Although it is an interesting approach, and the designers seem to be “discovering” valuable insights into the experience of driving for the elderly, I can’t help but think this simulation is wildly skewed from the experience it attempts to mimic. My concern is similar to the criticism leveled at those who suggest closing your eyes in order to simulate the experience of being blind. Even a cursory study of perception reveals why this does not work. Absolute blindness is (typically) not the perception of darkness, but rather the absence of visual sensation at all - an experience that cannot be simulated by those with functioning visual systems. Similarly, I suspect that the experience of operating a vehicle as an elderly person is very different from a young person wearing a constricting body suit. Being old is probably not like working out on a Bowflex, and the movement resistance provided by Nissan’s suit seems to follow exactly that kind of dynamic. Furthermore, asking someone to wear a suit that simulates another individual’s experience will powerfully prime a stereotypical, caricatured behavior of that target demographic. You can try it yourself - speak very very slowly, with long drawn out vowels. Did you drop your voice so that it sounded a bit more like a slow-motion playback from an audio recording? That’s the result of cognitively pairing “slow speech” with “lowered voice” - two independent variables. Ask others to do the same thing - in a majority of cases, I suspect that they will unwittingly lower their voice due to the unconscious link between slowed speech and lowered voice. These Nissan designers are likely doing the same thing. As soon as the head of the project states, “this suit will simulate the experience of being elderly”, watch them adopt elderly-typical behaviors even before putting the suit on.

Despite this flaw, I suspect that this method of simulating the difficulties faced by real-world users will become more widespread in the industry and ultimately lead to improved functional designs. But the improvement will be across demographic categories, not just for the elderly. Making a task artificially difficult in almost any way should effectively highlight its underlying weaknesses or critical components. The Nissan suit therefore serves as a filter on driving tasks, focusing design attention on the most difficult procedures, but not providing an approximation of the physical experience of elderly drivers as intended.

The Human/Social Sciences

What are we referring to? Somewhere between “Science” and “Humanities”, with a few distinguishing features, some of which are outlined below.

1. Interdisciplinary

If compared with other fields of science, the human sciences fit in as the most interdisciplinary – building up from the natural sciences and adding its own particular input like so:

Physics > Chemistry > Biology > Psychology, Economics, Political Science, Sociology

The question then arises: is it valid to compare the social sciences directly to the natural sciences? The above array looks like the children’s game of “Which one doesn’t belong?”. In part, this is due to the prevalence of qualitative data in social science, although the above progression also depicts the progressive increase in the amount of qualitative data used to define theories in each field. In the human sciences, theories must connect quantitative and qualitative information in a meaningful, rigorous way for anyone to pay attention. If no one pays attention, the theory fails.

2. Modeling behavior

Similar to any natural science, the human sciences propose and debate models of behavior – with the distinction that there are far more recognized variables, each with far more variation than in any natural science. Therefore, models that attempt to simplify this complexity naturally rely on statistical probability rather than absolute predictions – exceptions to a proposed model do not invalidate it, but simply show that unaccounted forces are also at work - the possibility proof.

Many social science theories also tend to place emphasis on emergent rather than reductionist properties of behavior – they are more interested in what happens when you put many pieces together rather than trying to explain behaviors only in terms of their component parts.

3. The “so what?” test

Because the human sciences connect more explicity with everyday human behavior, it is sometimes easier to recognize how to apply even the most cutting-edge research (unlike many natural sciences and pure humanities, which often come across as abstract or obscure), and this goal is built into the research community – when something is modeled, it should clearly answer the question “so what?”. Technology becomes useful by applying the human sciences.

Theory of Knowledge questions:

• Is it valid to use the scientific method to study human behavior? What modifications should be made? Since it is impossible to control every variable, is it valid to experiment in the human sciences?
• What about free will? How does the possibility of free will affect our ability to study humans
• What criteria should be applied when evaluating theories in the human sciences (utility, predictive power, most general, most specific)? Is the “so what?” test important?
• How are these criteria different from those in other areas of knowledge?
• How is the concept of “proof” different in the human sciences compared with the natural sciences?
• How does this affect our claims to be correct (to “know”)?
• How does the balance between emotion and reason differ between the natural sciences, human sciences, and humanities?

The first article, “At a Certain Age, Simplicity Sells in High-Tech Gadgets“, closely relates to a previous post about how one of technology’s outgroups - the baby boomers and older - sometimes convinces itself that it cannot understand new technology. The column emphasizes the importance of “simplicity”, although it sounds like the author (Alina Tugend) has been convinced that dumbing down technology is the answer to making it appealing to her age group and older. I still take issue with this perspective, but it’s a good read nonetheless (except for the 1-sentence-per-paragraph style!). Hopefully as new approaches to developing technologies for this group appear (e.g. retaining complexity, but making function more intuitive and valuable), this particular group will feel much more catered to by the cutting edge.

The second article explores exactly this kind of alternative approach to design, as it profiles the work of Jan Chipchase, author of one my favorite design blogs, Future Perfect: “Can the Cellphone Help End Global Poverty?“. It offers some excellent insight into how telecommunication is may provide millions/billions of people in developing countries a way to more effectively enter and compete effectively in the marketplace at many different levels. Look out for observations from Mumbai (Bombay), where I have marveled at digital satellite dishes poking above the densely packed corrugated iron roofs of the slums since I first arrived in India. Also consider the human-centered design issues raised, and how they differ from popular/Western conceptions of what effective/good/appropriate design entails. Good stuff.

1. Leave a comment, I’d love to hear from you and know what you’re doing, and how your research is going.
2. Check out the NSF funding for Engineering Design, and the projects that have been supported in the past.

I’ve mentioned the NSF before, and have taken my first steps toward learning more about this branch of the government, which supports a wide range of research in the natural and social sciences. My sense is that it is quite a competitive, but supportive, agency that is regularly the first stop for grant applications in cognitive science and related fields. This makes sense, as it is officially a non-political and non-commercial funding agency, unlikely to impose ideologically-motivated restrictions on what and how to research. Of course, the funding is usually offered toward research in particular areas of interest (and the question is, whose interest, exactly?). I may be nai¨ve in this, and no doubt once I start doing my own research and apply for grants, I will re-evaluate my benevolent view of the NSF, but at the moment I’m generally pleased that it exists and is “fighting the good fight”. I will likely investigate the NSF funding website more in-depth at some point in the future and give a more thorough appraisal.

Funding organizations are curious beasts, particularly government bodies that ask for little or nothing in return for what can be significant amounts of money. Many of the projects listed under Engineering Design, for example, have each received hundreds of thousands of dollars over the duration of the investigations (which can last several years and employ many individuals). If a browse through the recent research abstracts supported by this particular funding program fails to convince you that government funding of scientific research is key to advancement, you’re not paying attention. Sure, similar work is being done around the world in private research labs in Fortune 500 tech companies, but those investigators are isolated from each other and may not ultimately contribute to a shared understanding of the principles they investigate. This is the compromise of the free competitive market - it maintains strong (financial) incentives to advance the state of the art, but very little incentive to cooperate and collaborate in that endeavor.

This competitive state presents a number of risks for the interdisciplinary nature of cognitive science and related fields (such as Engineering Design). Collaboration is at their core, and a competitive environment can strangle innovation. Academia, ironically, is therefore perfectly suited for theoretical research into these “applied” disciplines. The problem, of course, is that academic research centers generally cannot independently fund themselves - and although top tier research universities have endowments swelling at a rate that may eventually overcome this barrier, the majority of labs will continue to be under-supported in their work. Currently, no-strings government support is key, and I’m excited to see the breadth of funding offered through the NSF in particular. Anyone know of other major sources of academic funding that are less well known? Where have you applied for funding, and what was your experience? Would you be hesitant to accept funding from a private organization?

I will not be actively advertising or promoting this blog until I do a major visual and structural refresh, which likely won’t come until later this summer, when I have a new laptop, software, and upgraded internet connection. Currently, I’m on a 3 year old iBook G4 that is starting to really show it’s age. Perfectly adequate for word processing, but not for graphic design or web development. So, as soon as I can plug into education-discount Adobe CS3 and a blazing new Macbook Pro equipped for the long haul in graduate school, I’ll put my all into making this site look and act the way I want it to. Hopefully by then I will have enough content to pull in more readers as well, so with the perfect storm of an effective interface and quality content, I’ll be golden.

Till then, feel free to browse the (quite limited) archive!

-Mike

Although Friedman may indeed be a little too simplistic in his bold claims about the world being flat in general, the specific problems he highlights about the Nano are quite real, and claiming that he doesn’t know what he is talking about because he is American, or because he is not Indian, or because he is relatively affluent avoids discussing the issues in depth. While Vivek Sharma’s popular response attempts to cover the main criticisms, he ends up accepting the truth of the Friedman’s argument with the added qualification that other contributing factors should be addressed as well. Without any defenses that stick, we (or the Indian government, or Tata itself) are stuck with some very real problems that need to be addressed.

The simple version of Friedman’s claim is this:

1. the Tata Nano is cheap
2. cheap cars will make car ownership possible for many people who currently can only afford motorcycles
3. cars are bigger than motorcycles and more polluting
4. India already suffers from dense vehicle traffic and excessive pollution levels
5. therefore the Tata Nano will exacerbate existing problems for the sake of increased car ownership

Throw in safety concerns and the government’s inertia in developing road infrastructure throughout the country, and you have a problem worth considering deeply. Not because “the West” (or Mr. Friedman) knows better, not because it is jealous, not because it values the environment more than individuals, but because the Tata Nano makes significant tradeoffs that should be recognized and addressed more comprehensively by everyone involved. Unfortunately, however, any large democracy (India proudly points out that it is the world’s largest) is ultimately too ungainly to respond effectively, and with the incredibly wealth disparity, money will continue to have the final vote, either through corruption or simply through its popular appeal in the public’s imagination and the sway it has through that.

If the success of Bollywood is any indication, India is a country of dreamers, and Friedman’s article was not a renunciation of their dream. It was instead a call for them to dream about solutions that do not ignore the very real problems that already exist. Dreams that allow the country to leap over the suffocating bind of shortsighted initiatives. The potential is well recognized, but appropriate guidance and support is still somewhat thin on the ground, so profit-driven corporations and vested political interests can still step in and determine the direction of things.

On the trucks that storm along the highways, there are two frequently-spotted messages painted on the rear bumper: “Horn OK Please” and “India is Great”. You have to be here in order to understand the context for the first message. The second, in its ubiquity, embodies the country’s idealism. One of India’s great strengths is believing in its ability to move into a prosperous future. One of its greatest challenges is not allowing that belief to be harnessed and directed in ignorance of the consequences.

“Can I move?” Sundance says. “I’m better when I move.” The owner, confused, ultimately grants permission for Sundance to move when he fires, and with a quickdraw, ducking action, Sundance shoots the stone repeatedly dead-on.

It’s an entertaining scene, but it also connects with newly-developing theories in cognitive psychology about the relationship between perception, action, and cognition.

Watching great speakers give presentations, whether at TED or in class, it is easy to see that action is as much a part of their thinking as the words themselves. Recent research into how gestures affect communication and learning reveal the dynamic link between physical and cognitive action, and there is a growing awareness of how such principles can be put to our advantage.

A recent article in the New York Times connects the phenomenon with a growing emphasis on bilateral processing in the brain, with the claim that society has a growing awareness and need for “right-brain” thinking to encourage creative solutions to difficult challenges. It outlines the experience of a group of Halliburton employees who were encouraged to pictorially sketch a problem that had been standing over them for some time, with the result being that they quickly arrived at an “obvious” solution. This outcome can be interpreted in several ways. The article suggests that the visualization itself was key to finding a solution - putting ideas on paper in visual (rather than semantic) form helped “connect the dots” for the participants. However, I contend that it was the physical act of drawing that most strongly contributed to finding the solution - the drawings as artifacts are (nearly) irrelevant. Drawings in invisible ink - or just gestured in the air - might sufficiently stimulate bilateral thinking.

This has a few interesting implications. First, the contralateral organization of sensory and motor processing in the brain suggests that stimulation of the right hemisphere would be most effectively done by engaging the left hand. One of Albert Sperry’s more interesting demonstrations of the behavioral effects of splitting the brain by cutting the corpus callosum was when a patient was presented with a simple object in their left visual field (processed by the right brain), they were unable to vocalize what they had seen (a generally left-brain function), but were able to draw it using their left hand, but not their right. In “normal” patients who had an intact corpus callosum (and therefore strong communication between hemispheres of the brain), of course, there was no inability to verbally identify what had been presented - the right hemisphere effectively let the left brain know how to respond.

The conceptual leap is made between knowing that sensations or muscle movements are processed in a particular hemisphere and asserting that those functions have a cascading stimulating effect on other processes in that hemisphere (such as the nebulous “creativity” in the right hemisphere or the abstract “numerical ability” in the left). Many self-help books propose that you “visualize your goals” - with the implication being that if you can see where you want to be, you’ll be able to better determine how to get there. But what if this visualization process (which loosely correlates to activity in the right hemisphere*) itself stimulates the out-of-the-box thinking that is necessary to tackle problems in a new way? Although choosing to visualize the goal may appear logical, would visualizing anything similarly stimulate creative processing? Maybe - I leave that as an exercise for the reader.

A more fundamental point is that action cannot be separated from cognitive processes - as Dr. David Kirsh recently mentioned in a conversation I had with him, “the gesture is my thinking”. Movement, particularly in the structured mode of drawing or creating something physical, broadens the scope of your thinking. It helps offload some amount of cognition onto the world outside your head - a step toward distributed cognition. It’s an effective step toward moving beyond any sort of mental block, whether you are writing an essay, setting personal goals, or organizing an event.

So if you’re stuck on a problem that you just can’t sort out, stop and doodle. Carry around a jar of Play-dough. Pick a leaf and make it into interesting shapes. Learn origami. Do something. It will have at least two positive effects: 1) stimulate creative processing in your brain, and 2) reduce the cognitive load of head-concentrated thinking. Implications for design? Get the user to move.

—

* “Right brain” and “left brain” are gross generalizations about the location of function, and should be treated more metaphorically than figuratively. In fact, most left/right brain distinctions fail entirely for left-handed people, including the old stalwart of localized brain function, language. Broca’s and Wernke’s areas are nearly impossible to identify, and even emotional processing appears far more distributed in left-handed individuals. If you’re left handed, you should feel special, although it will very likely preclude you from many neuroscientific investigations. You make the data fuzzy.

Cognition and its underlying principles are powerful tools to use in understanding and interacting with the world, and Cognitive Lens is my attempt to explore how related but often isolated fields together through a cognitive perspective. Many of these fields are already being brought together by the Cognitive Science community, a field pioneered a number of professors at the University of California in San Diego. Cognitive Science has rapidly gained traction at many universities worldwide, with excellent graduate programs in Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and of course a number of universities in the United States.

Some of this growth is no doubt due to the superficial appeal of bringing its component fields together. It is exciting to think about using linguistics to determine principles in artificial intelligence (and bring the Turing Test within reach), applying neuroscience to developing computer science principles (distributed and ubiquitous computing, here we come), connecting human development studies to anthropology (children wage war almost daily in some contexts), using cognitive psychology in exploring computer interfaces (the social networking possibilities of multi-touch?), and bringing industrial designers into conversation with engineers (imagine the potential there!). These applications are cutting edge, but unlike much research in the natural sciences, they’re not obscure. They are very real and can have an influence on what you and I will be doing over the next few years as well as the next few decades. Cognition, as a unifying framework, introduces a human side to previously mechanical fields.

The question every cognitive scientist tries to answer is “How can cognition focus and harness the potential of disparate fields to effectively address real world challenges?”. You will rarely find a cognitive scientist who works alone, stuck in a lab. Lab work is critical, but requires the researcher to constantly keep people in mind. Researchers in cognitive science find little appeal in the idea of an ivory tower, where knowledge for knowledge’s sake reigns supreme. It’s a science, sure. Observe, hypothesize, test, theorize, observe… the methodology is similar, but not identical because it doesn’t seek unification nearly so strongly as the traditional sciences - the input and output to and from the real world (i.e. society) is critical and highly ingrained into the process.

The risk of such a powerful set of tools is that they may eventually lose their ability (or the researchers’ desire) to work effectively together. Division would break the interdisciplinary nature of the field and return each perspective to isolation. Luckily the youth of not only Cognitive Science, but also the fields it comprises has so far resulted in a great deal of enthusiasm and energy - few researchers in these fields have failed to show genuine excitement and curiosity about not only their work, but others exploring the cognitive sciences. It’s invigorating, and it is this energy that ultimately pushes the field forward.

If you’re not in the cognitive sciences, but you think your interests may connect somewhere, talk to someone in the field, and see what happens.

My position is that if ‘design’ continues to evolve and expand into so many areas, it risks losing meaning. ‘Graphic design’ is already losing its distinction from ‘illustration’ (although here’s a great article about the difference), and it is difficult if not impossible to have an accurate idea of what somebody actually does if they claim to be a ‘designer’. At the same time, the it is clear that there is an increasing need to expand design knowledge, appreciation, and application.

In order to really advance and make use of its growing influence, the design community must continue to refine its approach to improving performance and enjoyment. There are signs this is happening. Until recently, design has typically referred to creating a noun – an object, a product, a thing that can be pointed at and admired (successful design) or derided (unsuccessful design). But more and more attention is being given to another application – designing verbs. The formula for successfully designing verbs is mad-libs simple. Choose a verb. Any verb (“learn”). Now think about it purposefully. Make it easier, faster, more efficient, more fun, more meaningful. Make it work right. The straightforward solution is to create a noun for the verb – a tool (”chalkboard”). Human beings are great with tools, and we habitually look to them for solutions - classic industrial design. One level abstracted from this is experience design itself, where the focus is on what people are doing, and finding out whether the nature of the task itself can be altered to improve performance (”interactive discussion”). It opens up the world of immersive experience, ideally improving your chosen verb for everyone, not just the well equipped.

In its broadest sense, design simply refers to purposeful creation – it is the link between imagination, problem solving, and productivity – and can be applied to almost any noun or verb. But think about which companies and people who are making the biggest difference in our ability to get things done, and you’ll see that they are not all that captivated by nouns, and are instead designing verbs.

To those of you who are not aware, the NSF GRFP is one of the most competitive fellowship programs for graduate study in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math related fields (this includes a fair amount of the social sciences as well!), and is also one of the most well-endowed. As a government program, it’s a free, although quite involved application in the fall, with awards made at the end of March/early April. Basically, if you’re awarded ‘the NSF’, you have complete financial flexibility to research at will in your chosen graduate program. Verah nahce.

If any of you are interested in applying next year, let me know in the comments and I can point you toward some resources I found when searching for some guidance in putting together my application. Just applying is a great experience, and can really focus your thinking in preparation for your other graduate application personal statements - it forces you to give a fairly detailed depiction of what you plan to do in graduate school.

You also get some invaluable feedback from the three evaluators of your application - along with your decision notification, there is a link to the scanned feedback forms filled out by the panel that reviewed your submission. This is the kind of information that can really shape the way you present yourself, and I’ll be sure to apply the lessons next year, when I re-apply.

First, a little background (which I will eventually put into an “about” page). I am from Wyoming, but am currently living in India, where I have been teaching psychology for two years at the Mahindra United World College (UWC) of India - a international secondary school in rural Maharashtra, about an hour outside of Pune, and about 4 hours from Mumbai. I am a graduate of the Li Po Chun United World College of Hong Kong (2002) and Duke University (2006), where I double majored in Electrical Engineering and Psychology, and I have recently enrolled in a PhD program in cognitive science at Teachers College, Columbia University, where I will study more closely the theoretical cognitive basis of design and instructive interaction with Barbara Tversky in the department of Human Development. I hope to bridge engineering and design through psychology, with particular emphasis on the nature of effective communication.

So this gives Cognitive Lens three primary audiences: engineers, designers, and psychologists (particularly of the cognitive persuasion). A group I also hope to connect with more generally are those undertaking research degrees of all sorts - including undergraduates considering grad school, Masters students working their way through deeper coursework, and Doctorate students engaging in research at the deepest levels. While I will not make this a chronicle of my school life, I certainly hope to share the lessons I learn while going through the (five-year) process.

Whether or not you fit neatly into the categories of people I’ve mentioned, I do hope that you will something interesting here. There are not enough forums for connecting academia with the outside world, and I refuse to be isolated in the Ivory Tower - hence my interest in cognitive science, a field that very quickly translates into useful applications in the real world.

My engineering side is quite “techie”, and while I can’t afford them, I try to keep up on the latest gadgets through sites like Gizmodo and Yanko Design. My design side tends toward interactive and experience design - I want to facilitate peoples engagement in a variety of experiences, and help develop more effective tools of all sorts. My psychology interests are primarily cognitive and social, although I am also fascinated by neuroscience.

Across all of these disciplines, I maintain a deep commitment to sustainable development in all its guises, from the green movement to appropriate technology to grassroot social activism. I admire the UWC ideals and have been powerfully shaped by my involvement with the movement as a student, teacher, and Indian National Committee member.

I will draw from all of these experiences when writing, and I hope that they will create connections with others from a variety of backgrounds. I hope you will find something interesting here, and maybe come across ideas and perspectives that enhance whatever it is that you want to do.

The risks of change blindness are obvious - if a system supervisor is blind to the appearance of a warning sign/light/sound, the consequences could be severe. It is important to be aware of the potential for this failure to occur and therefore design warning systems that invade awareness as aggressively as possible, but that is a simplistic and intuitive application, one that hardly needs reiterating in contemporary design. The more difficult, but potentially more valuable question is how this ‘blindness’ can actually enhance usability. Essentially, perceived change is information, and the goal of communicative design is to present appropriate information effectively. What does it mean, then, to utilize unperceived change to enhance usability? I have a few ideas, but I expect there are many others that could really enhance this undeveloped aspect of interface design.

One way to utilize change blindness might be when updating GUIs to include new functions in software. Although many people hope for radical enhancements to visual layout and function with each new version of software, once the visual interface has been tweaked to be highly usable (or it conforms to broad user interface guidelines such as Apple’s), it is often most effective to avoid changes so that users can continue to utilize the efficiency of habitual interaction with an interface. When new features are added, however, they may need space on the graphical interface - the visual presentation must change. The principles of change blindness suggest how to add visual elements to an interface without interfering with the previous version’s functionality. Users will be blind to the change when interacting “normally” with the program, but become aware of the new feature when they actively search for it. It is a way to add functionality gracefully. The radical changes Microsoft made when putting together the Office “Fluent” interface exemplifies the risks of breaking with convention, and the resulting loss of productivity. Hopefully, the short-term reduction in usability will be overcome by adaptation to new conventions , although the remaining visual complexity will continue to make almost any future addition difficult to find.

Although change blindness research has focused on visual perception, what about perception of function? I would be interested to see how ‘blind’ people are to changes in the way a thing operates - which extends into being aware of when a thing begins to fail. For complex systems, it is usually assumed that expert users are most effective at identifying potential problems, but is this related to the claim that novices are most susceptible to change blindness? If we can adjust visual interfaces to reduce change blindness, can we use similar principles to adjust the function of systems to reduce change blindness? For example, can car engines be developed in such a way that the early signs of failure - slight changes in normal vibration, particular smells, and other behaviors - are more salient and meaningful? This suggests different solutions than just creating a new sensor connected to a warning light on the dashboard. Acoustic and tactile feedback are key parts of the equation that until recently have been actively diminished in the name of ‘comfort’.

Change blindness, although superficially a failure of our perceptual systems, may in fact make some tasks easier - it is the result of selective attention, which may not always be helpful, but ultimately enhances our ability to maintain focus in the presence of distraction without any additional cognitive effort.