Cognitive Design

One of the major causes of unwanted behaviors (unhealthy habits, over consumption, unsafe practices, corruptions, etc.) is that the artifacts we define to manage them – everything from weight loss programs, workplace incentives and government policies – don’t reflect how our minds actually work.  They operate in a way that fails to respect the importance of  low cognitive load, support for the psychology of self-regulation,  emotional energy in behavior change or the non-rational calculus of visceral factors (meanings, urges, cravings, etc.) that strongly shape our cognition.  

Ignoring how the mind works in the design of your artifact for behavior change is a fatal flaw.  Indeed, designs that change behavior put cognition first.    

The recent issue of Science Magazine focused on Education & Technology offers some insight into this point. They discuss why innovations such as using video game effects to design educational programs have not taken off.    Education is an important element of many behavior change efforts and video games have proven to be one of the most naturally powerful devices for accelerating cognition.  Yet the attempt to develop serious games, or games designed to teach and change behaviors rather than just entertain, have not scaled up.  

(more…)

Posit science just released the IMPACT study, the largest ever clinical trial aimed at evaluating the effects of systematic brain training on memory and processing speed in older adults.

The results included increased processing speed on the training task, a 10-year memory improvement and a positive impact on daily living tasks (e.g. I can remember what I need to get at the store without writing it down).

The IMPACT study provides evidence that age-related cognitive decline can be delayed or reversed. This is an important finding for designers focused on creating services, products and experiences for older adults.

Check out a demo here.

Here is a s short video on the science of cute that lists five infantile features that cause us to see something as cute. These include disproportionately large heads, large low set eyes, button nose, soft round bodies and a waddling gate.

You will find these features being used in a wide variety of artifacts – toys, characters, emoticons, service robots, etc. in a way meant to invoke a parental instinct.     

The FDA just approved (under the humanitarian device exception) a deep brain stimulation implant to help control treatment-resistive obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). The device is aptly called Reclaim and was developed by Medtronic. According to an FDA press release: 

“The Reclaim system uses a small electrical generator known as a pulse generator to create electrical stimulation that blocks abnormal nerve signals in the brain. This small battery-powered device is implanted near the abdomen or the collar bone and connected to four electrodes implanted in the brain through an insulated electric wire known as the lead. Two device systems may be implanted to stimulate both sides of the brain or one device may be implanted with two lead outputs. ”

Not offered as a cure or even as a substitute for medication it is still a good example of how we are using insights from cognitive science to design new artifacts – in this case a therapy.   Additional applications (e.g. depression) are now in clinical trials.

A major challenge in cognitive design is modeling psychological (thinking, affective, motivational, volitional) processes, structures and content. To design for cognition you must understand how it is working (or not) within the groups and artifacts of interest.  

It is best to start any modeling effort with a context diagram and drive down on various components using specific techniques until you have the information you need.  I illustrate one way to do this with the cognition at work template in a brief slide presentation.  

Recently, I have been experimenting with a new technique, the macrocognitive modeling procedure (MMP) developed by  researchers at the Institute for Human and Machine Cognition.  

(more…)

I am often asked by coaches and mentors for tips on “how the mind really works” that can help the folks they support.  Scientific American Mind has an excellent article filled with good cognitive tips on How to Avoid Choking Under Pressure.  

A key tip: If you have practiced extensively avoid self monitoring during performance. This is great advice because the cognitive processes of conscious monitoring can collide with processes that are automatic.  This has nothing to do with performance anxiety or fear, it is more like a “senior moment” created when we ask two very different regions of our brains to work together…. and they don’t.

Coaches sometimes suggest tactics that involve conscious self monitoring.  Unfortunately, these can be a prime cause of choking under pressure.  

If you are well-practiced just let the learning you have done unfold under the force of unconscious rather than conscious thinking. 

 The spirit of cognitive design is that a little bit of insight into how our minds actually work can profoundly reshape the products and services we sell, the social programs we invest in and even how we manage our organizations.  Indeed, designing for how minds work is a major driver of innovation for the 21st century. 

Take for example the idea of spaced learning and the novel approach to teaching that supports it.  In this approach learning material is presented or studied three times for 20 minutes and each repetition is separated by a 10 minute gap (or space) filled with physical activity.   

Learning that is spaced in this way is based on a recent finding from cognitive science that shows long-term memories form best when the network of nuerons encoding the memory is switched on and off multiple times.  The key is the time gap or space between stimulations. Doing physical activity (e.g. juggling) instead of another learning task insures that the network is switched off.  

The poster child for success with this approach is Monkseaton High School in the UK.  Their website has a great overview on spaced learning and the success of their program was recently highlighted in this blog post. There are even interviews on the book, Making Minds, which explores the implications of spaced learning for education.  

Designers make a contribution to society by translating the great revolutions in science into artifacts for all to use. This is the theme of a wonderful exhibit in 2008 on Design and the Elastic Mind at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City.  You can listen to an interview with the senior curator here or better, navigate the exhibit itself here.  

In many ways, the entire exhibit is focused on how design impacts our cognition.  The key theme is how designers help us adapt to change (or not) via the artifacts they create. Another dimension, more germane to the purpose of this blog, is how  designers have translated the revolution in cognitive science into artifacts we can all use. Browse the catalog and let me know what you think.

Are there artifacts in the exhibit that clearly showcase the recent revolution in cognitive science? 

And fairly dramatically according to a study, Blue or Red? Exploring the Effects of Color on Cognitive Task Performances, published on-line in Science Magazine and reported in the New York Times. 

Older color studies offer the cognitive designer conflicting results. This study aims to resolve the conflict and demonstrate that: 

1. Red produces an avoidance reaction and supports the cognition needed to do detail-oriented work. 

2. Blue produces an approach reaction and supports the cognition needed to do creative tasks.

These effects work by sparking emotions/moods which in turn support specific ways of thinking.

Instant messaging (IM) on computers and text messaging on phones is now an important form of communication. It happens everywhere and often concurrently or while people are doing other things such as studying, readings, attending a class, attending a meeting at work, driving a car or watching TV. This raises an important cognitive design question:

Should we redesign experiences to better support concurrent instant messaging, and if so, what do the new experiences look like?

For example, rather than banning IM in the classroom or corporate meeting room, should we rethink these activities to directly integrate IM? 

To take a cognitive approach to this question we need to understand what psychological needs IM meets and how it otherwise impacts perception, memory, thinking, learning, mood and interaction.  

I’ve been collecting research on this issue for sometime and just found an interesting article in the February issue of Cyberpsychology & Behavior on Distractions, Distractions: Does Instant Messaging Affect College Students’ Performance on a Concurrent Reading Comprehension Task?

The authors found that IM while reading slows you down but does not interfere with reading comprehension unless you really do a lot of it.

(more…)