Human Error and Perceptual Control Theory

pitying illusion and perceptual Control possiblenessOverviewIn this paper, I will explore and advocate the importance of both(prenominal) serviceman Error and Perceptual Control Theory for soma of mazy clement-machine schemes, deepen user experience and burst kind coiffeance and safety.Human ErrorErrors be the result of actions that fail to generate the intended prohibitedcomes (SKYbrary). Human operators argon one of the biggest sources of delusions in any building complex outline (Shelton, 1999). According to Sanders McCormick (1976), Human erroneous belief is an inappropriate or undesirable human close or behavior that curves, or has the potential for reducing sumiveness, safety and performance of a outline and/or human (Kurniawan).Error TypesResearchers have differentiated among two types of misplay1) slipsand lapses 2) mistakes.Slips and lapsesAccording to SKYbrary, a person intends to carry out an action, the action is appropriate, carries it out incor rectly, and the desired goal is not achieved an execution unsuccessful person has occurred. Execution errors result from failures in the execution and/or storage symbolise of an action sequence. Slips relate to observable actions and ar commonly associated with attentiveness or perceptual failures. Lapses atomic number 18 more internal howeverts and generally involve failures of memory board (SKYbrary).MistakesAs mentioned in UKEssays.com, Mistakes occur when an intended takings is not achieved even though t here(predicate) was adherence to the steps in the plan. This is usually a case in which the original plan was wrong, was followed, and resulted in an unintended outcome (UKEssays.com).Error mechanismsThe following three error mechanisms are widely accepted, which correlated with human performance levels.Skill-establish errorsErrors of executionOccur during highly routine activities or automatize tasks with occasional checksAction chosen by the operator precisely no t in accordance with the operators intentionsDone by highly experienced individuals due to inattention or distractionRule-based errorsApplies to acquainted(predicate) situationsIncorrect application of a unafraid rule, correct application of a bad rule or failure to apply a good ruleKnowledge-based errorsOccur in unique and un acquainted(predicate) situationsResult from little analysis or decision devising (trial and error)Done by operators with scrimpy knowledgeApplications of Human error theoryHuman error is inevitable. However, human error mitigation strategies could be devised by catch various error mechanisms and triggers, as depicted in the human error theory. Superior system design, better recruitment and selection of operators, training, stress and fatigue prevention measures, better equipment procedures and improved expire environs backside abase error consequences and likelihood. By understanding human error, system designers can plan for likely error scenarios, and implement barriers to prevent or mitigate the accompaniment of potential errors. rough approaches to build a better human machine interaction system are explained below.Identification of error environmentFirst step in human error mitigation approach is to understand the work environment, agnize capacity of the users, identify possible loopholes n the system and be familiar with potential user error occurrence and consequences. Likelihood of an error and severity of potential distress should also be examined. For example, FDA (Food and Drug Administration) requires manufacturers to submit a failure analysis report FMEA (Failure Mode and Effect Analysis) while introduction any impudently medical device.Design solutions to address errorsError reasoning by emptyingFirst and fore well-nigh design strategy is to eliminate design features, which are sources of user errors. Design weaknesses identified during observation and task analysis should be removed or revised. Removal of excessive and irrelevant learning, inclusion of rigor checks and task automations are few design aspects that support error elimination approach. Additionally, carrying out periodical test runs of the system might be near-hand in eliminating some of the rules based errors.Error reductionDesigners should try to reduce error occurrences for features that cannot be removed completely. Building consistent designs and providing alerts, warnings, confirmations and other infallible feedback to users may prevent users to make errors of execution (skill-based errors). yield eliminationConsequence elimination is an approach to prevent potential harm after the occurrence of error. Designers can devise features that provide information about potential harm and ways to correct the situation (e.g. undo) and/or prevent onset of side personal effects (e.g. automatic locking or shutdown, process delays) in severalize to prevent error consequences.Consequence reductionThis is a last design a lternative a designer can look into if above mentioned options are not feasible to incorporate. Decreasing the effect of error is helpful particularly in catastrophic situations. Design of supplementary features is usually necessary to achieve this drive. Backup and restore features, automatic reporting to stakeh nonagenarianers/police/medical teams and automated substitute drug delivery are some of the techniques for reducing effects of consequences.Error elimination and error reduction are often the most cost powerful manners to avert user errors.TrainingsKnowledge-based errors can be eliminated to some extent by providing system-oriented trainings, especially to novice users. On the other hand, a different training program could be devised for experienced users. Periodical trainings could limit experts up-to-date with latest developments in their field and rate their knowledge of system adjectival checks. Essentially, this may help minimizing skill-based errors.Perceptual Control Theory ( share)Perceptual wangle theory ( portion) is a theory of human and animal behavior. It is based on the principles of control theory (Powers, 1973). As cited by Lulham (2005), at the loading of pct is the idea that many of the processes involved in how human functions are most appropriately conceptualized and modelled as dynamic control processes (Powers, 1999b). Control processes are proposed to be fundamental to many functions including those related to physiological (e.g. temperature regulation), neural (e.g. attention), travel control (e.g. driving a car), psychological (e.g. maintenance of a evil identity) and social (e.g. staff-detainee relationship) functions (Lulham, 2005).According to Cherry Farrel (1998), PCT exploits the concept of a purpose behind the behaviour. A perception (which is a transformation of stimuli from the existence) is then compared to its name signal, and a perceptual error is generated. A person acts on the world in such a manner to minimise this error. The stabilisation of this control loop is the essence of PCT (Chery Farrell , 1998).Applications of PCTUsing perceptions for building complex systemsSystem environments are becoming increasingly complex. Traditional cause and effect methods of understanding system operations and user interactions may not work well in nightspot to employ personalization and user experience in these complex systems.According to pctweb.org, the person compares a standard (what they want) with what they are experiencing right now (their perception). The difference between the two the discrepancy or error is being careful. The bigger the error the more the effort the person makes to reduce it, until the error is zero this means they get what they want (pctweb.org). The basic introduce of PCT is that human behavior is not about the behavior itself, precisely about reinforcing desired perception (ONeal, 2012). Understanding and applying this concept of individually favourite (a) perceptions through PCT will help in designing effective personal information management for complex systems and enhancing the overall user experience. exploiter research and analysisPCT is particularly helpful in understanding users behaviors and motives behind their actions. Often system designers evaluate possible system states and unchanging change in control values needed to achieve those states. Tasks are carried out on the controls to attain the impertinent state and user is though of as a controller of these tasks. Designers use task analysis method to perform user research and concentrate on animal(prenominal) tasks a user performs. However, instead of system oriented or designer oriented view, PCT goes much deeper and offers users standpoint.PCT provides textile to encounter dynamic nature of user interactions. System designers can use PCT to understand how users constantly perceive and compare system states and take unhomogeneous actions to reinstate appropriate system state every time. Furthermore, Powers (1973) proposed behavior as a control of perceptions. Instead of focusing on a physical activity during the task analysis, PCT suggests focusing on users behaviors that lead them to perform actions to achieve desired perception (system state). Thus, using the PCT framework, designers can combine physical, cognitive and behavioral sides of a users interaction with the system.Moreover, PCT analysis of intentions from different user groups exposes their shared narrative, which in turn, helps in purpose system requirements for hidden, absent user (ONeal, 2012). For example, a customer service case might use call center software while works to resolve an issue with a customer. While the customer is not a direct user of the software system, he is affected indirectly. The customer here is a hidden user. His perceptions should be analyzed to understand his requirements and objectives while develop the call center system.Empowered designsPCT offers a design framework toward the satisfaction of the users desired percepts. Human-machine system performance is enhanced when the displays and controls are designed to allow the operator to perceive and transmit information in order to minimize the perceptual error (Chery Farrell , 1998).According to PCT, when a user interacts with the system, he is constantly trying to bring equilibrium, changing his perception to the reference point, which is his unexampled perception. Keeping this in mind, a designer should build the system that transforms from an grizzly state to the new state seamlessly, provides estimate of gap between old and new state, furnish necessary feedback to keep the user aware of the environment variables and helps the user to manage disturbances. These functionalities will help users to gain accurate information regarding their perceptions, empower them to undertake correct amount of action to reach to new perception, ultimately helping them achieve self-reg ulation and stability. For example, the windshield of the car let the user scan his environment and gather information necessary to their perception, the car dashboard continuously displays speed and other important elements to help user assess different system states, and the gear stick helps user achieve new state from the old one smoothly. Other features like wiper, headlights, turn signals etcetera facilitate users to manage disturbances as much as possible. Thus, human-machine designs should be harmonious with users interpretations of information in order to improve their decision making process and overall system performance.ConclusionBoth human error and PCT frameworks are valuable in building complex system designs to facilitate information management, enhance security and improve both system and human performance.By understanding fundamentals of human errors, designers can build a system that is more usable, provides meaningful feedbacks and include training, procedural checks and incentive programs. However, according to Shelton (1999), there is a trade-off between making the HCI relatively easy and intuitive and ensuring that system safety is not compromised by lulling the operator into a state of complacency.In PCT, the error is continuously measured to achieve equilibrium. Per Lulham (2005), those involved in developing the theory believe PCT has significant potential to change the way human functioning is understood. However, further research is required for advancement of PCT framework.ReferencesComponent-based usability testing. (n.d.). Retrieved from Wikipedia http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Component-Based_Usability_TestingEmbrey, D. Understanding Human demeanor and Error. Human Reliability Associates.Latino, R. J. (2007, Nov). Defining and reducing human error. Briefings Page on Patient Safety .ONeal, A. (2012, July). Intention-Focused Design Applying Perceptual Control Theory to Discover User Intent. Retrieved 2013, from UXmatters.com http //www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2012/07/intention-focused-design-applying-perceptual-control-theory-to-discover-user-intent.phpPCTweb. (n.d.). What is PCT? Retrieved from PCTweb http//www.pctweb.org/whatis/whatispct_03.htmlPowers, W. T. (n.d.). A abbreviated introduction to Perceptual Control Theory . Retrieved from Frontier http//www.frontier.net/powers_w/whatpct.htmlShelton, C. P. Human porthole/Human Error. Carnegie Mellon University.SKYbrary. (n.d.). Human Error Types. Retrieved from SKYbrary http//www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Human_Error_Types1Lajja Mehta