Anja Klichowicz

With the evolution of traditional production towards smart manufacturing, humans and machines interact dynamically to handle complex production systems in semi-automated environments when full automation is not possible. To avoid undesirable side effects, and to exploit the full performance potential of experts, it is crucial to consider the human perspective when developing new technologies. Specifically, human sub-tasks during machine operation must be described to gain insights into cognitive processes. This research proposes a cognition-based framework by integrating a number of known psychological concepts. The focus is on the description of cognitive (team) processes in the resolution of anomalies within a manufacturing process with interdisciplinary experts working together. An observational eye tracking study with retrospective think-aloud interviews (N = 3) provides empirical evidence for all cognitive processes proposed in the framework, such as regular process monitoring and—in case of a detected anomaly—diagnosis, problem solving, and resolution. Moreover, the role of situation awareness, individual expertise and (cognitive) team processes is analyzed and described. Further, implications regarding a human-centered development of future production systems are discussed. The present research provides a starting point for understanding and supporting cognitive (team) processes during intelligent manufacturing that will dominate the production landscape within Industry 5.0.

Abductive reasoning describes the process of deriving an explanation from given observations. The Theory of Abductive Reasoning (TAR; Johnson & Krems, 2001) assumes that when information is presented sequentially, new information is integrated into a mental representation, a situation model, the central data structure on which all reasoning processes are based. Because working memory capacity is limited, the question arises how reasoning might change with the amount of information that has to be processed in memory. Thus, we conducted an experiment (N = 34) in which we manipulated whether previous observation information and previously found explanations had to be retrieved from memory or were still visually present. Our results provide evidence that people experience differences in task difficulty when more information has to be retrieved from memory. This is also evident in changes in the mental representation as reflected by eye tracking measures. However, no differences are found between groups in the reasoning outcome. These findings suggest that individuals construct their situation model from both information in memory as well as external memory stores. The complexity of the model depends on the task: when memory demands are high, only relevant information is included. With this compensation strategy, people are able to achieve similar reasoning outcomes even when faced with tasks that are more difficult. This implies that people are able to adapt their strategy to the task in order to keep their reasoning successful.

Abductive reasoning is the process of finding the best explanation for a set of observations. As the number of possible observations and corresponding explanations may be very high, it is commonly accepted that the capacity of working memory is closely related to successful abductive reasoning. However, the precise relationship between reasoning and working memory capacity remains largely opaque. In a reanalysis of two experiments (N = 59), we first investigated whether reasoning performance differs due to differences in working memory capacity. Second, using eye tracking, we explored the relationship between the facets of working memory and the process of visuospatial reasoning. We used working memory tests of both components (verbal-numerical/spatial) as well as an intelligence measure. Results show a clear relationship between reasoning accuracy and spatial storage components as well as intelligence. Process measures suggest that high working memory ability might lead to the use of strategies to optimize the content and complexity of the mental representation on which abductive reasoning is based. Results are discussed in relation to current theories and the existing literature on the effects of memory on eye movements.

Abductive reasoning describes the process of deriving an explanation from given observations. The theory of abductive reasoning (TAR; Johnson and Krems, Cognitive Science 25:903–939, 2001) assumes that when information is presented sequentially, new information is integrated into a mental representation, a situation model, the central data structure on which all reasoning processes are based. Because working memory capacity is limited, the question arises how reasoning might change with the amount of information that has to be processed in memory. Thus, we conducted an experiment (N = 34) in which we manipulated whether previous observation information and previously found explanations had to be retrieved from memory or were still visually present. Our results provide evidence that people experience differences in task difficulty when more information has to be retrieved from memory. This is also evident in changes in the mental representation as reflected by eye tracking measures. However, no differences are found between groups in the reasoning outcome. These findings suggest that individuals construct their situation model from both information in memory as well as external memory stores. The complexity of the model depends on the task: when memory demands are high, only relevant information is included. With this compensation strategy, people are able to achieve similar reasoning outcomes even when faced with tasks that are more difficult. This implies that people are able to adapt their strategy to the task in order to keep their reasoning successful.

Sequential abductive reasoning is the process of finding the best explanation for a set of observations. Explanations can be multicausal and require the retrieval of previously found ones from memory. The theory of abductive reasoning (TAR) allows detailed predictions on what information is stored and retrieved from memory during reasoning. In the research to date, however, these predictions have never been directly tested. In this study, we tested process assumptions such as the construction of a mental representation from TAR using memory indexing, an eye-tracking method that makes it possible to trace the retrieval of explanations currently held in working memory. Gaze analysis revealed that participants encode the presented evidence (i.e., observations) together with possible explanations into memory. When new observations are presented, the previously presented evidence and explanations are retrieved. Observations that are not explained immediately are encoded as abstractly explained. Abstract explanations enter a refinement process in which they become concrete before they enter the situation model. With the memory indexing method, we were able to assess the process of information retrieval in abductive reasoning, which was previously believed to be unobservable. We discuss the results in the light of TAR and other current theories on the diagnostic reasoning process.