↓ Skip to main content

Performance Monitoring Applied to System Supervision

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Performance Monitoring Applied to System Supervision
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, July 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2017.00360
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bertille Somon, Aurélie Campagne, Arnaud Delorme, Bruno Berberian

Abstract

Nowadays, automation is present in every aspect of our daily life and has some benefits. Nonetheless, empirical data suggest that traditional automation has many negative performance and safety consequences as it changed task performers into task supervisors. In this context, we propose to use recent insights into the anatomical and neurophysiological substrates of action monitoring in humans, to help further characterize performance monitoring during system supervision. Error monitoring is critical for humans to learn from the consequences of their actions. A wide variety of studies have shown that the error monitoring system is involved not only in our own errors, but also in the errors of others. We hypothesize that the neurobiological correlates of the self-performance monitoring activity can be applied to system supervision. At a larger scale, a better understanding of system supervision may allow its negative effects to be anticipated or even countered. This review is divided into three main parts. First, we assess the neurophysiological correlates of self-performance monitoring and their characteristics during error execution. Then, we extend these results to include performance monitoring and error observation of others or of systems. Finally, we provide further directions in the study of system supervision and assess the limits preventing us from studying a well-known phenomenon: the Out-Of-the-Loop (OOL) performance problem.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 30%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Master 3 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 5%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 13 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 16%
Neuroscience 5 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 9%
Engineering 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 16 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 July 2017.
All research outputs
#13,678,035
of 23,597,497 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,906
of 7,325 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,613
of 313,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#102
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,597,497 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,325 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,342 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.