Abstract
People in complex scenarios face the challenge of understanding the purpose and effect of other human and computational behaviour on their own goals through intent recognition. They are left asking what caused person or system ‘x’ to do that? The necessity to provide this support human-computer interaction has increased alongside the deployment of autonomous systems that are to some degree unsupervised. This paper aims to examine intent recognition as a form of decision making about causality in complex systems. By finding the needs and limitations of this decision mechanism it is hoped this can be applied to the design of systems to support the awareness of information cues and reduce the number of intent recognition breakdowns between people and autonomous systems. The paper outlines theoretical foundations for this approach using simulation theory and process models of intention. The notion of breakdowns is then applied to intent recognition breakdowns in a diary study to gain insight into the phenomena.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Malle, B.F., Moses, L.J., Baldwin, D.A. (eds.): Intentions and intentionality: Foundations of social cognition. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)
Connelly, J., Hong, W.S., Mahoney Jr., R.B., Sparrow, D.A.: Current challenges in autonomous vehicle development, Unmanned Systems Technology VIII. In: Proc. SPIE, 6230, 62300D (2006)
Watson, D.P., Scheidt, D.H.: Autonomous Systems. Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest 26(4) (2005)
Liu, D., Wasson, R., Vincenzi, D.A.: Effects of System Automation Management Strategies and Multi-mission Operator-to-vehicle Ratio on Operator Performance in UAV Systems. Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems (forthcoming)
Endsley, M.R.: The application of human factors to the development of expert systems for advanced cockpits. In: Proc. of the Human Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, CA, pp. 1388–1392 (1988)
Kraut, R.E., Fussell, S.R., Siegel, J.: Visual information as a conversational resource in collaborative physical tasks. Human-Computer Interaction 18, 13–49 (2003)
Hourizi, R., Johnson, P.: Designing to support awareness: a predictive, composite model. In: Proc. SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2004, pp. 159–166. ACM Press, New York (2004)
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., Moll, H.: Understanding and sharing intentions: the origins of cultural cognition. Behav. Brain. Sci. 28, 675–691 (2005)
Panzarasa, P., Jennings, N.R., Norman, T.J.: Formalizing Collaborative Decision-Making and Practical Reasoning in Multi-Agent Systems. Journal of Logic and Computation 12(1), 55–117 (2002)
Scholl, B.J., Tremoulet, P.D.: Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends in Cognitive Science 4(8), 299–309 (2000)
Gordon, R.M.: Folk Psychology as Simulation. Mind and Language 1, 158–171 (1986)
Read, S.J., Miller, L.C.: Explanatory coherence and goal-based knowledge structures in making dispositional inferences. In: Malle, B., Hodges, S. (eds.) Other Minds: How humans bridge the divide between self and others, pp. 124–142. Guilford Press, New York (2005)
Malle, B.F., Knobe, J.: The folk concept of intentionality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 33(2), 101–121 (1997)
Easterbrook, S.M.: Coordination Breakdowns: Why Groupware is so Hard to Design. In: Proc. of 28th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences (HICSS-28), Maui, Hawaii, USA (1995)
Reason, J.: Human Error. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990)
Reason, J., Mycielska, K.: Absent-minded? The psychology of mental lapses and everyday errors. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1982)
Johnson, H., Hyde, J.: Towards modeling individual and collaborative construction of jigsaws using task knowledge structures (TKS). ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 10(4), 339–387 (2003)
Wason, P.C., Johnson-Laird, P.N.: Psychology of reasoning: Structure and content. D. T. Batsford, London (1972)
Phillips, A.T., Wellman, H.M., Spelke, E.S.: Infants’ ability to connect gaze and emotional expression to intentional action. Cognition 85, 53–78 (2002)
Blythe, P.W., Todd, P.M., Miller, G.F.: How Motion Reveals Intention: Categorizing Social Interactions. In: Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P.M. (eds.) Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart, pp. 257–285. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1999)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 ICST Institute for Computer Science, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering
About this paper
Cite this paper
Goodison, P., Johnson, P., Thoms, J. (2009). Establishing Causality in Complex Human Interactions: Identifying Breakdowns of Intentionality. In: Zhou, J. (eds) Complex Sciences. Complex 2009. Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, vol 5. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02469-6_42
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02469-6_42
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-02468-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-02469-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)