How Our Cognition Shapes and Is Shaped by Technology: A Common Framework for Understanding Human Tool-Use Interactions in the Past, Present, and Future

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.

Does M-payment service quality and perceived value co-creation participation magnify M-payment continuance usage intention? Moderation of usefulness and severity

“…Cognitive processing is gathering and utilizing information in problem-solving and decisionmaking, reflecting an individual's capacity to receive, alter, store, retrieve and use information (Abidin et al, 2020;Osiurak et al, 2018). The core cognitive capabilities include the speed of information processing, multiple simultaneous attention, cognitive flexibility and pattern recognition (Abidin et al, 2020;Patil et al, 2017).…”

“…The COVID-19 epidemic has sped up the change from physical payments to digital payments, and M-payments have emerged as the most popular mode of settling consumer transactions (Biswas, 2022a;Chen et al, 2019;Patil et al, 2017;Upadhyay et al, 2022). Innovation is making way for new concepts, procedures and items that are better and distinctive from the existing ones (Osiurak et al, 2018;Rafdinal and Senalasari, 2021). M-payment innovation includes point-of-sale value added, increased demand for frictionless experiences, rising continuance usage intention of real-time payments, encryption for safer transaction services and merchant inventory management (Patil et al, 2017;Wang, 2022).…”

How Can Physiological Computing Benefit Human-Robot Interaction?

“…Yet, a step further is the online adjunction of information about the human operator directly into the system. This is known as physiological computing [33], and such systems can be called biocybernetic [34], or, more recently, symbiotic systems [35], passive brain-computer interfaces [36], or physiologically attentive user interfaces [37,38]. Such systems take as inputs physiological parameters from the operator and thanks to various processing methods, which generally include a machine learning step, they can derive an estimation of a given mental state [39].…”

Mensch-Technik-Interaktion mit Emotio-nen

“…Diese Fortschritte verändern nicht nur allmählich die Art und Weise, wie mit Technologien interagiert wird, sondern beeinflusst auch die sensomotorischen Fertigkeiten und kognitiven Fähigkeiten auf unterschiedliche Weise. Osiurak und seine Kollegen*innen (Osiurak, Navarro, and Reynaud 2018) fassen diese allmählichen technologischen Entwicklungen in drei Ebenen zusammen, die die Mensch-Technik-Interaktion als physische (engl. affordance design), fortgeschrittene (engl.…”

“…AffektiveSysteme können somit Emotionen des Nutzenden erfassen und darauf basierend adäquate Systemreaktionen initiieren. Dies schafft neue Interaktionsmöglichkeiten im Sinne des symbiotischen Designs(Osiurak et al 2018), birgt jedoch auch Konfliktpotenzial: Oftmals kommt keine wechselseitige Interaktion zwischen Mensch und System zustande, da das System ausschließlich autonom agiert und dem Mensch keine direkte Einflussmöglichkeit anbietet. Der Nutzende erhält kein direktes Feedback darüber, welches Ergebnis die Emotionserkennung geliefert hat und welche Anpassungen des Systemverhaltens daraufhin vorgenommen wurden.…”