Abstract
The purpose of the study is to model manual submarine steering and its effects on helmsmen in terms of performance and mental workload. This activity is first formalized according to (a) cognitive requirements, by identifying different levels of control, and (b) perceptual–motor requirements, by analysing the directional compatibility of control–display design. An experiment is then carried out on a simulator designed by a world leader in military naval shipbuilding. This experiment follows a unique scenario including two driving situations with different levels of cognitive requirements (approach and stabilization phases). It is achieved by two groups, each carrying out a perceptual–motor task on a specific steering control–display configuration proposed by the naval shipbuilder (one with a standard numeric display and one with a new visual–spatial representation, both tasks controlled by the same joystick). The findings of this study show that the cognitive requirements during the stabilization phase with high propulsion speed produce increased mental workload, and the perceptual–motor requirements also produce increased mental workload when a direction-of-motion stereotype is violated (upward–forward relationship).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anzai Y (1984) Cognitive control of real-time event-driven systems. Cogn Sci 8(3):221–254
Beatty J, Lucero-Wagoner B (2000) The pupillary system. Handb Psychophysiol 2:142–162
Burgess-Limerick R, Krupenia V, Wallis G, Pratim-Bannerjee A, Steiner L (2010) Directional control–response relationships for mining equipment. Ergonomics 53(6):748–757
Byers JC, Bittner AC Jr, Hill SG (1989) Traditional and raw task load index (TLX) correlations: are paired comparisons necessary? In: Mital A (ed) Advances in industrial ergonomics and safety. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 481–485
Cegarra J, Chevalier A (2008) The use of tholos software for combining measures of mental workload: toward theoretical and methodological improvements. Behav Res Methods 40(4):988–1000
Chan AHS, Hoffmann ER (2012) Movement compatibility for configurations of displays located in three cardinal orientations and ipsilateral, contralateral and overhead controls. Appl Ergon 43(2012):128–140
Chen S, Epps J (2014) Using task-induced pupil diameter and blink rate to infer cognitive load. Hum Comput Interact 29(4):390–413
de Greef T, Lafeber H, van Oostendorp H, Lindenberg J (2009) Eye movement as indicators of mental workload to trigger adaptive automation. Springer, Berlin, pp 219–228
Dehais F, Causse M, Pastor J (2008) Embedded eye tracker in a real aircraft: new perspectives on pilot/aircraft interaction monitoring. In: Proceedings from the 3rd international conference on research in air transportation. Fairfax
Engstrom J, Johansson E, Ostlund J (2005) Effects of visual and cognitive load in real and simulated motorway driving. Transp Res 8:97–120
Foulsham T, Cheng JT, Tracy JL, Henrich J, Kingstone A (2010) Gaze allocation in a dynamic situation: effects of social status and speaking. Cognition 117(3):319–331
Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv Psychol 52:139–183
Hill SG, Iavecchia HP, Byers JC, Bittner AC, Zaklade AL, Christ, RE (1992) Comparison of four subjective workload rating scales. Hum Factors: J Hum Factors Ergonomics Soc 34(4):429–439
Hoc JM (1996) Supervision et Contrôle de Processus: La Cognition En Situation Dynamique. Presses universitaires de Grenoble, PUG
Hoc JM (2001) Towards a cognitive approach to human–machine cooperation in dynamic situations. Int J Hum Comput Stud 54(4):509–540
Hoc JM, Amalberti R (2007) Cognitive control dynamics for reaching a satisficing performance in complex dynamic situations. J Cogn Eng Decis Mak 1(1):22–55
Hollnagel E (1993) Human reliability analysis: context and control. Academic Press, London
Jamson AH, Merat N (2005) Surrogate in-vehicle information systems and driver behaviour: effects of visual and cognitive load in simulated rural driving. Transp Res F Traffic Psychol Behav 8(2):79–96
Kok JJ, Stassen HG (1980) Human operator control of slowly responding systems: supervisory control. J Cybernet Inf Sci 3:123–174
Koyama T, Kose K, Hasegawa K (1978) A study on the instability criterion of the manual steering of ships. Nav Archit Ocean Eng 16:15–24
Marshall SP (2007) Identifying cognitive state from eye metrics. Aviat Space Environ Med 78(Supplement 1):B165–B175
McLane RC, Wolf JD (1967) Symbolic and pictorial displays for submarine control. IEEE Trans Hum Factors Electron 2:148–158
McRuer DT, Allen RW, Weir DH, Klein RH (1977) New results in driver steering control models. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 19(4):381–397
Michon JA (1985) A critical view of driver behavior models: what do we know, what should we do? In: Evans LA, Schwing R (eds) Proceedings of the international symposium on driver behavior and traffic safety. General motors research laboratories, Plenum Press, New York, pp 485–520
Moray N (1997) Human factors in process control. In: Salvendy G (ed) Handbook of human factors and ergonomics. Wiley, New York, pp 1944–1971
Nilsson R, Gärling T, Lützhöft M (2009) An experimental simulation study of advanced decision support system for ship navigation. Transp Res F Traffic Psychol Behav 12(3):188–197
Peters B, Nilsson L (2007) Modelling the driver in control. In: Cacciabue C (ed) Modelling driver behaviour in automotive environments. Springer, London, pp 85–104
Ranchet M (2011) Effet de la maladie de Parkinson sur la conduite automobile—implication des fonctions executives. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Lyon 2
Recarte MA, Perez E, Conchillo A, Nunes LM (2008) Mental workload and visual impairment: differences between pupil, blink and subjective rating. Span J Psychol 11:374–385
Reid GB, Nygren TE (1988) The subjective workload assessment technique: a scaling procedure for measuring mental workload. Adv Psychol 52:185–218
Stanton NA, Bessell K (2014) How a submarine returns to periscope depth: analysing complex socio-technical systems using Cognitive work analysis. Appl Ergon 45(1):110–125
Sutton R, Towill DR (1986) The helmsman as a man–machine element. J Navig 39(01):49–65
Temme LA, Still DL, Kolen J (2003) OZ: A human-centered computing cockpit display. In: 45th annual conference of the IMTA, Pensacola
Veltman JA, Gaillard AWK (1996) Physiological indices of workload in a simulated flight task. Biol Psychol 42(3):323–342
Verney J (1995) Pilotage intégré pour sous-marins. Navigation 43(171):372–387
Wickens CD, Vincow M, Yeh M (2005) Design applications of visual spatial thinking: the importance of frame of reference. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Wilson GF (2002) An analysis of mental workload in pilots during flight using multiple psychophysiological measures. Int J Aviat Psychol 12:3–18
Worringham CJ, Beringer DB (1998) Directional stimulus–response compatibility a test of three alternative principles. Ergonomics 41(6):864e880
Williams KW (2004) A summary of unmanned aircraft accident/incident data: human factors implications (Technical Report DOT/FAA/AM-04/24). U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aerospace Me, Washington
Zupanc CM, Burgess-Limerick RJ, Wallis G (2007) Performance consequences of alternating directional control-response compatibility: evidence from a coal mine shuttle car simulator. Hum Factors 49(4):629–636
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Philippe, R., Christine, C., Chiara, N. et al. Analysis of submarine steering: effects of cognitive and perceptual–motor requirements on the mental workload and performance of helmsmen. Cogn Tech Work 18, 657–672 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-016-0384-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-016-0384-0