Significant Portion Comparison Using Physiological Signal Feedback

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

The overreliance on computers for decision-making in tasks traditionally performed by humans can lead to atrophy of human analytical skills and potential catastrophic outcomes due to misalignment in human-computer collaboration, while completely avoiding computer use results in inefficiency and missed opportunities for improvement.

Innovation Solution

A system that compares and highlights differences between physiologically-identified significant portions and machine-identified significant portions, using a combination of computer vision and physiological signals to provide nuanced feedback to users, thereby enhancing human-computer collaboration.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Productivity

If computer analysis is used to perform tasks, then efficiency and accuracy are improved, but human analytical skills atrophy and misalignment occurs in human-computer collaboration

Engineering Contradiction:

ImproveefficiencyVSAvoidhuman analytical capability

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system provides feedback to users by comparing machine-identified significant portions with physiologically-identified significant portions (detected through eye tracking and physiological signals). This feedback loop allows users to understand where the computer's analysis aligns or diverges from human perception, maintaining human analytical engagement while benefiting from computer efficiency.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The system introduces an intermediary comparison mechanism that mediates between computer analysis results and human physiological responses. By highlighting differences between machine-identified and physiologically-identified significant portions, it creates a bridge that prevents complete reliance on computer automation while maintaining productivity benefits.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Loss of information

If computer analysis results are presented to users, then information completeness is improved, but user confusion increases due to lack of contextual understanding

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveinformation completenessVSAvoiduser understanding

Core Design Contradiction:

Loss of informationVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

Instead of presenting all computer analysis results uniformly, the system applies local quality by selectively highlighting only the significant portions that differ between machine and physiological identification. This localized presentation provides complete information where needed while avoiding overwhelming users with unnecessary details.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The system uses visual differentiation (color changes or distinct visual indicators) to highlight differences between machine-identified and physiologically-identified significant portions. This makes the information visually intuitive and easier to understand, transforming complex data comparisons into easily distinguishable visual cues.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #32Color changes

3Reliability

If human analysis is performed without computer assistance, then human analytical skills are maintained, but efficiency and productivity decrease

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvehuman analytical capabilityVSAvoidefficiency

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system applies partial action by providing computer assistance only for specific portions of analysis rather than complete automation. It identifies and presents only the significant portions where machine and human analysis differ, allowing users to maintain analytical skills on critical elements while benefiting from computer efficiency on routine elements.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #16Partial or excessive action

4Productivity

If complete computer automation is implemented, then productivity is maximized, but human-computer misalignment increases and catastrophic outcomes may occur

Engineering Contradiction:

ImproveefficiencyVSAvoidhuman-computer alignment

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system implements feedback by continuously comparing computer analysis results with human physiological responses and presenting discrepancies to users. This prevents complete automation by maintaining a feedback loop that ensures human-computer alignment on significant portions while preserving productivity benefits.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The system applies preliminary anti-action by proactively identifying and highlighting potential misalignments between computer and human analysis before they lead to errors. By presenting differences in significant portions upfront, it prevents catastrophic outcomes from undetected computer errors while maintaining automated efficiency.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #9Preliminary anti-action

Data Source

PatentUS12471817B2Identifying differences between physiologically-identified significant portions of a target and machine-identified significant portions

Publication Date: 2025.11.18 HEWLETT PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LP

AI summary

An example system includes an analysis engine to detect a first set of significant portions of a target. The system includes an event engine to detect a set of potential events in a physiological signal and identify a second set of significant portions of the target based on the set of potential events. The system includes a comparison engine to identify a difference between the first set of significant portions and the second set of significant portions.