Explaining Crisis Situations via a Cognitive Model of Attention

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think it is an excellent work that has the merit of considering the main approaches of cognitive sciences to the human decision-making process. If I may make a small comment, perhaps I would have also mentioned Watzlavich and the Palo Alto school.

Author Response

Comments 1: If I may make a small comment, perhaps I would have also mentioned Watzlavich and the Palo Alto school.

Response 1: Thank you so much for your review and your inspiration! The theory of Palo Alto school deserves attention, but it is hard to make clear statements in the terms of the provided article. However, this suggestion would definitely be applied in our next work. The idea that automatic unconscious processes establish intrinsic communication can be applied. The suggested theoretical approach can also be used to explain the intrinsic knowledge that a given act like “empty bottle of soda found in a theatre on a bench” provides to the observer. In our future work related to the approach is going to include the Other’s actions module of the Action Cycle Theory [2] as such that is related to communication and Watzlavich’s approach. That is why we are thankful for your suggestion!

The article is now improved. The introduction was rewritten towards providing the reader a clearer understanding of the content of the article. A deeper explanation and more scientific evidence were provided for the theoretical approach of Attention as Action. The application of the conceptual models in a design of a crisis information system is more deeply explained. Directions were provided for other researchers that can use the approach and the models.

References:

1. Bendela, B. K. B. Critical Analysis of the Axiom: 'One Cannot Communicate' Theoryof Paul Watzlawick of the Palo Alto School. The International Journal of Science Technoledge, 10(7). https://doi.org/10.24940/THEIJST/2022/V10/I7/ST2207-003
2. Marks, D.F. The Action Cycle Theory of Perception and Mental Imagery. Vision 2023, 7, 12. https://doi.org/10.3390/vision7010012

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors attempt to build a theoretical model on decision making in crisis situations, however there are many theoretical concepts that are not well defined and not adequately connected with previous literature. For example, it is unclear the distinction between cognitive and attentional architectures, or between cognitive and attention knowledge. Also, the distinction between “intelligent” or intentional and automatic unintentional process is not totally coherent with current dual reasoning system theories. The manuscript refers to multiple theoretical backgrounds about attention, consciousness and metacognition but, overall, it is difficult to understand which are the main contributions of the present proposal.

 

 

Author Response

Comments 1: it is unclear the distinction between cognitive and attentional architectures, or between cognitive and attention knowledge. Also, the distinction between “intelligent” or intentional and automatic unintentional process is not totally coherent with current dual reasoning system theories. The manuscript refers to multiple theoretical backgrounds about attention, consciousness and metacognition but, overall, it is difficult to understand which are the main contributions of the present proposal

Response 1: Thank you very much for your review! Your comments were used to increase the readability and the structure of the manuscript, which is why we are thankful. The approach of Attention as Action is now more deeply explained in section 4. As derived from the Global Workspace Theory the theoretical approach is now supported with evidence from research related to the theory, the understanding of the cognitive cycle and the LIDA model and the Action Cycle Theory (section 4). Also, neuropsychological evidence was provided that showed the application of the approach in the field.

The purpose of mentioning the dichotomy between automatic and intentional processes was intended for providing direction for the reader to understand the distinctiveness of the theoretical approach. The article “Automatically minded” by Ellen Fridland was specifically used to point out that automatic processes can be described as intelligent and yet unconscious. After the deeper explanation of the approach in section 4 the dichotomy of the terms should be clearer for understanding. A new structure of the article is now available that more clearly presents the initial directions, the research method, the result and its application.

The “unintentional” adjective that was describing an automatic process was replaced by “unconscious”; thus, providing clearer understanding of the main direction of the theoretical approach. Now an explanation is provided that outlines attentional experiences as related to knowledge and automatic cognitive processes as related to unconscious processes that gather information from memory, organize sensory input or produce body actions.

The main contribution of this work is the presented new theoretical approach that provides new directions for investigating attentional processes related to the cognitive cycle. The semiotic internal action representation methodology that integrates the understandings of the theoretical approach can be used to provide Attention as Action models in different fields. They can be used by researchers and engineers that do not have broad knowledge in Cognitive Science. This way beneficial knowledge can be represented by the semiotic methodology explaining internal decision-making. By using the knowledge, engineers would be able to design crisis information systems, the features of which lead to beneficial decision-making.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper explores that understanding human cognitive and behavioral processes can significantly improve management in Critical Infrastructure crisis situations through more effective strategies and tools for rapid and appropriate response

A general model of Attention as Action was formulated in the terms of the theory that provides knowledge for the interconnectedness between the defined processes of attention. Supported by cognitive architectures and other models, the Theory of Estomenons helps to optimize human-machine interaction by considering the particularities of human perception and attention.

It is an interesting research work, but there are some shortcomings that should be addressed before considering the paper for publication. They are discussed below.

·         The authors state in Section 2.1:” USA’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency defines critical infrastructure sectors [2] public and private space and in our country, that…”. This statement is surprising given that the authors are from Bulgaria and mention the USA as “our country”!? If it is the citation from the document, it should be stated as such.

·         The title of Section 2 is written as follows: “2. Perception of Critical Infrastructure and Its Resilience”, but there is no discussion upon “Resilience”? What is the meaning of Resilience in this context?

·         There are several acronyms put in the text without any explanation regarding their meaning. It should be corrected.

·         Complexity: With the growing complexity as well as density and strength of interactions (creating opaqueness of systems), man-made systems can become unstable, creating potentially uncontrollable situations, and cascading failures even when decision-makers are highly competent, possess data and technological means at their disposal, and do their best.

Enterprises are designed, operated and managed to provide optimal performance, reliable operation and functional safety. Meanwhile, the technological evolution and modern operational and business environment bring an important source of complexity. Some authors speak of “structural complexity” introduced through the heterogeneity of system components across different technological domains due to the increased integration among various systems, and the “dynamic complexity” which is manifested through the emergence of (even unexpected) system behavior in response to local changes in the environmental and operational conditions.

In this context, the automation of several processes conveys more opacity in the system, with numerous control rules and new information technologies involved. Furthermore, internal and external pressures as well as high performance and competitiveness requirements continuously increase (“do-more-and-better-with-less” paradigm) creating a stressful environment for both managers and workers causing a reduced performance and concentration down the path.

Consequently, contemporary organizations rather become complex socio-technological-economic entities involving many interacting and interdependent elements with a hardly predictable long term behavior at micro and macro levels.

In the context of the complexity and the functional opaqueness of the system, it is difficult for the workers to anticipate its global behavior based on the behavior of its components in interaction. As the complexity is a matter of interactions between simple interdependent components/systems, humans, IT, etc. it brings unexpected reactions of the whole, often amplified by operator’s actions erroneously adapted to those situations.The emergent system behavior that occurs is influenced by uncertain cause-and-effect relationships and unscheduled discontinuities. Those interactions create both significant uncertainties and overall opaqueness in the system, which consequently makes the operator dependent on indirect information reducing his capacity of immediate analysis and ulterior action. Consequently, the safety margin is reduced, and the system becomes more vulnerable to accidents.

It is not clear how the authors capture above-mentioned aspects in their model. It has to be expanded/clarified.

·         The model heavy relies on the phenomenon of cognitive biases. However, there are not only cognitive biases involved, but also motivational ones. See for example Montibeller G, Winterfeldt D. Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis. Risk Anal 2015:35 (7):1230-1251.

The authors should explain how motivational biases are considered in their model.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review and comments!

Comments 1: The authors state in Section 2.1:” USA’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency defines critical infrastructure sectors [2] public and private space and in our country, that…”. This statement is surprising given that the authors are from Bulgaria and mention the USA as “our country”!? If it is the citation from the document, it should be stated as such.

Response 1: Thanks for your remark. It is correctly understated that the citation is missing. Appropriate corrections have been made.

Comments 2: The title of Section 2 is written as follows: “2. Perception of Critical Infrastructure and Its Resilience”, but there is no discussion upon “Resilience”? What is the meaning of Resilience in this context?

Response 2: Thanks for your remark. It was technical mistake. The Title should be “2. Perception of Critical Infrastructure and Its Disruption”.

Comments 3: There are several acronyms put in the text without any explanation regarding their meaning. It should be corrected.

Response 3: All acronyms are edited.

Comments 4: It is not clear how the authors capture above-mentioned aspects in their model. It has to be expanded/clarified.

Response 4: Some changes were made on the sections related to the clarification of the model.

Comments 5: The model heavy relies on the phenomenon of cognitive biases. However, there are not only cognitive biases involved, but also motivational ones. See for example Montibeller G, Winterfeldt D. Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis. Risk Anal 2015:35 (7):1230-1251.

The authors should explain how motivational biases are considered in their model.

Response 5: The Theory of Estomenons was decided to be presented in a future paper as in this it increases the number of new concepts too much. The Introduction of this article was updated towards providing a more specific explanation of the theoretical approach and the models that explain the crisis phenomenon and the metacognitive experience. More explanation and evidence were provided that support the theoretical approach of Attention as Action in section 4.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have put considerable effort into defining a cognitive model of attention to describe critical infrastructure crisis situations. My observations about the manuscript are as follows:

1. The abstract begins with sentences about critical infrastructure, listing potential problems before describing the work's objective. However, I feel that the title and the opening sentences of the abstract do not adequately introduce readers to the manuscript's content. I suggest reformulating the title of the paper and revising the first two sentences of the abstract (lines 7 to 10). Additionally, I do not see a strong reason to include the definition in the abstract (lines 13 to 15).

2. The introductory section could be further improved by providing representative references, particularly for the text on p. 2, lines 51 to 56, 64 to 72, and 73 to 80. Similarly, on p. 3, lines 104 to 110, it would be helpful to cite representative references where readers can find additional explanations of the events or assertions mentioned.

3. The conclusion in lines 541 to 543 defines the essence of the manuscript. The central part of the manuscript should define the method applied in the research process and then present the results of the method application. All this should be harmonised with the rest of the manuscript. It is necessary to harmonise the entire manuscript so that it represents a unique whole, from the title to the conclusion. In each part of the manuscript, something new is introduced and described as something that should be the basis of the manuscript. The central part of the manuscript should clearly define the method used in the research. By applying that method, it is necessary to obtain results, the explanation of which should be given in the appropriate section. The above descriptions, primarily those related to the Internal Decision Model of Attention, require additional explanations that would more precisely explain the problems faced by decision makers. The existing description seems too abstract. More detailed description of the problem is needed to confirm the justification of this approach.

My humble opinion is that the manuscript in its current form is not suitable for publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review! Your comments significantly improved this content and its structure.

The abstract was edited so that it can fit the article content.

The introductory section was substantially improved towards providing a clearer understanding of the direction of the article. The structure of the content was updated towards havign a central part—section 4. Now the section explains and provides more scientific support for the theoretical approach used as the research method. The result of the research method—the conceptual models explaining the crisis phenomenon are also further scientifically supported. More solid evidences are provided via studies related to the Global Workspace Theory, the Action Cycle Theory and from the sphere of cognitive control.

In order to harmonize the manuscript and to achieve a “unique whole” content was moved from section 4 to section 3 into a separate subsection that explains the demand for understanding the metacognitive processes as solution to ineffective cognitive biases. Now the central part of the manuscript (section 4) clearly defines the Internal Decision Model of Attention used as guidance during the research. The model is now supported with more evidence from studies on the cognitive cycle, the Action Cycle Theory and from the field of Neuropsychology.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors adequately addressed the comments.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors made an effort to improve the manuscript. My recommendations are accepted, and I have no additional requests regarding the structure and content of the manuscript. My humble opinion is that the manuscript can be accepted in its current form.