Establishing Causality in Complex Human Interactions: Identifying Breakdowns of Intentionality
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.
KeywordsIntentions Decision-making Awareness Autonomous Systems
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Malle, B.F., Moses, L.J., Baldwin, D.A. (eds.): Intentions and intentionality: Foundations of social cognition. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2001)Google Scholar
- 2.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)Google Scholar
- 3.Watson, D.P., Scheidt, D.H.: Autonomous Systems. Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest 26(4) (2005)Google Scholar
- 4.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)Google Scholar
- 5.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) Google Scholar
- 8.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)Google Scholar
- 12.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)Google Scholar
- 14.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)Google Scholar
- 16.Reason, J., Mycielska, K.: Absent-minded? The psychology of mental lapses and everyday errors. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1982)Google Scholar
- 18.Wason, P.C., Johnson-Laird, P.N.: Psychology of reasoning: Structure and content. D. T. Batsford, London (1972)Google Scholar
- 20.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)Google Scholar