Advertisement

Behavior Model Based Recognition of Critical Pilot Workload as Trigger for Cognitive Operator Assistance

  • Diana Donath
  • Axel Schulte
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5639)

Abstract

Knowledge-based assistant systems are an approach to support operators in complex task situations, especially in vehicle guidance and control. The central idea is to introduce automation functions working in parallel to the human operator instead of replacing him. Like a human team member, an assistant system should be able to support a human operator according to his actual needs. Therefore, it needs capabilities to identify situations in which the human operator is overtaxed in order to transfer such situations into situations which can be handled normally by the assisted human operator. This paper will present a concept for a human behavior model based approach to subjective workload identification which uses a recognizable modification of human behavior occurring prior to severe performance decrements or errors. Therefore, behavior models of the operator, previously gathered within simulator trials, shall continuously compared with the actually observed behavior patterns in the same situational context. First results will be presented showing a modification of operator visual scanning behavior.

Keywords

subjective workload assistant system eye movements flight guidance adaptive automation behavior model 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    de Waard, D.: The measurement of Drivers Mental Workload. Thesis, University of Groningen, Netherlands (1996)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Di Nocera, F., Camilli, M., Terenzi, M.: A random glance at the flight deck: pilot’s scanning strategies and real-time assessment of mental workload. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making 1(3), 271–285 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ephrath, A.R., Tole, J.R., Stepens, A.T., Young, L.R.: Instrument scan – Is it an indicator of the pilot’s workload? In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, vol. 24, pp. 257–258 (1980)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Flemisch, F.O., Onken, R.: Human Factors Tool caSBAro: Alter Wein in neuen Schläuchen. Anthropotechnik gestern-heute-morgen, DGLR-Bericht 98-02 1998, 53–72 (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frey, A., Lenz, A., Putzer, H., Walsdorf, A., Onken, R.: In-Flight Evaluation of CAMA – The Crew Assistant Military Aircraft, Deutscher Luft- und Raumfahrtkongress, Hamburg, 17–20 (September 2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harris, R.L., Glover, B.L., Spady, A.A.: Analytic techniques of pilot scanning behavior and their application. NASA technical paper 2525 (1986)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hilburn, B., Jorna, P.G., Byrne, E.A., Parasuraman, R.: The effect of adaptive air traffic control (ATC) decision aiding on controller mental workload. In: Mouloua, M., Koonce, J. (eds.) Human Automation Interaction: Research and Practice, pp. 84–91. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1997)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaber, D.B., Prinzel III, L.J., Wright, M.C., Clamann, M.P.: Workload-Matched Adaptive Automation, Support of Air Traffic Controller Information processing Stages. NASA/TP-2002-211932 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dick, A.O.: Instrument scanning and controlling using eye movement data to understand pilot behavior and strategies, NASA CR 3306 (1980)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    O’Donnell, R.D., Eggemeier, F.T.: Workload Assessment Methodology. In: Boff, K.R., Kaufman, L., Thomas, J.P. (eds.) Handbook of Perception and Human Performance, Cognitive Process and Performance, vol. II. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1986)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Onken, R., Schulte, A.: System-ergonomic Design of Cognitive Automation – Dual-Mode Cognitive Design of Vehicle Guidance and Control Work Systems. Springer, Heidelberg (in press)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Prévôt, T., Gerlach, M., Ruckdeschel, W., Wittig, T., Onken, R.: Evaluation of intelligent on-board pilot assistance in in-flight field trials. In: 6th IFAC/IFIP/IFORS/IEA Symposium on analysis, design and evaluation of man–machine systems, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prinzel III, L.J.: Team-Centered Perspective for Adaptive Automation Design. NASA/TM-2003-212154 (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ruckdeschel, W., Onken, R.: Modelling of Pilot Behaviour Using Petri Nets. In: Valette, R. (ed.) ICATPN 1994. LNCS, vol. 815, pp. 436–453. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Salvucci, D.D., Goldberg, J.H.: Identifying fixations and saccades in eye-tracking protocols. In: Proceedings of the Eye Tracking Research and Applications Symposium, pp. 71–78. ACM Press, New York (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scerbo, M.W.: Theoretical perspectives on adaptive automation. In: Parasuraman, R., Mouloua, M. (eds.) Automation and human performance: Theory and applications, pp. 37–64. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (1996)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thomas, L.C., Wickens, C.D.: Eye Tracking and individual differences in off-normal event detection when flying with a Synthetic Vision System Display. In: Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica (2004)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tole, J.R., Stephens, A.T., Vivaudou, E.A., Young, L.R.: Visual scanning behavior and pilot workload. NASA Contractor Report 3717. Hampton, Virginia: NASA Langley Research Center (1983)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diana Donath
    • 1
  • Axel Schulte
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Aerospace Engineering, Institute of Flight Systems (LRT-13)Universität der Bundeswehr München (UBM)NeubibergGermany

Personalised recommendations