Sensitive, Diagnostic and Multifaceted Mental Workload Classifier (PHYSIOPRINT)

  • Djordje Popovic
  • Maja Stikic
  • Theodore Rosenthal
  • David Klyde
  • Thomas Schnell
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9183)

Abstract

Mental workload is difficult to quantify because it results from an interplay of the objective task load, ambient and internal distractions, capacity of mental resources, and strategy of their utilization. Furthermore, different types of mental resources are mobilized to a different degree in different tasks even if their perceived difficulty is the same. Thus, an ideal mental workload measure needs to quantify the degree of utilization of different mental resources in addition to providing a single global workload measure. Here we present a novel assessment tool (called PHYSIOPRINT) that derives workload measures in real time from multiple physiological signals (EEG, ECG, EOG, EMG). PHYSIOPRINT is modeled after the theoretical IMPRINT workload model developed by the US Army that recognizes seven different workload types: auditory, visual, cognitive, speech, tactile, fine motor and gross motor workload. Preliminary investigation on 25 healthy volunteers proved feasibility of the concept and defined the high level system architecture. The classifier was trained on the EEG and ECG data acquired during tasks chosen to represent the key anchors on the respective seven workload scales. The trained model was then validated on realistic driving simulator. The classification accuracy was 88.7 % for speech, 86.6 % for fine motor, 89.3 % for gross motor, 75.8 % for auditory, 76.7 % for visual, and 72.5 % for cognitive workload. By August of 2015, an extended validation of the model will be completed on over 100 volunteers in realistically simulated environments (driving and flight simulator), as well as in a real military-relevant environment (fully instrumented HMMWV).

Keywords

Mental workload Assessment EEG IMPRINT Wearable 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Army Research Laboratory grant W91CRB-13-C-0007. The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this article are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official views or policies, either expressed or implied, of The Army Research Laboratory or the Department of Defense.

References

  1. 1.
    Huey, F.M., Wickens, C.D.: Workload Transition: Implications for Individual and Team Performance. National Academy Press, Washington (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gopher, D., Donchin, E.: Workload – an examination of the concept. In: Boff, K.R., Kaufman, L., Thomas, J.P. (eds.) Handbook of Perception and Human Performance: Cognitive Processes and Performance, vol. 2, pp. 41-1–41-49. Wiley, Oxford (1986)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jex, H.R.: Measuring mental workload: problems, progress, and promises. In: Hancock, P.A., Meshkati, N. (eds.) Human Mental Workload, pp. 5–39. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wickens, C.D., Hollands, J.G.: Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eggemeier, F.T., Wilson, G.F., et al.: Workload assessment in multi-task environments. In: Damos, D.L. (ed.) Multiple Task Performance, pp. 207–216. Taylor & Francis, Ltd., London (1991)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wickens, C.D.: Engineering Psychology and Human Performance. HarperCollins Publishers, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Waard, R.: The Measurement of Driver’s Mental Workload, p. 198. Traffic Research Centre (now Centre for Environmental and Traffic Psychology), University of Groningen, Heran (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Farmer, E., Brownson, A.: Review of workload measurement, analysis and interpretation methods. Eur. Organ. Saf. Air Navig. 33 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Castor, M.C.: GARTEUR Handbook of Mental Workload Measurement, p. 164. GARTEUR, Group for Aeronautical Research and Technology in Europe, Flight Mechanics Action Group FM AG13 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wilson, G.C., et al.: Operator Functional State Assessment, p. 220. North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Research and Technology Organization (RTO) BP 25, F-92201, Neuilly-sur-Seine Cedex, France, Paris (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fahrenberg, J., Wientjes, C.J.E.: Recording methods in applied environments. In: Backs, R.W., Boucsein, W. (eds.) Engineering Psychophysiology: Issues and Applications, pp. 111–135. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Mahwah (1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kramer, A.F.: Physiological metrics of mental workload: a review of recent progress. In: Damos, D.L. (ed.) Multiple Task Performance, pp. 279–328. Taylor & Francis Ltd., London (1991)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sirevaag, E.J., Stern, J.A.: Ocular measures of fatigue and cognitive factors. In: Backs, R.W., Boucsein, W. (eds.) Engineering Psychophysiology: Issues and Applications, pp. 269–287. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., Mahwah (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wilson, G.F.: An analysis of mental workload in pilots during flight using multiple psychophysiological measures. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 12(1), 3–18 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berka, C., Levendowski, D., Ramsey, C.K., et al.: Evaluation of an EEG-workload model in an aegis simulation environment. In: Caldwell, J.A., Wesensten, N.J. (eds) Proceedings of SPIE Defense and Security Symposium, Biomonitoring for Physiological and Cognitive Performance during Military Operations, pp. 90–99. SPIE: The International Society for Optical Engineering, Orlando (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Berka, C., Levendowski, D., Davis, G., et al.: EEG indices distinguish spatial and verbal working memory processing: implications for real-time monitoring in a closed-loop tactical tomahawk weapons simulation. In: 1st International Conference on Augmented Cognition, Las Vegas, NV (2005)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mitchell, D.K.: Mental workload and ARL workload modeling tools. Final report. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground MD. ADA377300 (2000). http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA377300
  18. 18.
    Mitchell, D.K., Samms, C., Henthorn, T., Wojciechowski, J.: Trade Study: A Two- Versus Three-Soldier Crew for the Mounted Combat System (MCS) and Other Future Combat System Platforms, ARL-TR-3026. U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mitchell, D.K.: Workload analysis of the crew of the Abrams V2 SEP: phase I baseline IMPRINT model. Final Report. Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. Human Research and Engineering Directorate. ADA508882 (2009). http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA508882
  20. 20.
    Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and North American Society of Pacing Electrophysiology. Heart rate variability: standards of measurement, physiological interpretation, and clinical use. Circulation 93, 1043–1065 (1996)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tsoumakas, G., Katakis, I.: Multi-label classification: an overview. Int. J. Data Warehouse. Min. 3, 1–13 (2007)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Djordje Popovic
    • 1
  • Maja Stikic
    • 1
  • Theodore Rosenthal
    • 2
  • David Klyde
    • 2
  • Thomas Schnell
    • 3
  1. 1.Advanced Brain Monitoring Inc.CarlsbadUSA
  2. 2.Systems Technology Inc.HawthorneUSA
  3. 3.Operator Performance LaboratoryUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations