Advertisement

The Influence of Gait on Cognitive Functions: Promising Factor for Adapting Systems to the Worker’s Need in a Picking Context

  • Magali KreutzfeldtEmail author
  • Johanna Renker
  • Gerhard Rinkenauer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11597)

Abstract

We investigated the influence of gait and smart devices on selective attention in an order picking setting employing a task switching paradigm and an Eriksen flanker task. A cue indicated the relevant customer order (one of two tasks) and thereby the correct stimulus-response rule either via smart glasses or headset. The task transition (repetition vs. switch) was varied randomly in mixed blocks and kept constant in single blocks. Participants (n = 24) were asked to classify the central letter of a five-letter string with a manual response (left vs. right). Importantly, the central letter was either congruent or incongruent with the surrounding letters. Participants were either walking at their personal comfort speed or standing on a treadmill. We registered response times and error rates as dependent variables. The combination of a particular smart device and walking condition determined the effect on attention and thus the order picker’s mental state: In mixed task response times, switch costs were higher for headset use than smart glasses, while incongruent flankers were especially harmful while walking wearing smart glasses. In single task errors, congruency effects were more pronounced for headset use than smart glasses but only while standing, not while walking. Results show context-specific effects, suggesting that gait speed and performance requirements can be used as cognitive load indicators in technical systems to adapt instructions.

Keywords

Cognitive performance Gait Adaptive systems 

References

  1. 1.
    Grosse, E.H., Glock, C.H., Jaber, M.Y., Neumann, W.P.: Incorporating human factors in order picking planning models: framework and research opportunities. Int. J. Prod. Res. 53, 695–717 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grosse, E.H., Glock, C.H., Neumann, W.P.: Human factors in order picking: a content analysis of the literature. Int. J. Prod. Res. 55, 1260–1276 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Larco, J.A., de Koster, R., Roodbergen, K.J., Dul, J.: Managing warehouse efficiency and worker discomfort through enhanced storage assignment decisions. Int. J. Prod. Res. 55, 6407–6422 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lodree Jr., E.J., Geiger, C.D., Jiang, X.: Taxonomy for integrating scheduling theory and human factors: review and research opportunities. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 39, 39–51 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beurskens, R., Bock, O.: Age-related deficits of dual-task walking: a review. Neural Plast. 2012, 1–9 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yogev-Seligmann, G., Rotem-Galili, Y., Mirelman, A., Dickstein, R., Giladi, N., Hausdorff, J.M.: How does explicit prioritization alter walking during dual-task performance? Effects of age and sex on gait speed and variability. Phys. Ther. 90, 177–186 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bock, O.: Dual-task costs while walking increase in old age for some, but not for other tasks: an experimental study of healthy young and elderly persons. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 5, 27 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barra, J., Bray, A., Sahni, V., Golding, J.F., Gresty, M.A.: Increasing cognitive load with increasing balance challenge: recipe for catastrophe. Exp. Brain Res. 174, 734–745 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tomporowski, P.D., Audiffren, M.: Dual-task performance in young and older adults: speed-accuracy tradeoffs in choice responding while treadmill walking. J. Aging Phys. Act. 22, 557–563 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kreutzfeldt, M., Renker, J., Rinkenauer, G.: The attentional perspective on smart devices: empirical evidence for device-specific cognitive ergonomics. In: Rebelo, F., Soares, Marcelo M. (eds.) AHFE 2018. AISC, vol. 777, pp. 3–13. Springer, Cham (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94706-8_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boisgontier, M.P., Beets, I.A., Duysens, J., Nieuwboer, A., Krampe, R.T., Swinnen, S.P.: Age-related differences in attentional cost associated with postural dual tasks: increased recruitment of generic cognitive resources in older adults. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 37, 1824–1837 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eriksen, B.A., Eriksen, C.W.: Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Percept. Psychophys. 16, 143–149 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Botvinick, M.M., Braver, T.S., Barch, D.M., Carter, C.S., Cohen, J.D.: Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychol. Rev. 108, 624–652 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koch, I., Poljac, E., Müller, H., Kiesel, A.: Cognitive structure, flexibility, and plasticity in human multitasking—an integrative review of dual-task and task-switching research. Psychol. Bull. 144, 557–583 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hunt, A.R., Kingstone, A.: Multisensory executive functioning. Brain Cogn. 55, 325–327 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Magali Kreutzfeldt
    • 1
    Email author
  • Johanna Renker
    • 1
  • Gerhard Rinkenauer
    • 1
  1. 1.Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human FactorsDortmundGermany

Personalised recommendations