Slashdot Mirror
Predicting Human Errors From Brain Activity
Hugh Pickens writes "Researchers report that brain activity can be used to predict the likelihood of someone making an error about six seconds in advance, with gradual changes starting as much as 30 seconds ahead of time. The team used an imaging machine to scan the brains of a group of volunteers who performed a task in the presence of distracting information. When performing correctly the volunteers' brains showed increased levels of activity in those parts associated with cognitive effort, as would be expected. However, these areas gradually became less active before errors were made and at the same time another set of regions in the brain became more active. These regions are part of a so-called "default mode network" and show increased use when people are resting or asleep [PDF]. While imaging machines are far too big and complex to be used in workplaces to monitor the brain activity of people engaged in important tasks, the team hopes to correlate errors to changes in electrical activity in the brain with electroencephalography (EEG), using electrodes placed on the scalp. If EEG features can be found that correspond to the change in brain activity, then a hat that gives warning of an imminent mistake might one day become reality. We've previously discussed similar studies of brain activity."
I've seen some stupid research in my time, but actually believing you can predict errors in advance is like saying you can predict which leaf will fall off of a tree in the next 6 seconds.
So much for reading slashdot from work. It was nice knowing you guys.
The parent post makes a very good point. I agree with him wholeheartedly. You may be able to predict actions, but how can you predict whether an action will be an error?
Mod parent up!
And I certainly hope it never hits the market.
If you're falling asleep on the road, you're more likely to make the error of driving to one side. Similarly, if you're getting distracted by a stray thought, your concentration can suffer and are more likely to make errors in your primary task. You may not predict the exact error, but you can reasonably forecast an increased probability of error.
Why else would car insurance rates rise when you get into an accident? Um... you know, aside from evil insurance companies?
Will they ever be able to make a hat that lets slashdot users know if they will be modded '+1 funny' vs '-1 flamebait?' 6 seconds before clicking 'submit?'
-I only code in BASIC.-
So their research found that you don't make errors when you are paying attention but when you aren't you do.
I'd like to know how to get a research job where I can be paid to work on pointless crap like this. How much do these "researchers" get paid anyway?
:(
Seriously, the cleverness of this "discovery" stretches about as far as claiming that the sky is blue. The fact that money gets wasted on useless stuff like this annoys me.
I think that if this becomes more realistic, and employers get a hold of this then they would be able to screen applicants for their prone-ness to mistakes (sorry english is not my first language
Orbis terrarum est non altus satis
My question is this: Will the knowledge that an error will occur cause the person in question to be even -more- likely to cause an error? Belief can be a dangerous thing in this case:
"You're gonna make an error."
*user has minor panic, nervousness, etc*
"See? You errored. You suck."
Makes me wonder if it would self-perpetuate if it were a self-monitored system rather than an externally monitored one - and once externally monitored, would the reaction time be sufficent to prevent the error? Sounds like some slick science on paper, but it seems like it'd fail in practical use.
"In caelum, illuc est libertas."
when the editors will err and post a dupe?
Where's all the good research these days? Everyone's sick of bloody brain scans. Give us something new you sons of bitches!!!! Earn those research grants. zzzzzzzz
oh wait.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
"You are about to make a mistake. Cancel or Allow?"
Where's my tinfoil hat?
" If EEG features can be found that correspond to the change in brain activity, then a hat that gives warning of an imminent mistake might one day become reality. "
Oh crap!
This is not a dupe. (At least not of the previous one you linked.)
The old article you linked is about detecting a signature corresponding to an early stage of decision making. This one is about detecting a signature of the brain going into a resting / attention wandering state that causes decisions to be error-prone.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Not necessary. I can verify that our upper management will, when given the opportunity, make entirely the worng decision nine times out of ten. If an opportunity is not present, they'll keep attritting smart, capable people (not that there were a lot around here to begin with) until they create an opportunity. It's called "default mode management".
Now if you'll excuse, our C in C wants another cheeseburger pizza.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
No no, you see, he was proving that you can't predict mistakes before they happen. If someone could, why would they allow him to agree with himself? He's... taking one for the team, if you will.
Boy, you really said it! You're a genius!
Though I don't know about the time you turned down Famke Janssen for those Bulvarian twins...
The descriptions of "the error-detecting hat" look like the intent is to train the brain to stay alert and not make errors - or to refocus it when it wanders. (DING DING DING! HEY! WAKE UP! PAY ATTENTION!) The hat may be useful, but that use of the feedback may be the wrong approach.
The signature they're describing corresponds, not just to a lack of alertness, but specifically a lack of alertness because the brain is going into a resting state. Seems to me that might be because all this decision-making has made the working regions of the brain tired and the brain is trying to clear them out so they'll operate properly again. So the problem is not the lack of alertness, but the attempt to continue to make decisions during the resting cycle.
Given that, a better use of the feedback might be to tell the wearer that it's time to stop making important decisions and take a break, rather than trying to overuse a "mental muscle" that's exhausted - and perhaps train him to recognize the mental state himself so he can then dispense with the hat.
The "break times" in working days were set up when studies showed that taking breaks, despite the "work time lost", resulted in more and better work in the work time remaining. This looks like a way to optimize the process, rather than running breaks on a clock.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
brain activity can be used to predict the likelihood of someone making an error about six seconds in advance
Any way to make this technology mandatory for use on voters just before they cast their ballots so that they don't elect the "wrong" candidate (again)?
Yes, it was a feeble attempt at humor disguised under a veil of sarcasm. Mods, go to hell.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
So, since the beginning of humanity itself, the plain old unaided human ear can listen for stomach and intestinal rumblings that come right before, and predict the coming of a big old juicy butt fart.
Now we can use a portable EEG scanner built into a baseball cap to detect when a brain fart is about to occur.
Ain't technology wonderful?
I have to agree with other people who've posted that this is over-reaching a little bit. This is nothing more than a correllational study: all they can say is that these systems, in this particular series of trials, showed increased activity shortly before an error took place.
The main problem as I see it is that since they can't determine causaltiy, and only conducted this experiment with a small sample population, and with a specific task, is it could have been the task itself causing the particular regions to become active after a certain period of time. I just gave the article a quick look through, but I'd be curious to see if the errors came in distinct, set intervals. It could be simply the nature of the task that caused the activity. Furthermore, what about left handed participants? What about age groups outside of the twenties (which are a particular cohort, and can be expected to have similiar results/activity as such)? It seems like they failed to counterbalance either their participants or their trials in any meaningful way.
Also, I'm not familiar with this journal or whatever it is, but I've never seen one where the methods section came last, which is a little strange. That's almost always the first thing I go to after the abstract.
Mod Points: Helping you keep your opinion to yourself.
This doesn't sound like much of an "Error Detection" system, but more of a "Distraction Detection" system.
There are activities that can be handed off to the unconscious mind. If you are doing something so often that it seems like you could do it in your sleep, well, there's no reason not to hand it off to a subprocess and think about more important stuff.
I think they are detecting abortive hand-off attempts: A training process for a different part of the brain than one's conscious mind. More complex motions or actions require more training. I think what we need isn't more concentration, but more error tolerance.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
You are about to make an error. Cancel or Allow ?
[Allow]
You are about to erroneously confirm your error. Cancel or Allow ?
I've always found that most of the mistakes that I have seen made or made myself were caused by moments of brain INACTIVITY (e.g. Hey y'all watch this)
load "$",8,1
was wearing an in-house version of this hat before he decided to release Vista. Unfortunately, the hat was running Vista.
I've noticed that before I make certain mistakes, or completely forget what I was doing, I will experience a spike in confusion. Sometimes, the ramp up the spike is slow, taking most of an hour; other times, it comes on me suddenly, taking only a minute. I feel confused and doing simple tasks are difficult. Then, it passes. Often, I will have completely forgotten what it was I was attempting to do, until much later when something reminds me.
Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
If you have ever take part of a Stroop test, your ACC has been activated. In a Stroop test...
Say you time-traveled with this to the early middle ages. Other than it obviously not working, you can always pull a Merlin and call it a magic hat.
You think that's a building. Now this is a building.
Yes, that's very interesting. But will it tell me whether or not I'll be in Griffendor?
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
This could have been used nearly 8 years ago on the bloody American voters. This could have prevented the mess that the world is in.
How about a machine that does the job correctly FOR ME, instead of a machine that tells me I'm wrong ?
I thought that's what the wife was for!
<cfif coldfusion LTE garbage><cfthrow type="chair"></cfif>
-Billco, Fnarg.com
It seems to me that the device is designed to detect lulls in brain activity in such a manner:
a. As we think critically on a complex subject our brain works harder, so the system detects this.
b. While we are day dreaming ('brain-fart', 'writer block', 'brain freeze', 'mind short', etc.) our brain relaxes for a moment, and the system detects this as well.
c. The study uses sleep as the control, at which it is assumed we are using our brains the least.
This may not be accurate because:
a. The test cannot accurately determine critical thought
Assuming the study uses a constant 'test' as a control, the participants will approach said test differently. The measured activity can not depict how challenging the material is because its difficulty is relative.
b. The test cannot accurately determine an 'error'
Suppose participants' lulls are composed of different thoughts. Perhaps one subject drifts into near unconsciousness, while another is mesmerized by the surroundings. One subject will have a noticeable drop in activity, while another seems to remain constant.
c. The low point of activity may be incorrectly measured
As you all know, certain phases of sleep will utilize the mind's power. It is assumed that the study determines the lowest point of brain activity during the participants' sleep cycle as a constant of zero. This may be the only valuable thing the study could have determined.
It seems that the PNAS is the best place to learn the specifics of the study.
I would just love something that will tell me when to take a break or a nap.
Scientifically, it seems like a significant discovery. I'm far more worried about how it is used.
Tonight I'm going to have a nightmare about a Tom Cruise infomercial selling an L Ron Hubbard book that guarantees you'll score higher on the EEG stupidity scale for only 3 EZ payments of $99.95...
"Are you sure you're not getting stupider?"
War as we knew it was obsolete
Nothing could beat complete denial
- Emily Haines
"Prediction" is not accurate because that implies an absolute. The activity correlates with an increased probability of making a mistake. The study relies on statistics throughout, from the analysis of the fMRI data on, and so can only deal in probabilities.
An Israeli team found that an increase in degree of synchronization of midline frontal theta EEG varied inversely with the probability of making a mistake. Such theta synchronization occurs over spans of 10 to 30 seconds. They also found that when a response occurs during the rising or falling slope of the synchronized theta (as opposed to near a peak), the person was more likely to make a mistake. The latter probably is the source of the evoked potential called the Error Related Negativity; it is the brain preparing to notice the error. The former seems to indicate a lagging in attention, which is when errors are most likely to occur. The two are related, meaning the brain "knows" when it is starting to droop and is more likely to make a mistake, and tells itself to get ready to notice a mistake if it happens.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
To me the feasibility of predicting errors doesn't seem that unnatural, BUT...
Say that a device is created which starts beeping, or (more in keeping with western political evolution the last few years) gives you an electro-shock which is recorded by the camera pointed at you for later perusal by management who will be laughing there asses off.
Won't this essentially be a self-defeating learning device ?
AFAIK, the better you know your job, the more all operations will be moved into the more subconscious regions of your brain, and the less concentration this requires.
However, at the point where you have internalized the operations so much that they are nearly totally at the subconscious level, you will no longer need the concentration levels as required before, so you may start triggering the device.
If the device cannot be adjusted to lower the concentration threshold at that point, you will be forced into a state of higher concentration all the time, which may start messing with the learning process, since I'm guessing that the brain wiring does kind of expect the negative stimulation to stop at some optimal point of internalization...
So you end up in a feedback loop whereby the learning process may well be sabotaged.
So a device which detect errors may well be feasible, but if there is any feedback to the wearer (or container, if the device is inserted in uncomfortable areas of the body) it may not be very effective in the long run...
Xeers !
Philip
-- Any sufficiently advanced level of incompetence is indistinguishable from malice
If you do not understand Norwegian the following is probably not of interest, but they covered this in the populat science radio program Verdt å vite yesterday and you can still listen to the podcast.
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
I agree, my most productive mode when I code is 15min coding/5 min slacking off periods for about 1.5 to 2 hours, then a real 15min pause (walking, drinking some watter and chitchatting) then back to the 15/5 periods for the rest of the morning, and non-coding activities during the aftermoon (usually documenting my code or writing its test plan).
But there are people who cannot adapt their work schedule to their needs, such as train drivers (they already have to punch a button a couple of time every minutes to prevent their train from entering in emergency mode) and cannot physically be 100% alert all the time, so it would be usefull (and saffer for everyone) if the could have a better way to manage their attention level according to the planned needs.
Sorry I used all my mod points yesterday
I've seen my parents cook, they do not concentrate at all. Usually listening to the radio, dancing, or watching tv at the same time. Yet I didn't taste errors.
I've seen myself playing CS, or Street Fighter 2. I never concentrate when playing games as it's a mean of relaxation for me to pwn some noobs. Yet I constantly head shots.
I didn't RTFA, but after the headline I was thinking, "so what?". Have you ever had errors in your life where it changes your behavior, and made you a better person overall later? Had errors that cost you your job, and made you find a better one that pays double?
This is just fsking weird to me. I don't see where this could be applied, where the error occurred can be so great, that the person wasn't paying enough attention in the first place. If I was a fireman, I don't think I would listen to horse races while fighting a fire.
I actually have one of these... for some reason it's going off right now...
I'm sure there is real science to this. When I'm playing Guitar Hero (love it!), I can tell a few seconds before I miss a note that I'm going to miss a note. Sometimes (rarely), I can "calm myself down/refocus" and avoid the miss. I've seen this same phenom in others and talking to them, they are aware prior to making a mistake that 'one is coming soon' :-)
It may be a stretch to say this thing predicts errors. It seems more like it can tell when you are likely to be distracted or more prone to making a mistake.
How best to use that information? It may be possible to train people to recognize they are off focus, so they can get themselves back on focus. Or maybe it won't.
It may be more useful for knowing when someone's work needs to be cross-checked, because we all naturally get distracted sometimes, either by internal or external stimuli. Imagine an air traffic controller using this device. A warning to him that he may not be focusing might only add further distraction, but a signal to a back-up controller who can cross check the first guy's work could save lives.
"Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire." -- William Butler Yeats
I think you're onto something. The brain doesn't like to stay in a perpetual state of alertness. It needs a break sometimes, and by golly, it's going to take it eventually. Postponing the break when the brain is already signaling it needs one isn't going to improve the quality of decisions the way taking the break and coming back to the problem with a fresh mind will.
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!
... than about errors. Or, to put it in another way, it looks like the study more or less ignores the DEFINITION of what an "error" is, and simply treads a "wrong answer" as an error.
The errors in this study seem - from the description in the article - to be caused by the loss of concentration. This is, if you read carefully, exactly what is described: the brain seems to drift away, into dreaming or an idle state, which OF COURSE increases the possibility of a wrong result.
This is not the only possibility for an "error", when it comes to a, say, day-to-day working environment. Of course, even there some errors are made because of lacking concentration, but also, errors are made because of lacking information, missinformation, and so on.
Regarding the "useful implications" of this study, there should be more free time at work, allowing the mind to take a rest. That's why companies that allow power napping and smoking corners somehow "perform better" than those forcing their workhorses to sit in front of a screen for 8 hours, only allowing a short break at lunch (i.e. typical cashier workplace).
Now, there are to possible results:
1. some common sense kicks in, and the "working style" is improved
2. their might be a small implanted device, increasing a little electric shock to your stomach whenever you stupid stop to concentrate on your so-important work.
"You are under arrest because you were about to kill this man"
'Oh... I must have missed that memo'
But clearly you have something better to say...
A hat which warns "ERROR ALERT" when you are starting to get distracted might do more harm than good!
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I don't know. This research is more like predicting whether leaves will fall in six seconds... when it can tell a big breeze is six seconds away. From TFS, it sounds like people are getting distracted and bored doing stupid mind-numbing tasks and when they do so, they make errors. As such, they have invented a bulky and expensive way to tell when you're drifting off (and that is fairly well correlated with making errors.)
College-Pages.com - Online Colleges, Degrees, and Programs