Advertisement

Cognition, Technology & Work

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 445–455 | Cite as

Influence of cognitive ability on task performance of dynamic decision making in military vehicles under different task complexity

  • Binhe Fu
  • Weiping Liu
  • Xixia LiuEmail author
Original Article
  • 159 Downloads

Abstract

With the increment of demands on task performance in military vehicles, reasons for task performance difference in dynamic decision making have received considerable attention. The aim of this study was to explore the reasons for performance difference of dynamic decision making in military vehicles. The different influences of cognitive ability on task performance were investigated between low and high task complexity. Task performance was assessed with task completion time and error rate. Task complexity was manipulated by altering three forms of load factor, consisting of number of alternatives, information load and interruption duration. Four types of cognitive abilities were measured, including reaction ability, memory ability, sustained attention ability and attention allocation ability. The results indicated that cognitive abilities were effective predictors of task performance. High task complexity was more detrimental to individuals with low cognitive ability in terms of operation speed, and to individuals with high cognitive ability in terms of operation accuracy. High memory ability became increasingly demanded in high complexity. The key points of enhancing task performance lay in crew selection based on cognitive ability test and pertinence training on balancing operation speed and accuracy. This study provides insights into performance difference of military vehicle crew in dynamic decision making, which has remarkable significance in current crew selection, training and task assignment.

Keywords

Cognitive ability Task complexity Task performance Dynamic decision making Military vehicle 

References

  1. Abich J, Reinerman-Jones L, Matthews G (2017) Impact of three task demand factors on simulated unmanned system intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance operations. Ergonomics 60(6):791–809.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2016.1216171 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altmann EM, Trafton JG (2002) Memory for goals: an activation-based model. Cogn Sci 26(1):39–83.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2601_2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey NR, Scerbo MW (2007) Automation-induced complacency for monitoring highly reliable systems: the role of task complexity, system experience, and operator trust. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 8(4):321–348.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220500535301 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball K, Owsley C, Sloane M, Roenker D, Bruni J (1993) Visual-attention problems as a predictor of vehicle crashes among older drivers. Investig Ophthalmol Vis Sci 34(11):3110–3123Google Scholar
  5. Barel E, Tzischinsky O (2018) Age and sex differences in verbal and visuospatial abilities. Adv Cogn Psychol 14(2):51–61.  https://doi.org/10.5709/acp-0238-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borman WC, Hanson MA, Hedge JW (1997) Personnel selection. Annu Rev Psychol 48:299–337.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.299 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brandenburger N, Jipp M (2017) Effects of expertise for automatic train operation. Cognit Technol Work 19(4):699–709.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-017-0434-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burkolter D, Kluge A, Sauer J, Ritzmann S (2009) The predictive qualities of operator characteristics for process control performance: the influence of personality and cognitive variables. Ergonomics 52(3):302–311.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130802376067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bylund SH, Burstrom L (2006) The influence of gender, handle size, anthropometric measures, and vibration on the performance of a precision task. Int J Ind Ergon 36(10):907–914.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2006.07.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Der G, Deary IJ (2006) Age and sex differences in reaction time in adulthood: results from the United Kingdom Health and Lifestyle Survey. Psychol Aging 21(1):62–73.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.21.1.62 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edwards W (1962) Dynamic decision theory and probabilistic information processings. Hum Factors 4(2):59–74.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001872086200400201 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Funke GJ, Warm JS, Baldwin CL, Garcia A, Funke ME, Dillard MB, Finomore VS, Matthews G, Greenlee ET (2016) The independence and interdependence of coacting observers in regard to performance efficiency, workload, and stress in a vigilance task. Hum Factors 58(6):915–926.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816646657 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gagnon KT, Thomas BJ, Munion A, Creem-Regehr SH, Cashdan EA, Stefanucci JK (2018) Not all those who wander are lost: spatial exploration patterns and their relationship to gender and spatial memory. Cognition 180:108–117.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.06.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gold C, Körber M, Lechner D, Bengler K (2016) Taking over control from highly automated vehicles in complex traffic situations: the role of traffic density. Hum Factors 58(4):642–652.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816634226 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gonzalez C (2005) Task workload and cognitive abilities in dynamic decision making. Hum Factors 47(1):92–101.  https://doi.org/10.1518/0018720053653767 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gopher D, Weil M, Bareket T (1994) Transfer of skill from a computer game trainer to flight. Hum Factors 36(3):387–405.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001872089403600301 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Han X, Patterson P (2017) The effect of information availability in a user interface (UI) on in-vehicle task performance: a pilot study. Int J Ind Ergon 61:131–141.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2017.05.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hick WE (1952) On the rate of gain of information. Q J Exp Psychol 4(1):11–26.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17470215208416600 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Horberry T, Anderson J, Regan MA, Triggs TJ, Brown J (2006) Driver distraction: the effects of concurrent in-vehicle tasks, road environment complexity and age on driving performance. Accid Anal Prev 38(1):185–191.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2005.09.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hunter DR, Burke EF (1994) Predicting aircraft pilot-training success: a meta-analysis of published research. Int J Aviat Psychol 4(4):297–313.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0404_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hunter JE, Hunter RF (1984) Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychol Bull 96(1):72–98.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.96.1.72 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hyman R (1953) Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. J Exp Psychol 45(3):188–196.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056940 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jipp M (2016a) Expertise development with different types of automation: a function of different cognitive abilities. Hum Factors 58(1):92–106.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720815604441 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jipp M (2016b) Reaction times to consecutive automation failures: a function of working memory and sustained attention. Hum Factors 58(8):1248–1261.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720816662374 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jones G, Macken B (2015) Questioning short-term memory and its measurement: why digit span measures long-term associative learning. Cognition 144:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.07.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaber D, Jin SG, Zahabi M, Pankok C (2016) The effect of driver cognitive abilities and distractions on situation awareness and performance under hazard conditions. Transp Res Part F Traffic 42:177–194.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2016.07.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kerstholt JH, Passenier PO, Houttuin K, Schuffel H (1996) The effect of a priori probability and complexity on decision making in a supervisory control task. Hum Factors 38(1):65–78.  https://doi.org/10.1518/001872096778940831 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kim BJ, Bishu RR (2004) Cognitive abilities in driving: differences between normal and hazardous situations. Ergonomics 47(10):1037–1052.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130410001686285 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kim JH, Yang XN (2017) Applying fractal analysis to pupil dilation for measuring complexity in a process monitoring task. Appl Ergon 65:61–69.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.06.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lai V, Theppitak C, Makizuka T, Higuchi Y, Movahed M, Kumudini G, Izumi H, Kumashiro M (2014) A normal intensity level of psycho-physiological stress can benefit working memory performance at high load. Int J Ind Ergon 44(3):362–367.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2013.11.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liu P, Li ZZ (2012) Task complexity: a review and conceptualization framework. Int J Ind Ergon 42(6):553–568.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2012.09.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Liu WP, Fu BH, Liu XX, Jin Y (2015) Experimental study of influences of input modes of vehicle-mounted display and control terminal on crew’s information processing capability. Acta Armamentarii 36(11):2180–2184Google Scholar
  33. Liu DH, Peterson T, Vincenzi D, Doherty S (2016) Effect of time pressure and target uncertainty on human operator performance and workload for autonomous unmanned aerial system. Int J Ind Ergon 51:52–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2015.01.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lu ZJ, Coster X, de Winter J (2017) How much time do drivers need to obtain situation awareness? A laboratory-based study of automated driving. Appl Ergon 60:293–304.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Monk CA, Boehm-Davis DA, Trafton JG (2004) Recovering from interruptions: implications for driver distraction research. Hum Factors 46(4):650–663.  https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.4.650.56816 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Monk CA, Trafton JG, Boehm-Davis DA (2008) The effect of interruption duration and demand on resuming suspended goals. J Exp Psychol Appl 14(4):299–313.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014402 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Morgan B, D’Mello S, Abbott R, Radvansky G, Haass M, Tamplin A (2013) Individual differences in multitasking ability and adaptability. Hum Factors 55(4):776–788.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720812470842 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nicholson B, O’Hare D (2014) The effects of individual differences, prior experience and cognitive load on the transfer of dynamic decision-making performance. Ergonomics 57(9):1353–1365.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2014.933884 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pan D, Zhang YJ, Li ZZ (2016) Predictive capability of cognitive ability and cognitive style for spaceflight emergency operation performance. Int J Ind Ergon 54:48–56.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2016.04.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Park JY, Jung WD, Ha JJ (2001) Development of the step complexity measure for emergency operating procedures using entropy concepts. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 71(2):115–130.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(00)00087-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ (1992) Behavioral decision research: a constructive processing perspective. Annu Rev Psychol 43:87–131.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.43.020192.000511 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Plummer JP, Schuster D, Keebler JR (2017) The effects of gender, flow and video game experience on combat identification training. Ergonomics 60(8):1101–1111.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2017.1280187 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Redick TS, Shipstead Z, Meier ME, Montroy JJ, Hicks KL, Unsworth N, Kane MJ, Hambrick DZ, Engle RW (2016) Cognitive predictors of a common multitasking ability contributions from working memory, attention control, and fluid intelligence. J Exp Psychol Gen 145(11):1473–1492.  https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000219 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rigas G, Carling E, Brehmer B (2002) Reliability and validity of performance measures in microworlds. Intelligence 30(5):463–480.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(02)00121-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rodseth J, Washabaugh EP, Al Haddada A, Kartje P, Tate DG, Krishnan C (2017) A novel low-cost solution for driving assessment in individuals with and without disabilities. Appl Ergon 65:335–344.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schmidt FL (2002) The role of general cognitive ability and job performance: why there cannot be a debate. Hum Perform 15(1–2):187–210.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2002.9668091 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schmidt FL, Hunter JE (1981) Employment testing: old theories and new research findings. Am Psychol 36(10):1128–1137.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.10.1128 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Teh E, Jamson S, Carsten O (2018) Design characteristics of a workload manager to aid drivers in safety-critical situations. Cognit Technol Work 20(3):401–412.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-018-0490-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vanderhaegen F, Carsten O (2017) Can dissonance engineering improve risk analysis of human-machine systems? Cogn Technol Work 19(1):1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-017-0405-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wang KL, Wu W, Zhong HL, Cheng J (2017) Gender differences in performance for young adults in cognitive tasks under emotional conflict. Neurosci Lett 661:77–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2017.09.061 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Welford AT (1980) Choice reaction time: basic concepts. In: Welford AT (ed) Reaction times. Academic Press, New York, pp 73–128Google Scholar
  52. Wong AL, Haith AM, Krakauer JW (2015) Motor planning. Neuroscientist 21(4):385–398.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1073858414541484 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Xu S, Song F, Li ZZ, Zhao QY, Luo W, He XH, Salvendy G (2008) An ergonomics study of computerized emergency operating procedures: presentation style, task complexity, and training level. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 93(10):1500–1511.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2007.09.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yang BM (1989) Outline of Psychological experiment. Peking University Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  55. Zhang YJ, Li ZZ, Wu B, Wu S (2009) A spaceflight operation complexity measure and its experimental validation. Int J Ind Ergon 39(5):756–765.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2009.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Vehicle EngineeringArmy Academy of Armored ForcesBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations