Using an Augmented Training Event to Collect Data for Future Modeling Purposes

  • Samantha NapierEmail author
  • Christopher Best
  • Debra Patton
  • Glenn Hodges
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9744)


During materiel development, limitations of soldiers and their interactions with tasks and equipment are often inadequately considered until after product development. This can result in poor requirements generation and thus inadequate specifications [1]. These flaws have produced the largest cost driver in acquisition programs: performance requirement changes [2]. The Army has begun work to incorporate the human dimension into future materiel development of both equipment and training systems. Modeling and Simulation (M&S) have been viewed as ways to train soldiers and to predict performance before money has been invested in creating and fielding new products. The success of early M&S in reducing cost hinges on understanding how the human, task, and equipment work together and impact each other. In addition, their relationship must be linked to cognitive aspects of performance, especially under high arousal conditions. The Army currently lacks a way to describe these relationships. The goal of this project is to create a methodology to define the data needed to describe the relationship between levels of stress or arousal and soldier performance using a live training event. The methodology should provide the training and modeling communities with information on gaps in their technologies that prevent effective training or accurate predictive analysis through modeling efforts. The methodology will also help define measures of performance needed to assess training and correctly model performance.


Modeling Requirements generation Affordances Attributes 


  1. 1.
    Sage, A.P.: Systems Engineering. Wiley, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hearing before the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Testimony of John Young, Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) 3 June 2008.
  3. 3.
    Shyu, H. (2013) Memorandum. Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Soldier Systems Engineering Architecture Science and Technolgy Objective. NSRDEC, R.NSR.2015.01 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    U.S. Army Human Dimension Concept. TRADOC Pam 525-3-7. TRADOC, FT Eustis, VA, May 2014Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    HQDA EXORD XXX-15 Human Dimension (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mitchell, D.K.: Mental workload and ARL workload modeling tools, DTIC Document (2000)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sheehan, J.D., Merket, D.C., Sampson, T., Roberts, J., Merritt, S.: Human system capabilities-based training system acquisition. In: Naval Aviation Proceedings of the 2009 Human Systems Integration Symposium, Annapolis, MD (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Salas, E., Rosen, M.A., Held, J.D., Weissmuller, J.J.: Performance measurement in simulation-based training a review and best practices. Simul. Gaming 40(3), 328–376 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hodges, G.: A novel approach to determine integrated training environment effectiveness. In: Proceedings of Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pfeffekorn, E.: Army live test and training pre-project Alignment combat realism assessment working group. Naval Air Warfare Center Training System Division, Orlando (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johnston, J., Dunfee, D., Keppeler, J., Torgler, D., Jarvis, D.: A capabilities-based assessment tool for USMC squad immersive training. In: Proceedings of Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Butler, P, Osborne, R, Sivek, R., Zabek, A, Kemper, B., Ogden, P., Parrish, R., Napier, S., Rhodes, S.: Integrated squad training to optimize human performance and discourage post-traumatic stress and suicide. MITRE, Orlando, Fl, November 2013Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johnston, J.H., Napier, S., Ross, W.A.: Adapting immersive training environments to develop squad resilience skills. In: Schmorrow, D.D., Fidopiastis, C.M. (eds.) AC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9183, pp. 616–627. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johnston, J.H., Cannon-Bowers, J.A.: Training for stress exposure. In: Driskell, J.E., Salas, E. (eds.) Stress and Human Performance. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kassin, S.: Psychology. Prentice-Hall Inc., USA (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
    Fleishman, E., Quaintance, M., Broedling, L.A.: Taxonomies of Human Performance: The Description of Human Tasks, 1st edn. Academic Press, Orlando (1984)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Flach, J., Warren, R.: Active psychophysics: the relation between mind and what matters. In: Flach, J., Hancock, P., Caird, J., Vicente, K. (eds.) Global perspectives on the ecology of human-machine systems, p. 195. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1995)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lazarus, R., Folkman, S.: Stress, Appraisal and Coping. Springer Publishing Company, New York (1984)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fatkin, L., Patton, D.: Mitigating the effects of stress through cognitive readiness. In: Performance Under Stress. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Aldershot, (2008)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vitaliano, P.P., Maiuro, R.D., Russo, J., Becker, J.: Raw versus relative scores in the assessment of coping strategies. J. Behav. Med. 10(1), 1–18 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Greco, V., Roger, D.: Coping with uncertainty: the construction and validation of a new measure. Pers. Individ. Differ. 31, 519–534 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lubin, B., Zuckerman, M.: Manual for the MAACL-R: Multiple Affect Adjective Check List—Revised; Educational and Industrial Testing Service, San Diego, CA (1999)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fatkin, L.T. Hudgens, G.A.: Stress perceptions of soldiers participating in training at the Chemical Defense Training Facility: the mediating effects of motivation, experience, and confidence level. ARL-TR-365, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD (1994)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Patton, D.: How real is good enough? Assessing realism of presence in simulations and its effects on decision making. In: Schmorrow, D.D., Fidopiastis, C.M. (eds.) AC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8534, pp. 245–256. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Morgan, C.A., Aikins, D.E., Steffian, G., Coric, V., Southwick, S.: Relation between cardiac vagal tone and performance in male military personnel exposed to high stress: three prospective studies. Psychophysiology 44, 120–127 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chatterton, R.T., Vogelsong, K.M., Lu, Y.C., Ellman, A.B., Hudgens, G.A.: Salivary α-amylase as a measure of endogenous adrenergic activity. Clin. Physiol. 16(4), 433–448 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samantha Napier
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christopher Best
    • 1
  • Debra Patton
    • 1
  • Glenn Hodges
    • 2
  1. 1.Army Research Laboratory Human Research Engineering DirectorateAberdeen Proving GroundUSA
  2. 2.Training and Doctrine Command Army Capabilities Integration CenterFort EustisUSA

Personalised recommendations