The underlying hypothesis in study design was that a repetitive task could (or would) become automatic and as such Mindless, unless or until a ‘breakdown’ occurs forcing a Mindful engagement. That is to say, initially tasks require concerted effort and necessitate a Mindful approach and interaction as previously described by Langer (p20, 1989); though with enough repetition of a task the "... learned tasks drop out of mind", as "...the individual parts of the task move out of our consciousness. Eventually, we come to assume that we can [original in italics] do the task although we no longer know how [original in italics] we do it." (p20, Langer, 1989). Similarly, and as previously described, Anderson (1992) proposes several qualities of automaticity development during a task:
• The acquisition of skilled performance speeds up with a reduction in error rate with practice.
• As a skill becomes more practiced, there is less interference with concurrent tasks; and furthermore it is less interfered with by a concurrent task.
• “It is easier for a task to become "automatic" if there is a consistent stimulus- to-response mapping. In the context of this statement, the term automatic connotes fast processes, little interference by concurrent processes, and little effect of number of alternatives.” (p167)
Concurrently, Koschmann, Kuutti, and Hickman note the effect of ‘breakdown’ upon a task as "...a disruption in the normal functioning of things forcing the individual to adopt a more reflective or deliberative stance toward ongoing activity." (p26, 1998). A position supported by Langer further describes that: "If something or someone makes us question our competence on a task that we know moderately well but is not overlearned in this way, we can search our minds for the steps of the task and find them" (p20, Langer, 1989).
2.1.1: Procedure
The study design was developed with aim to understand if Mindful and Mindless states can be measured through current “public domain” technologies, using a number of theoretical positioning’s informed by the previous findings (Section 1) as points of contrast and comparison, and analysis. This study comprised of seven conditions that vary in their degree of difficulty and ‘steps’ in completion (described in detail in Comparative Conditions Chapter 2.3.0 (outline Chapter 2.2.1). Each
displaying the condition’s test (Tobii TX3007), with four answers presented in fixed locations along the bottom of the screen. Four 100mm white physical buttons (with high speed switches) in fixed positions of an equal distance apart on which answers were to be given were placed in front of the screen (see figure 2.1 below). Each test had a single correct answer. Participants were allowed prior to the test to adjust the buttons positions to a place where they were both comfortable and able to press all buttons freely. The screen was then adjusted to a position that was again comfortable for the participant and at a distance that allowed eye-tracking detection (i.e. approximately 65cm and at a horizontal level not exceeding 30º angle) (see figure 2.1 below). Participants were informed of the condition they were about to undertake and that they should answer as quickly and as correctly as possible prior to each condition. It was ensured that each participant understood what the condition tests would require to provide a correct answer. Each participant was informed that their data would be fully anonymised and that they were free to withdraw from the study at any time without reason (and could request their data be destroyed within the 30 days following their participation), and this study was in no way a medical exam (or replacement to), and signed consent of participation (see appendix 2.1) prior to undertaking the study. Prior to agreement of participation, participants were informed of the ways in which the technologies for capturing physiological data worked and their capabilities, and provided opportunity to have any questions answered they might have about the study and technologies, e.g. if the EEG device could tell they were thinking of personal information.
Figure 2.1; Participant during study (*facial features hidden for anonymity). Each of the seven conditions had a custom written software controlled using Cycling ’74 – MaxMSP; a visual programming language for developing multimedia interactive software. This custom software additionally controlled randomization of
testing (i.e. stimulus shown), recorded input of participant responses from the four input buttons, events log (e.g. between stimulus presentation and response), recording of test shown, and provided correct or wrong audio response. Each condition had a total of 200 tests with a 500ms blank screen between an answer being provided and display of the following test. Audio feedback was provided through the computer operating the custom study software and was ensured to be audible to the participant. The audio feedback was demonstrated to participants prior to presentation of the first condition tests and was used to represent correct and wrong answers through generic ‘ding’ and ‘beep’ (i.e. non-linguistic) sounds of the same length; this was consistent across all conditions and participants, and was the only metric of performance given to participants during each condition. Conditions varied in presentation order cross-participant informed by a Latin Square configuration to account for accumulative effects (i.e. length of study) across conditions (see following Condition Presentation Ordering - Table A2.2 in Appendix 2.2). In total there was 11 participants8. The remainder population comprised of 2 female, 9 male; 3 left-handed (8 right-handed); and an average age of 34 years. All participants were proficient in English language (i.e. English first language or use in higher degree level).
8 In total 12 participants were recruited, one participant (P2) was removed mid study due to