Neurocognitive Engineering for Systems’ Development - Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense - page 45

which they interact. A neurocognitive engineering approach is posited to offer insights
into developing such systems, from designing more effective displays to systems that
adapt to the state of the operator. Any such approach must take into account tradi-
tional cognitive engineering issues such as the changing capabilities of the operator,
the environments under which the systems will be used, and the different potential
tasks the operator system may attempt to undertake. As neuroscience and its constitu-
ent and allied fields rapidly advance, it is expected that the neurocognitive engineer-
ing approach will advance, as well. In this way, future progress not only involves
the direct employment of neurotechnology (e.g., moment-to-moment brain-computer
interface; Serruya et al. 2002), but will likely be fortified by the use of nutriceuticals
and pharmaceuticals that work in tandem with any such technology to enhance indi-
vidual capabilities (Kosfeld et al. 2005; McCabe et al. 2001; Zak et al. 2005).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was conducted under the U.S. Army Research Laboratory's Army Technology
Objective (Research), “High-Definition Cognition in Operational Environments.”
DISCLAIMER
The findings in this report are those of the authors and are not to be construed as
an official Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized
documents. Kelvin Oie and Kaleb McDowell are U.S. Government employees and this
work was written as part of their official duties as employees of the U.S. Government.
REFERENCES
Ariely, D. 2003. “Controlling the information flow: effects on consumers' decision making
and preferences.” Journal of Consumer Research 27(2):233-248.
Arnell, K.M. and O. Jolicœur. 1999. “The attentional blink across stimulus modalities:
Evidence for central processing limitations.” Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Perception and Performance 25(3):630-648.
Baird, A.A., M.K. Colvin, J.D. VanHorn, S. Inati, and M.S. Gazzaniga. 2005. “Functional
connectivity: Integrating behavioral, diffusion tensor imaging, and functional magnetic
resonance imaging data sets.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 17(4):687-693.
Barandiaran, X. and A. Moreno. 2006. “On what makes certain dynamical systems cognitive:
A minimally cognitive organization program.” Adaptive Behavior 14(2):171-185.
Ben-Shachar, M., R.F. Dougherty, and B.A. Wandell. 2007. “White matter pathways in
reading.” Current Opinion in Neurobiology 17(2):258-270.
Boehm-Davis, D.A., W.D., Gray, L. Adelman, S. Marshall, and R. Pozos. 2003. Understanding
and Measuring Cognitive Workload: A Coordinated Multidisciplinary Approach .
Dayton, OH: Air Force Office of Scientific Research.
Bohn, R. and J. Short. 2012. Measuring consumer information. International Journal of
Communication 6:980-1000.
Bond, J. 1997. “The drivers of the information revolution-cost, computing power, and con-
vergence.” In The Information Revolution and the Future of Telecommunications , ed.
J. Bond, Washington, DC: The World Bank Group, pp. 7-10.