What does cognitive ergonomics study?
Cognitive ergonomics analyzes the relationship between job demands and processes such as attention, perception, memory, and decision-making. Its applied purpose is to design systems that can be used in a clear and safe manner. This includes everything from a control panel to the sequence of checks in a procedure.
It relates to mental workload, but it’s not the same as measuring stress or diagnosing personal abilities. A task can be difficult due to conflicting information, interruptions, or lack of time. In such cases, attributing the problem to a supposed lack of attention prevents us from recognizing systemic conditions that can be corrected.
Information needed at the right time
Information must be visible, understandable, and relevant to the decision that needs to be made. More data doesn’t always improve control. A cluttered screen can make it difficult to find a relevant warning, while hiding essential details forces you to recall information or search for it in multiple places during an urgent situation.
It is advisable to organize content according to the task and use consistent terminology. The same status should not be referred to by different names on screen, in procedures, and in verbal communication. Codes can be useful if understood, but they should be accompanied by support materials when used infrequently or when confusion could have significant consequences.
Attention, interruptions, and memory
Interruptions can cause you to lose sight of the point in a sequence or make an incomplete task appear finished. Prevention should consider when the interruption occurs, through what channel, and what information allows you to resume work. A generic reminder to focus is insufficient for an organization that demands you simultaneously address incompatible tasks.
External aids, such as short lists or status indicators, can reduce reliance on memory. They should be designed for actual use and kept up to date. A list that is too long, duplicated, or disconnected from the procedure may end up being filled out automatically, without supporting the check for which it was originally created.
Interfaces, warnings, and error recovery
An interface must communicate what is happening, what actions are available, and what the result was. The differences between normal states, warnings, and errors must be perceptible and understandable. It is not advisable to rely solely on color when there may be perceptual difficulties, unfavorable lighting, or screens that distort its display.
Recovery is also important. Where technically feasible, it’s advisable to prevent incompatible actions, facilitate checks, and allow for error correction without disproportionate consequences. Alarms must have a defined meaning and response. Repeating irrelevant alerts can reduce attention, so their management requires technical review and not simply asking people to ignore them.
Organization and training
The quality of information is no substitute for time, resources, and clear responsibilities. A person can perfectly understand what they need to do but lack the means to carry it out. Psychological safety encourages communicating doubts and detected errors, while pressure to appear in control can mask systemic problems.
Training should include real-world scenarios, state changes, and troubleshooting. It’s helpful to assess understanding and performance, not just attendance. When introducing a new tool, it’s also advisable to review technostress and digital interruptions, ensuring that implementation doesn’t simply add simultaneous communications without clarifying priorities or eliminating duplicated processes.
Practical example
In a control center, two similar devices appear with almost identical abbreviations. An alarm forces the opening of several windows to determine which unit is affected. After an interruption, it’s easy to return to the wrong screen and prepare an action on a different device than the one that needs intervention.
The review reorganizes the identification process, displays relevant status, and adds a consistent check before the critical action. The sequence is tested with users, including anticipated interruptions. The example does not assume that every additional confirmation is helpful: too many repetitive windows can become just another formality that people accept without reading.
Evaluation and verification of improvements
The assessment may combine observation, interviews, task analysis, and usage testing. It is important to understand where information is sought, what is interpreted differently, and what steps are omitted under pressure. The tests should reflect the context, including noise, use of protective equipment, shift work, and access conditions when relevant.
Errors and near misses offer valuable information if analyzed objectively. A distinction must be made between what the procedure expected and what the system allowed or encouraged. After modifying the procedure, it’s advisable to check whether people identify the problem more quickly and whether the solution introduces new confusion or an unnecessary additional burden.
Common mistakes
Common mistakes include responding to every failure with more training, adding warnings without checking their usefulness, or designing solely with expert users. Measuring speed as the only outcome is also a mistake, because a task can be completed faster by skipping checks or making it harder to detect anomalies.
The goal is not to eliminate all mental demands, but to make them compatible with safe and sustainable performance. Cognitive ergonomics provides criteria for ensuring that information, tools, and organization support work. User participation allows us to verify that the design works beyond an ideal demonstration without interruptions or incidents.
