Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:22:37.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

STUDY ON THE IMPACT OF COGNITIVE LOAD ON PERFORMANCE IN ENGINEERING DESIGN

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Christoph Zimmerer  and
Sven Matthiesen
Christoph Zimmerer*
Affiliation:
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
Sven Matthiesen
Affiliation:
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
*
Zimmerer, Christoph, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), IPEK Institute of Product Engineering, Germany, [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The objective evaluation of empirical studies is an important part when assessing demand and validating design methods. However, metrics that can also map cognitive processes during design are still lacking. In order to address this problem, an online study with 12 participants was conducted. The aim of this investigation was to find a relation between cognitive load and performance in engineering design tasks. To assess the cognitive load, the NASA-RTLX questionnaire was used as an established measurement tool and was related to the results achieved by the participants. The results show that there is a correlation between the two investigated parameters. Based on a statistical analysis a correlation between increasing cognitive load and a decrease in performance could be identified. The tasks used produce comparable results to other studies investigating cognitive load, but the task causing the highest cognitive load shows the widest scatter in performance. The u-curve as suggested by the state of the art was not visible in the study’s results, but the cognitive load should be nevertheless used for studies of design processes, because it may reveal a need for methodical support.

Keywords

Design cognitionHuman behaviour in designDesign engineeringcognitive load
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 2761 - 2770
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Ahmed, S. (2007), “Empirical research in engineering practice”, J. of Design Research, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 359–380. 10.1504/JDR.2007.016389.Google Scholar
Björklund, T.A. (2013), “Initial mental representations of design problems: Differences between experts and novices”, Design Studies, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 135–160. 10.1016/j.destud.2012.08.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruggen, A. (2015), “An empirical investigation of the relationship between workload and performance”, Management Decision, Vol. 53 No. 10, pp. 2377–2389. 10.1108/MD-02-2015-0063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cash, P.J. (2018), “Developing theory-driven design research”, Design Studies, Vol. 56, pp. 84–119. 10.1016/j.destud.2018.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1992), “A Power Primer”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 112 No. 1, pp. 155–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cramer-Petersen, C.L., Christensen, B.T. and Ahmed-Kristensen, S. (2019), “Empirically analysing design reasoning patterns: Abductive-deductive reasoning patterns dominate design idea generation”, Design Studies, Vol. 60, pp. 39–70. 10.1016/j.destud.2018.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dias, R.D., Ngo-Howard, M.C., Boskovski, M.T., Zenati, M.A. and Yule, S.J. (2018), “Systematic review of measurement tools to assess surgeons' intraoperative cognitive workload”, The British journal of surgery, Vol. 105 No. 5, pp. 491–501. 10.1002/bjs.10795.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dinar, M., Shah, J.J., Cagan, J., Leifer, L., Linsey, J., Smith, S.M. and Hernandez, N.V. (2015), “Empirical Studies of Designer Thinking: Past, Present, and Future”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 137 No. 2, p. 247. 10.1115/1.4029025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gericke, K., Eckert, C. and Stacey, M. (2017), “What do we need to say about a design method?”, 21th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 2015).Google Scholar
Grier, R.A. (2015), “How High is High? A Meta-Analysis of NASA-TLX Global Workload Scores”, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 1727–1731. 10.1177/1541931215591373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, S.G. (2006), “Nasa-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 Years Later”, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 50 No. 9, pp. 904–908. 10.1177/154193120605000909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, S.G. and Staveland, L.E. (1988), “Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research”, Advances in Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 139–183. 10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, S.G., Iavecchia, H.P., Byers, J.C., Bittner, A.C., Zaklad, A.L. and Christ, R.E. (1992), “Comparison of Four Subjective Workload Rating Scales”, Human Factors, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 429–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, T.J., Culley, S.J. and Dekoninck, E. (2008), “Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature”, Design Studies, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 160–180. 10.1016/j.destud.2008.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kokotovich, V. (2008), “Problem analysis and thinking tools: an empirical study of non-hierarchical mind mapping”, Design Studies, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 49–69. 10.1016/j.destud.2007.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, P., Lawson, B. and Scott, P. (1995), “Can concurrent verbalization reveal design cognition”, Design Studies, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 237–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelius, T., Doellken, M., Zimmerer, C. and Matthiesen, S. (2020), “The impact of confirmation bias on reasoning and visual attention during analysis in engineering design: An eye tracking study”, Design Studies, Vol. 71. 10.1016/j.destud.2020.100963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, J. and Menold, J. (2020), “Opening the black box: Developing metrics to assess the cognitive processes of prototyping”, Design Studies, Vol. 70, p. 100964. 10.1016/j.destud.2020.100964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikulin, C., Lopez, G., Piñonez, E., Gonzalez, L. and Zapata, P. (2019), “NASA-TLX for predictability and measurability of instructional design models: case study in design methods”, Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 467–493. 10.1007/s11423-019-09657-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paas, F.G. and van Merriënboer, J.J. (1994), “Instructional control of cognitive load in the training of complex cognitive tasks”, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, G. and Yao, S. (2012), “Investigating the relation between cognitive load and creativity in the conceptual design process”, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 308–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Üreten, S., Eisenmann, M., Nelius, T., Garrelts, E., Krause, D. and Matthiesen, S. (2020), “Current Challenges and Solution Approaches in Empirical Engineering Design Research – A Workshop for Empirical Research”, Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference, Vol. 1, pp. 61–70. 10.1017/dsd.2020.280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Someren, M.W., Barnard, Y.F. and Sandberg, J.A.C. (1994), The think aloud method: A practical guide to modelling cognitive processes, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Yerkes, R.M. and Dodson, J.D. (1908), “The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation”, Punishment: Issues and Experiments.CrossRefGoogle Scholar