Advertisement

Models of Multitask Situations

  • Christopher D. Wickens

Overview

This tutorial discusses models that predict the loss in quality of performance of multiple tasks, which occurs as a direct result of that multiplicity. It is often assumed therefore that this multiplicity induces competition for some scarce commodity which we label “resources.” At issue is whether one can predict the loss in quality given characteristics of (a) the processing on each task in isolation, and (b) the relation between tasks.

Keywords

Dual Task Task Interference Multiple Resource Demand Level Optimal Control Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aldrich, T.B., Szabo, S., and Bierbaum, C.R., 1988, The development and application of models to predict workload during system design, in: “Human Performance Models,” G. MacMillan, ed., NATO AGARD Workshop, Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, W., Clement, W., and Jex, H., 1970, Research on display scanning, sampling and reconstruction using separate main and secondary tasks, (NASA-CR-1569), Systems Technology, Hawthorne, CA.Google Scholar
  3. Baddeley, A., 1986, “Working Memory,” Claredon Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  4. Baron, S., and Levison, W., 1977, Display analysis with the optimal control model of the human operator, Human Factors 19:437–458. Bateman, R.P., and Thompson, M.W., 1986, Correlation of predictedGoogle Scholar
  5. workload with actual workload measured using the subjective workload assessment technique, SAE Aerotech 86 Conference Society for Automotive Engineers.Google Scholar
  6. Carbonnell, J.R., 1966, A queuing model for many-instrument visual sampling. IEEE Trans. on Human Factors in Electronics HFE-7:157164Google Scholar
  7. Card, S.K., Moran, T.P., and Newell, A., 1986, The model human processor: An engineering model of human performance, in: “Handbook of Perception and Human Performance,” K.R. Boff, L. Kaufman, and J.P. Thomas, eds., John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Christensen, J.M., O’Donnell, R.D., Shingledecker, C.A., Kraft, C.L., and Williamson, G., 1985, Optimization of peripheral vision (USAFSAM Technical Report TR-85–96), Brooks AFB, Texas.Google Scholar
  9. Chu, Y.Y., and Rouse, W.B., 1979, Adaptive allocation of decision making responsibility between human and computer in multitask situations, IEEE Trans. on Sys., Man, and Cyber. SMC-9:769–778.Google Scholar
  10. Chubb, G.P., Stodolsky, N., Fleming, W.D., and Hassoun, J.A., 1987, STALL: A simple model for workload analysis in early system development, in: “Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society,” Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, CA.Google Scholar
  11. Corker, K., Davis, L., Papazian, B., and Pew, R., 1986, Development of an advanced task analysis methodology and demonstration for Army-NASA aircrew/aircraft integration (Report No. 6124 ), Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  12. Curry, R., Kleinman, D., and Levison, W., 1977, A design procedure for control/display systems, Human Factors 19: 421–437.Google Scholar
  13. Derrick, W.L., and Wickens, C.D., 1984, A multiple processing resource explanation of the subjective dimensions of operator workload, University of Illinois Engineering Psychology Laboratory Technical Report (EPL-84–2/ONR-84–1), Department of Psychology, Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
  14. Edwards, W., 1986, Expected utility theory, in: “Handbook of Human Factors,” G. Salvendy, ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  15. Edwards, W., Lindman, H., and Phillips, L.D., 1965, Emerging technologies for making decision, in: “New Direction in Psychology II,” T.M. Newcomb, ed., Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Fitts, P.M., Jones, R.E., and Milton, J.L., 1950, Eye movements of aircraft pilots during instrument landing approaches. Aero. Eng. Rev., 9:1–5.Google Scholar
  17. Gopher, D., and Braune, R., 1984, On the psychophysics of workload: Why bother with subjective measures? Human Factors 26: 519–532.Google Scholar
  18. Harris, R.L., and Christhilf, D.M., 1980, What do pilots see in displays?, in: “Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society,” G. Corrick, E. Hazeltine, and R. Durst, eds., Human Factors Society, Santa Monica. CA:Google Scholar
  19. Harris, R.M., Iavecchia, H.P., Ross, L.V., and Shaffer, S.C., 1987, Microcomputer human operator simulator (HOS-IV), in: “Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society,” Human Factor Society, Santa Monica, CA.Google Scholar
  20. Harris, R., and Spady, A., 1985, Visual scanning behavior, in: “Proceedings of NAECON 85,” Dayton, OH.Google Scholar
  21. Kahneman, D., 1973, “Attention and effort,” Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.Google Scholar
  22. Kantowitz, B., 1986, Channels and stages in human information processing. J. of Math. Psych. 29.Google Scholar
  23. Kantowitz, B., and Weldon, M., 1985, On scaling performance operating characteristics: Caveat emptor, Human Factors 27: 531–547.Google Scholar
  24. Laughery, R., Drews, C., and Archer, R., 1986, A micro SAINT simulation analyzing operator workload in a future attack helicopter, in: “Proceedings NAECON,” IEEE, New York.Google Scholar
  25. Leibowitz, H.W., 1986, Recent advances in our understanding of peripheral vision and some implications, in: “Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society,” Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, CA.Google Scholar
  26. Leibowitz, H.W., and Dichgans, J., 1980, The ambient visual systems and spatial orientation, in: “Spatial Disorientation in Flight: Current Problems,” in: “NATO AGARD Conference Proceedings.”Google Scholar
  27. Levison, W.H., 1982, The optimal control model for the human operator: Theory, validation, and applications (AFFTCOTR-82–5), in: “Proceedings, Workshop on Flight Testing to Identify Pilot Workload,” Edwards Air Force Base, Air Force Flight Test Center.Google Scholar
  28. Levison, W.H., Elkind, J.I., and Ward, J.L., 1971, Studies of multi-variable manual control systems: A model for task interference (NASA CR-1746), NASA, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  29. Levison, W.H., and Tanner, R.B., 1971, A control-theory model for human decision making (NASA CR-1953).Google Scholar
  30. McCleod, P., 1977, A dual task response modality effect: Support for multiprocessor models of attention, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 29: 651–667.Google Scholar
  31. McCracken, J., and Aldrich, T.B., 1984, Analysis of selected LHX mission functions, Technical Note ASI 479–024–84(B), Anacopa Sciences, Inc.Google Scholar
  32. Meister, D., 1985, in: “Behavioral Analysis and Measurement Methods,” John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  33. Moray, N., 1986, Monitoring behavior and supervisory control, in: “Handbook of Perception and Performance” (Vol. 2), K. Boff, L. Kaufman, and J. Thomas eds., John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  34. Navon, D., and Gopher, D., 1979, On the economy of the human processing system, Psych. Rev. 86:254–255.Google Scholar
  35. Norman, D., 1968, Toward a theory of memory and attention, Psych. Rev. 75:522–536.Google Scholar
  36. Norman, D., and Bobrow, D.J., 1975, On data limited and resources limited processes, Cogn. Psych. 7:44–64.Google Scholar
  37. North, R., 1985, WINDEX: A workload index for interactive crew station evaluation, in: “Proceedings NAECON,” IEEE, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  38. North, R., and Riley, V., 1989, This Volume.Google Scholar
  39. Pashler, H., 1984, Evidence against late selection: Stimulus quality effects in previewed displays, J. of Exptl. Psych: Human Perc. and Perf. 10:413.Google Scholar
  40. Rouse, W., 1980, “Systems Engineering Models of Human Machine Interaction,” North Holland, New York.Google Scholar
  41. Senders, J.W., 1966, A re-analysis of the pilot eye-movement data, IEEE Trans. on Human Factors in Electronics HFE-7:103–106.Google Scholar
  42. Senders, J.W., 1983, “Visual Scanning Processes,” University of Tilburg Press, Netherlands.Google Scholar
  43. Shaw, M. L., 1982, Attending to multiple sources of information: The integration of information in decision making, Cog. Psych. 14:353–409.Google Scholar
  44. Sheridan, T.B., 1970, On how often the supervisor should sample. IEEE Trans. on Sys., Sci., and Cyber. SSC-6:140–145.Google Scholar
  45. Siegel, A.I., and Wolf, J.J., 1969, in: “Man-machine Simulation Models,” John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  46. Simmons, R., 1979, Methodological considerations of visual workload of helicopter pilots, Human Factors 21, 353–368.Google Scholar
  47. Sperling, G., 1984, A unified theory of attention and signal detection, in: “Varieties of Attention,” (pp. 103–177), R. Parasuraman and R. Davies, eds., Academic Press, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  48. Sperling, G., and Dosher, B.A., 1986, Strategy and optimization in human information processing, in: “Handbook of Perception and Performance” (Vol. 2), K. Boff, L. Kaufman, and J. Thomas, eds., John Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  49. Stein, W., and Wewerwinke, P., 1983, Human display monitoring and failure detection: Control theoretic models and experiments. Automatica 19: 711–718.MATHGoogle Scholar
  50. Strieb, M., Lane, N., Glenn, F., and Wherry, R.J., Jr., 1981, The human operator simulator: An overview, in: “Manned System Design:Google Scholar
  51. Methods, Equipment, and Applications“ (pp. 121–152), J. Moraal and K.F. Kraiss, eds., Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  52. Swets, J.A., 1984, Mathematical models of attention, in: “Varieties of Attention,” R. Parasuraman and D.R. Davies, eds., Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  53. Taylor, M.M., Lindsay, P.H., and Forbes, S.M., 1967, Quantification of shared capacity processing in auditory and visual discrimination, in: “Attention and Performance I,” A.F. Sanders, ed., North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  54. Townsend, J., 1974, Issues and models concerning the processing of a finite number of inputs, in: “Human Information Processing,” B. Kantowitz, ed., Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  55. Townsend, J.T., and Ashby, F.G., 1983, in: “Stochastic Modeling of Elementary Psychological Processes,” Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  56. Tsang, P.S., and Wickens, C.D., 1988, The structural constraints and strategic control of resource allocation, Human Performance 1: 4572Google Scholar
  57. Tulga, M.K., and Sheridan, T.B., 1980, Dynamic decisions and workload in multitask supervisory control, IEEE Trans. on Sys. Man and Cyber. SMC-10:217–232.Google Scholar
  58. Vidulich, M., 1987, Response modalities and time-sharing, in: “Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society” (pp. 337–341 ), Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, CA.Google Scholar
  59. Vidulich, M., and Tsang, P., 1987, Absolute magnitude estimation and relative judgment approaches to subjective workload assessment, in: “Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society” (pp. 1057–161 ), Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, CA.Google Scholar
  60. Welford, A.T., 1967, Single-channel operation in the brain, in: “Attention and Performance I,” A.F. Sanders, ed., North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  61. Wherry, R.J., 1976, The human operator simulator-HOS, in: “Monitoring Behavior and Supervisory Control,” T.B. Sheridan and G. Johannsen, ed., Plenum Press, New York and London.Google Scholar
  62. Wickens, C.D., 1980, The structure of attentional resources, in: “Attention and Performance VIII” (pp. 239–257), R. Nickerson, ed., Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar
  63. Wickens, C.D., 1984, Multiple resources in attention, in: “Varieties of Attention,” R. Parasuraman and R. Davies, eds., Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  64. Wickens, C.D., 1986, The effects of control dynamics on performance, in: “Handbook of Perception and Performance Vol. II,” (pp 39–1/39–60), K. Boff, L. Kaufman, and J. Thomas, eds., Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  65. Wickens, C.D., 1987, Attention, in: “Human Factors in Psychology,” P. Hancock, ed., N. Holland Pub. Co., Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  66. Wickens, C.D., Flach, J., Kramer, A., Harwood, K., and Lintern, G., 1988a, TASKILLAN: A validation test bed for complex performance models, in: “Proceedings, 11th Psychology in the Department of Defense Symposium,” USAFA, Colorado.Google Scholar
  67. Wickens, C.D., Harwood, K., Segal, L., Tkalcevic, I., and Sherman, B., 1988b, TASKILLAN: A simulation to predict the validity of multiple resource models of aviation workload. in: “Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society,” Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, CA.Google Scholar
  68. Wickens, C.D., and Liu, Y., 1988, Codes and input modalities in multiple resources: A success and a qualification. Human Factors 30.Google Scholar
  69. Wickens, C.D., Sandry, D., and Vidulich, M., 1983, Compatibility and resource competition between modalities of input, output, and central processing, Human Factors 25: 227–248.Google Scholar
  70. Wickens, C.D., and Weingartner, A., 1985, Process control monitoring: The effects of spatial and verbal ability and current task demand, in: “Trends in Ergonomics and Human Factors,” R. Eberts and C. Eberts, eds., North Holland Pub. Co.Google Scholar
  71. Wickens, C.D., and Yeh, Y-Y., 1985, POC’s and performance decrements: A reply to Kantowitz and Weldon, Human Factors 27: 549–554.Google Scholar
  72. Wickens, C.D., and Yeh, Y-Y, 1986, A multiple resource model of workload prediction and assessment, in: “Proceedings IEEE Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics,” Atlanta, GA, November.Google Scholar
  73. Wortman, D.B., Duket, S.D., Seifert, D.J., Hann, R.L., and Chubb, G.P., 1978, Simulation using SAINT: A user-oriented instruction manual (AMRL-TR-77–61), Pritsker and Associates, West Lafayette, IN.Google Scholar
  74. Yeh, Y.Y., and Wickens, C.D., 1988, The dissociation between subjective workload and performance, Human Factors 30: 111–120.Google Scholar
  75. Zacharias, G.L., Baron, S., and Muralidharan, R., 1981, A supervisory control model of the AAA crew, (BBN Report No. 4802 ), Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher D. Wickens
    • 1
  1. 1.Aviation Research LaboratoryUniversity of Illinois Institute of AviationUSA

Personalised recommendations