The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
SPECIAL SECTION: Adapting to New Technology in the Operating Room
Abstract
The effects of new technology on human performance in domains such as anesthesiology, commercial aviation, and nuclear power operations remain controversial. To study the impact of new technology on skilled practitioner performance, we observed the introduction of a new, highly integrated, microprocessor-based physiological monitoring system for use in cardiac anesthesia. The new computer system differed from its predecessors in method of display, human interface, level of integration, and automation of functions. A process-tracing technique was used to examine physician-computer interaction in the context of 22 anesthesia procedures for cardiothoracic surgery, most of which involved cardiopulmonary bypass. Practitioners experienced a series of problems with the new computer system. Computer system characteristics relative to the specific context of cardiac surgery created new cognitive and physical burdens that tended to congregate at times of high demand, the characteristic feature of clumsy automation. Practitioners as individuals and as a group tried to overcome these problems by adapting the computer system ( system tailoring) and their behavior ( task tailoring) as they learned about the interaction between characteristics of the new system and characteristics of their field of practice.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hutchins, E. (1995) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1881.001.0001 · Cited by 10,801
Reason, J. (1990) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139062367 · Cited by 5,108
Cited by
Computer Technology and Clinical Work: Still Waiting for Godot
Wears, R. L., & Berg, M. (2005) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.293.10.1261 · Cited by 448
Patterson, E. S., Cook, R. I., & Render, M. L. (2002) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m1061 · Cited by 370
Self-citationThe hostile environment of the intensive care unit
Donchin, Y., & Seagull, F. J. (2002) · Current Opinion in Critical Care · doi:10.1097/00075198-200208000-00008 · Cited by 297
A framework for analyzing the cognitive complexity of computer-assisted clinical ordering
Horsky, J., Kaufman, D. R., Oppenheim, M. I., & Patel, V. L. (2003) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/s1532-0464(03)00062-5 · Cited by 137
Ironies of Generative AI: Understanding and Mitigating Productivity Loss in Human-AI Interaction
Simkute, A., Tankelevitch, L., Kewenig, V., Scott, A. E., Sellen, A., & Rintel, S. (2024) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2405782 · Cited by 89
“Human Factors studies have shown that when system personalization is constrained, the cognitive demands on operators and the associated productivity loss both increase (Cook & Woods, 1997).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Cook, R. I., & Woods, D. D.
- Venue
- Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1996-12
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 593-613
- ISSN
- 0018-7208 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-8181
- OpenAlex
- W2014723599
- Cited by
- 227
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 9.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: SPECIAL SECTION: Adapting to New Technology in the Operating Room. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1518/001872096778827224
- The paper
- Cook, R. I., & Woods, D. D. (1996). SPECIAL SECTION: Adapting to New Technology in the Operating Room. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872096778827224
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.