted disaster response. KI-Künstliche Intelligenz, 29, 193–201.
  22. ^ De Greef, T. E. G., Henryk, F. A., & Neerincx, M. A. (2010). Adaptive automation based on an object-oriented task model: Implementation and evaluation in a realistic C2 environment. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 4(2), 152–182.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Socio-cognitive_engineering&oldid=1288297300"