@Osiurak.Navarro.ea2018

• Author(s):: François Osiurak, Jordan Navarro, Emanuelle Reynaud
• Title:: How Our Cognition Shapes and Is Shaped by Technology: A Common Framework for Understanding Human Tool-Use Interactions in the Past, Present, and Future
• Type:: Article
• Publication:: Frontiers in Psychology
• Abstract::
  • Over the evolution, humans have constantly developed and improved their technologies. This evolution began with the use of physical tools, those tools that increase our sensorimotor abilities (e.g., first stone tools, modern knives, hammers, pencils). Although we still use some of these tools, we also employ in daily life more sophisticated tools for which we do not systematically understand the underlying physical principles (e.g., computers, cars). Current research is also turned toward the development of brain-computer interfaces directly linking our brain activity to machines (i.e., symbiotic tools). The ultimate goal of research on this topic is to identify the key cognitive processes involved in these different modes of interaction. As a primary step to fulfill this goal, we offer a first attempt at a common framework, based on the idea that humans shape technologies, which also shape us in return. The framework proposed is organized into three levels, describing how we interact when using physical (Past), sophisticated (Present) and symbiotic (Future) technologies. Here we emphasize the role played by technical reasoning and practical reasoning, two key cognitive processes that could nevertheless be progressively suppressed by the proficient use of sophisticated and symbiotic tools. We hope that this framework will provide a common ground for researchers interested in the cognitive basis of human tool-use interactions, from paleoanthropology to neuroergonomics.
• Topics::
• Date:: 2018
• Date added:: October 23rd, 2020
• Citekey:: Osiurak.Navarro.ea2018
• URL:: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00293/full
• Tags:: Technology, Automation, brain-computer interface (BCI), cognition, framework, theory
• Basic outline: Proposes a framework to structure lit on how we interact with tech tools - physical technologies, complex ones we don't easily understand, symbiotic ones which link our brains to machines.
  • Terribly written :-(
• takeaway::
  • me My takeaway thoughts triggered by this, not directly said in the article*: When using physical technologies, there is a certain amount of creative freedom in choosing the best medium to communicate a message or send an idea. When using "sophisticated technologies" - interface-based technologies, where some designer or developer has given you tools, and you mostly use them as they intended - that takes away some of your creative freedom.

    • And when they only design to tap into certain qualities, or intelligences, or mediums of communication, that limits you
    • That's why mediums like Roam Research are interesting - they take for granted that they haven't thought of everything, but there's some core idea that they've successfully challenged. For Roam Research, it's the two ideas that 1) everything we think of is linked to other thoughts, that that's how the human brain works, we work with associative patterns, and that 2) the atomic thought is not at the page level, but at the bullet level.
    • * (Thought mostly triggered while reading description of Figure 2)
      • Although there is a lot there that I don't know I agree with, that for physical technologies (past) there is a lot of potential for misuse, less for sophisticated technologies (present), and less for symbiotic (future). But that seems to see misuse as a purely negative thing - when that can be a good thing, when used creatively and intentionally. That can be innovative.
    • And when they only design to tap into certain qualities, or intelligences, or mediums of communication, that limits you
    • That's why mediums like Roam Research are interesting - they take for granted that they haven't thought of everything, but there's some core idea that they've successfully challenged. For Roam Research, it's the two ideas that 1) everything we think of is linked to other thoughts, that that's how the human brain works, we work with associative patterns, and that 2) the atomic thought is not at the page level, but at the bullet level.

• Notes from skimming:

• Cognitive underpinnings:
  • Physical tools - need to understand the use of the tool, to picture what you intend to do with it. Want to do an action; picture what would need to be done; select a tool accordingly. assumption / argument
    • Toddler that uses spoon to mash tomato, calls it a "hammer" - use of tool in unusual way called technical misusage or functional creep (Osiurak et al., 2009) evidence
      • this technical reasoning could be unique to humans(Penn et al., 2008)

      • "Convergent evidence from neuropsychology and cognitive neuroscience indicates that technical reasoning could engage the area PF within the left inferior parietal cortex (Goldenberg and Spatt, 2009; Reynaud et al., 2016), which does not in macaques and other non-human primates (Orban and Caruana, 2014)" (pg. 2).

    • early stone tool use, shows basic understanding of fracture mechanics (Hovers, 2012) evidence
  • On the other hand, sophisticated technologies don't need this. The designer has "facilitated the interaction" (p. 2), and the user doesn't need to understand the physical properties. argument
    • Don't need as advanced cognitive processes as physical tools. Just associative learning and procedural memory (Osiurak and Heinke, 2017).
    • evidence - toddlers can use touchscreens easily, even though only have moderate use of physical tools (Beck et al., 2011)
    • evidence - non-humans such as baboons can use touchscreens very quickly, even when don't show use of being able to use physical tools (Claidière et al., 2014).
    • evidence - opposite patterns for brain damage: damage to left inferior parietal cortex show impaired use of physical tools but not interface-based technologies; but Parkinson's disease (impair procedural memory) shows the opposite.
• me My takeaway thoughts triggered by this, not directly said in the article*: When using physical technologies, there is a certain amount of creative freedom in choosing the best medium to communicate a message or send an idea. When using "sophisticated technologies" - interface-based technologies, where some designer or developer has given you tools, and you mostly use them as they intended - that takes away some of your creative freedom.
  • And when they only design to tap into certain qualities, or intelligences, or mediums of communication, that limits you
  • That's why mediums like Roam Research are interesting - they take for granted that they haven't thought of everything, but there's some core idea that they've successfully challenged. For Roam Research, it's the two ideas that 1) everything we think of is linked to other thoughts, that that's how the human brain works, we work with associative patterns, and that 2) the atomic thought is not at the page level, but at the bullet level.
  • * (Thought mostly triggered while reading description of Figure 2)
    • Although there is a lot there that I don't know I agree with, that for physical technologies (past) there is a lot of potential for misuse, less for sophisticated technologies (present), and less for symbiotic (future). But that seems to see misuse as a purely negative thing - when that can be a good thing, when used creatively and intentionally. That can be innovative.
• Other things to look up:

  • Brain-computer interface (BCI) field, to bring into Scribbles on dimensions of technology to expand the section on how there's been a progression from punch cards up (see here)
    • Wolpaw, J., Birbaumer, N., McFarland, D., Pfurtscheller, G., and Vaughan, T. (2002). Brain-computer interfaces for communication and control. Clin. Neurophysiol. 113, 767–791. doi: 10.1016/S1388-2457(02)00057-3
    • Lebedev, M. A., and Nicolelis, M. A. L. (2006). Brain-machine interfaces: past, present and future. Trends Neurosci. 29, 536–546. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2006. 07.004
  • The idea of the tool being embodied within the user as a "symbiotic tool"
    • Licklider, J. C. R. (1960). Man-computer symbiosis. IRE Trans. Hum. Factors Electron. HFE 1, 4–11. doi: 10.1109/THFE2.1960.4503259
    • Brangier, É., and Hammes-Adelé, S. (2011). “Beyond the technology acceptance model: elements to validate the human-technology symbiosis model,” in Ergonomics and Health Aspects, HCII 2011, LNCS 6779, ed. M. M. Robertson (Berlin: Springer-Verlag), 13–21. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-21716-6_2
  • Brain-computer interface (BCI) field, to bring into Scribbles on dimensions of technology to expand the section on how there's been a progression from punch cards up (see here)

    • Wolpaw, J., Birbaumer, N., McFarland, D., Pfurtscheller, G., and Vaughan, T. (2002). Brain-computer interfaces for communication and control. Clin. Neurophysiol. 113, 767–791. doi: 10.1016/S1388-2457(02)00057-3
    • Lebedev, M. A., and Nicolelis, M. A. L. (2006). Brain-machine interfaces: past, present and future. Trends Neurosci. 29, 536–546. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2006. 07.004
    • Wolpaw, J., Birbaumer, N., McFarland, D., Pfurtscheller, G., and Vaughan, T. (2002). Brain-computer interfaces for communication and control. Clin. Neurophysiol. 113, 767–791. doi: 10.1016/S1388-2457(02)00057-3
    • Lebedev, M. A., and Nicolelis, M. A. L. (2006). Brain-machine interfaces: past, present and future. Trends Neurosci. 29, 536–546. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2006. 07.004
  • The idea of the tool being embodied within the user as a "symbiotic tool"

    • Licklider, J. C. R. (1960). Man-computer symbiosis. IRE Trans. Hum. Factors Electron. HFE 1, 4–11. doi: 10.1109/THFE2.1960.4503259
    • Brangier, É., and Hammes-Adelé, S. (2011). “Beyond the technology acceptance model: elements to validate the human-technology symbiosis model,” in Ergonomics and Health Aspects, HCII 2011, LNCS 6779, ed. M. M. Robertson (Berlin: Springer-Verlag), 13–21. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-21716-6_2
    • Licklider, J. C. R. (1960). Man-computer symbiosis. IRE Trans. Hum. Factors Electron. HFE 1, 4–11. doi: 10.1109/THFE2.1960.4503259
    • Brangier, É., and Hammes-Adelé, S. (2011). “Beyond the technology acceptance model: elements to validate the human-technology symbiosis model,” in Ergonomics and Health Aspects, HCII 2011, LNCS 6779, ed. M. M. Robertson (Berlin: Springer-Verlag), 13–21. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-21716-6_2