Awareness and control

CSGnet Archive CSG1996
1

[From Rick Marken (960125.1530)]

Bruce Abbott (960125.1130 EST)]

Me:

the subject controlled one perception (point-gain rate) _by controlling_
another; this is hierarchical control of perception.

Bruce:

If the subject were not aware of the relationship between the state of the
SD and the "active" target, the subject would not have constructed a control
system for point-acquisition rate that included the logical variable and the
perceptual state of the SD.

I think there was awareness of the relationship in this case; but I'm not
sure that such awareness is necessary. We often control one variable in order
to help us control another even though we are unaware of why controlling the
first variable helps us control the second. I am controlling the tension in
many muscles in order to control my posture, but I am not aware of the
relationship between the tension in any particular muscle and my current
posture.

In constructing this hierarchical system, the subject "made use of" this
relationship to improve control over the perception of primary interest,
point gain rate.

Yes. The subject "made use of" the existing relationship between the logical
variable and point gain rate by controlling the logical variable: that, as I
said, is hierarhical control. I don't think it was the subject's _perception_
of the relationship between the logical variable and point gain rate that
made this possible; it was just the _fact_ that this relationship existed
that made it possible.

If the relationship did not exist or if the subject were not aware of it, it
would not have become part of the system.

You are correct to say that the subject would never have learned to control
the logical variable if a relationship between the state of that variable and
the state of the point gain rate variable did not exist. But I don't think
that the subject had to be _aware of_ this relationship for control of the
logical variable to have developed. As I said above, my subjective
impression is that "awareness" is not a precondition for learning to control
one variable as a means of controlling another.

You:

Do you really mean to assert that the only perception that affects the
performance of any control system is the perceived current state of the cv?

Me:

Worse than that; I assert that perception... doesn't even affect the
performance of a control system.

You:

Perhaps to be clearer about it I should have said "the only perception _of
any relevance to_ the performance . . ., so that you would not have been
able to throw this irrelevancy back at me.

Yes. That would have been _much_ better. The perception is relevant to the
performance of a control loop because it is controlled by the performance of
the control loop.

Best

Rick

2

[From Bill Powers (960429.1400 MDT)]

Bruce Gregory (960429.1510 EDT)--
Richard Thurman 960425.1430 --

I wasn't being sarcastic: it's essentially impossible to verify that
another person is being aware. You can test for controlled perceptions,
but that's something else.

Bruce is right:

     I think controlling a variable and being aware of the variable are
     two different animals.

Richard:
  This is what Bill P. wrote:
  >If someone is looking for an idea for an interesting research
   project, I think this would be a good one. Figuring out reliable ways
   to divert attention from an ongoing control task should be fun.

  How is this going to provide clues for understanding situational
  awareness?

What this can do is to tell us something about what awareness is for. If
a person starts doing a continuous control task, the parameters of
control (integration factor, reference level, perceptual delay) and the
quality of control (error in the presence of various disturbances) can
be measured. When the person's attention (but not vision) is diverted
from the task to something else going on (for example, somebody in the
background talking about the participant by name), while the task is
supposed to continue, we should be able to see changes in the measured
parameters of control from that point on. If there are no changes, then
awareness makes no difference in doing that task. If there are changes,
perhaps we can measure them and get some idea of the effect of shifting
awareness away from the task.

This doesn't tell us what awareness IS, but it can suggest what
awareness DOES.

···

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best,

Bill P.

3

[From Bruce Nevin (960429.1645 EDT)]

[Bill Powers (960429.1400 MDT)] >

When the person's attention (but not vision) is diverted
from the task to something else going on (for example, somebody in the
background talking about the participant by name), while the task is
supposed to continue, we should be able to see changes in the measured
parameters of control from that point on. If there are no changes, then
awareness makes no difference in doing that task. If there are changes,
perhaps we can measure them and get some idea of the effect of shifting
awareness away from the task.

This doesn't tell us what awareness IS, but it can suggest what
awareness DOES.

It would bear on the difference between disturbance (affecting control) and
distraction (affecting attention).

I believe that this is what Chuck and Clark did when they visited me at BBN
a couple of years ago. I was controlling the alignment of the cursor with a
moving mark when they started talking to me about something extraneous to
the task. They were surprised when they looked at the trace and saw no
evidence of disturbance.

Not long after, I posted a description to the net. I am used to controlling
things with a mouse under conditions of distraction, and was able to
re-frame the task in terms of (what I reported as) a perception of lateral
pressure on the mouse. When Chuck and Clark started their distracting
conversation, I was able to reduce my attention to the tracking task. I was
able to look away and make eye contact with them, and respond to what they
were saying, so long as I was able to make periodic visual checks to see if
the mark and cursor had started to separate. However, I was not able to
participate in the conversation fully.

When I thought about this at the time, I thought of it as an attempt to
disturb my control in the tracking task, and I assumed that this was how
they thought of what they were doing. (When I asked in email to the list,
neither of them answered the question.) This confusion underscores the need
to distinguish between disturbance (affecting control) and distraction
(affecting attention).

That it was in the conversation that I was aware of being distracted, more
than in the tracking task, was I think a reflection of how I had reframed
the latter.
The reframing of the tracking task is an instance I think of what we mean
when we talk about skill, the results of practice. The same attempt at
distraction would probably have succeeded with someone who did not have the
experience I had had controlling graphical representations with a mouse,
and the experience I had had working in distracting conditions and juggling
multiple concurrent tasks. A typical mother would probably do much better
at this than your typical engineer.

        Bruce

4

[From Richard Thurman (960430.1030)]

Bill Powers (960429.1400 MDT)

Bruce Gregory (960429.1510 EDT)--

I wasn't being sarcastic: it's essentially impossible to verify that
another person is being aware. You can test for controlled perceptions,
but that's something else.

I already commented on this in an earlier post (to Bruce), but I can't
seem to shake it loose yet. Your patience as I try to sort this out is
appreciated.

If those split-brain studies are interpreted correctly, then they show
that people can be very aware of the environment without being conscious
of it. They (the studies) indicate that awareness, consciousness, and
attention are not necessarily the same thing -- though teasing them apart
may be very hard.

In fact -- if I would have been thinking better -- I would not have
brought those studies up. I simply would have referred to the fact that
we unconsciously control all sorts of perceptions. Some of them we may
never consciously attend to, others can be brought to the forefront of our
attention simply by an act of will (or so it seems). The fact that we
control at all shows that at some level in the hierarchy we are aware of
these perceptions, even if we are not conscious of them.

I am suggesting that awareness is necessary for control, though it may not
be 'conscious awareness.' So your statement that "it's essentially
impossible to verify that another person is being aware" cannot be true.
All one need do is test for the controlled variable -- if the test turns
out to be positive, then the control system must be 'aware' of the
controlled perception.

I would have had no problem if you would have written 'it's essentially
impossible to verify that another person is being _consciously_ aware' and
I think that is what you meant.

So it is quite possible to determine if others are aware. But hard to
verify if they are consiously aware.

Bruce is right:

    I think controlling a variable and being aware of the variable are
    two different animals.

I think Bruce is right also. But for different reasons. Controlling a
variable is very different than being aware of the variable. But the
variable cannot be controlled without an awareness of it.

When I read that quote I hear the same thing as 'I think controlling a
variable and perceiving the variable are two different things.' And of
course he his right.

I am really not trying to nit-pick. I'm just trying to sort out the
differences between awareness, attention, and consciousness.

Rich

···

--------------------------------------------------
Richard Thurman
Air Force Armstrong Lab
6001 S. Power Rd. BLDG. 558
Mesa AZ. 85206-0904
(602)988-6561
Thurman@hrlban1.aircrew.asu.edu
---------------------------------------------------