RESUMO
When do we follow requests and recommendations and which ones do we choose not to comply with? This publication combines definitions of compliance and reactance as behaviours and as affective processes in one model for application to human-robot interaction. The framework comprises three steps: human perception, comprehension, and selection of an action following a cue given by a robot. The paper outlines the application of the model in different study settings such as controlled experiments that allow for the assessment of cognition as well as observational field studies that lack this possibility. Guidance for defining and measuring compliance and reactance is outlined and strategies for improving robot behaviour are derived for each step in the process model. Design recommendations for each step are condensed into three principles on information economy, adequacy, and transparency. In summary, we suggest that in order to maximise the probability of compliance with a cue and to avoid reactance, interaction designers should aim for a high probability of perception, a high probability of comprehension and prevent negative affect. Finally, an example application is presented that uses existing data from a laboratory experiment in combination with data collected in an online survey to outline how the model can be applied to evaluate a new technology or interaction strategy using the concepts of compliance and reactance as behaviours and affective constructs.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine long-term outcome predictors for patients with acute aortic dissection type A (AADA) and aortic root involvement. METHODS: From 2001 through 2009, 119 of 152 patients operated on for AADA at a tertiary medical center underwent supracoronary ascending aortic replacement (52 women; mean age, 61 ± 15 years). Those with at least 1-year follow-up (n = 97) were retrospectively assessed for preoperative aortic root disease. Follow-up data were assessed for evidence of new-onset aortic root disease by computed tomography and echocardiography, and for reoperation for aortic root disease. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 33.8 months (range, 0-112 months). Twenty-six (27%) patients had new-onset aortic root disease at 4.4 ± 2.6 years after the initial procedure (range, 1.0-8.2 years) and 10 required aortic root reoperation. Severe aortic dissection with extension to pelvic arteries was an independent predictor for new-onset aortic root disease (P < .01). Dissection of all aortic sinuses during the initial procedure was an independent predictor (P < .05) for aortic root reoperation. Mean rate of aortic root expansion after supracoronary repair was 0.6 ± 1.1 mm per year. Preoperative aortic root diameter and aortic sinus dissection did not affect survivals. Five-year survivals were similar in patients with and without new-onset aortic root disease (91% vs 89%; P = .79). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AADA, dissection of 3 aortic sinuses is an independent predictor for need of reoperation, whereas dissection extension into the iliac arteries is a predictor of secondary aortic root disease. Long-term follow-up at close intervals is warranted in patients with supracoronary ascending aortic replacement to reduce mortality caused by new onset of aortic root disease.