Effects of Autonomous Mission Management on Crew Performance, Behavior, and Physiology: Insights from Ground-Based Experiments

  • Peter G. Roma
  • Steven R. Hursh
  • Robert D. Hienz
  • Zabecca S. Brinson
  • Eric D. Gasior
  • Joseph V. Brady
Part of the Space Technology Library book series (SPTL, volume 29)


Technical constraints during long-duration space expeditions will limit the ability for Earth-based management of astronaut crews and will thus increase the prevalence of autonomous operations. To provide experimentally-derived insights on the effects of crew autonomy, we utilized a laboratory-based simulation model to assess crew performance effectiveness and biopsychosocial adaptation under rigid schedule-based management of crew activities by Mission Control versus more flexible, autonomous management of activities by the crews themselves. In 2 separate experiments, 33 research volunteers formed 11 long-term 3-person mixed-gender crews that were extensively trained over several months in an interdependent computer-based planetary surface exploration task. Following training, in Experiment 1, three crews each completed two different types of 3–4 h test missions: Scheduled missions, in which they were directed by Mission Control according to a strict topographic and temporal region-searching sequence, and Autonomous missions, in which the crews received minimal baseline support from Mission Control and were free to establish their own protocols for exploring the planetary surface. In Experiment 2, eight 3-person crews were trained in identical fashion as Experiment 1, except these crews were each tested under four different scenarios, with the Scheduled and Autonomous sessions completed either under normal conditions of full communications capabilities or following the unexpected loss of audio and text-messaging functions. Overall, autonomous mission management led to improved task performance (more high-valued geologic samples were retrieved), increased subjective self-reports of positive mood, fewer references to negative emotions, greater use of socially-referent language in unstructured debriefing logs, and attenuated physiological stress reactivity. Consistent with observational field research, these laboratory-based investigations provide powerful experimental evidence supporting a causal relationship between crew autonomy and improved performance, enhanced psychosocial adaptation, and sustained biobehavioral health. Future work should systematically examine interactions with culture and personality in diverse multinational crews, assess the effects of other operationally-relevant stressors such as heavy workload and circadian disruption, and evaluate the effects of bounded autonomy in space analogue environments and on the International Space Station using rigorous experimental methods. The controlled laboratory data presented herein contribute to an emerging empirical knowledge base on crew autonomy which the international astronautics community may build upon for future research and ultimately draw upon when designing and managing long-duration exploratory missions.


Behavioral Health Planetary Surface Autonomous Condition Person Plural Psychosocial Adaptation 
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.



This work was supported by the US National Space Biomedical Research Institute through NASA NCC 9-58-NBPF01602 and Directed Research Project NBPF00008. Portions of this work were previously published by the authors as part of a peer-reviewed scientific journal article (Roma et al. 2011), and were used with permission from Elsevier. The authors have no interests that may be perceived as conflicting with the research presented herein, and were entirely responsible for the design of the studies, the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, the preparation of the manuscript, and the decision to submit for publication.


  1. Ali, N., Pruessner, J.C.: The salivary alpha amylase over cortisol ratio as a marker to assess dysregulations of the stress systems. Physiol. Behav. 106(1), 65–72 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Binsted, K.A., Kobrick, R.L., Bishop, S., O’Griofa, M., Lapierre, J.: An overview of the human factors research conducted on a four-month mars simulation in the Canadian high arctic, with recommendations for future analogue research. Paper presented at the biannual meeting of the International Academy of Astronautics’ Humans in Space Symposium, Moscow (2009)Google Scholar
  3. Brady, J.V.: Behavioral health: the propaedeutic requirement. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 76, B13–B24 (2005)Google Scholar
  4. Brady, J.V., Bigelow, G.E., Emurian, H.H., Williams, D.M.: Design of a programmed environment for the experimental analysis of social behavior. In: Carson, D.H. (ed.) Man-Environment Interactions: Evaluations and Applications. 7: Social Ecology, pp. 187–208. Environment Design Research Association, Milwaukee (1975)Google Scholar
  5. Brady, J.V., Hienz, R.D., Hursh, S.R., Ragusa, L.C., Rouse, C.O., Gasior, E.D.: Distributed interactive communication in simulated space-dwelling groups. Comput. Hum. Behav. 20, 311–340 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Byers, A.L., Yaffe, K.: Depression and risk of developing dementia. Nat. Rev. Neurol. 7, 323–331 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Calnan, M., Wainrwright, D., Almond, S.: Job strain, effort-reward imbalance and mental distress: a study of occupations in general medical practice. Work Stress 14, 297–311 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carter, J.A., Buckey, J.C., Greenhalgh, L., Holland, A.W., Hegel, M.T.: An interactive media program for managing psychosocial problems on long-duration spaceflights. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 76, B213–B223 (2005)Google Scholar
  9. China’s Space Activities in 2011.: Information Office of the State Council, Beijing. Accessed 25 Mar 2012
  10. Clément, G.: Fundamentals of Space Medicine, 2nd edn. Microcosm/Springer, El Segundo/Dordrecht (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Craske, M.G., Rose, R.D., Lang, A., Welch, S.S., Campbell-Sills, L., Sullivan, G., Sherbourne, C., Bystritsky, A., Stein, M.B., Roy-Byrne, P.P.: Computer-assisted delivery of cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety disorders in primary-care settings. Depress. Anxiety 26, 235–242 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeShon, R.P., Kozlowski, S.W., Schmidt, A.M., Milner, K.R., Wiechmann, D.: A multiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 89, 1035–1056 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dinges, D.F., Mollicone, D., Ecker, A.: Psychomotor vigilance self test on ISS (reaction self test on expeditions 21 & 22). NASA Technical Report # JSC-CN-18714, NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston (2009)Google Scholar
  14. Eisenegger, C., Naef, M., Snozzi, R., Heinrichs, M., Fehr, E.: Prejudice and truth about the effect of testosterone on human bargaining behaviour. Nature 463, 356–359 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eisenegger, C., Haushofer, J., Fehr, E.: The role of testosterone in social interaction. Trends Cogn. Sci. 15, 263–271 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Emurian, H.H., Brady, J.V.: Behavioral health management of space dwelling groups: safe passage beyond earth orbit. Behav. Anal. Today 8, 25–41 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. Emurian, H.H., Canfield, K., Roma, P.G., Gasior, E.D., Brinson, Z.S., Hienz, R.D., Hursh, S.R., Brady, J.V.: Behavioral systems management of confined microsocieties: an agenda for research and applications. In: Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Environmental Systems, SAE International, Warrendale (2009), paper number 2009-01-2423Google Scholar
  18. Gardell, B.: Technology, alienation and mental health in the modern industrial environment. In: Levi, L. (ed.) Society, Stress and Disease, vol. 1, pp. 148–180. Oxford University Press, London (1971)Google Scholar
  19. Hackman, J.R., Lawler III, E.E.: Employee reactions to job characteristics. J. Appl. Psychol. 55, 259–286 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hawley, S.A.: Mission to Mars: Risks, challenges, sacrifices and privileges. One Astronaut’s perspective. J. Cosmol. 12, 3517–3528 (2010)Google Scholar
  21. Hienz, R.D., Brady, J.V., Hursh, S.R., Ragusa, L.C., Rouse, C.O., Gasior, E.D.: Distributed communication and psychosocial performance in simulated space dwelling groups. Acta Astronaut. 56, 937–948 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hienz, R.D., Brady, J.V., Hursh, S.R., Banner, M.J., Gasior, E.D., Spence, K.R.: Communication constraints, indexical countermeasures, and crew configuration effects in simulated space-dwelling groups. Acta Astronaut. 60, 362–378 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hienz, R.D., Brady, J.V., Hursh, S.R., Gasior, E.D., Spence, K.R., Emurian, H.H.: Effects of incentives on psychosocial performances in simulated space-dwelling groups. Acta Astronaut. 63, 800–810 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jaap, J., Meyer, P., Davis, E., Richardson L.: In-space crew-collaborative task scheduling. NASA Document ID 20070013716 (2007)Google Scholar
  25. Kanas, N., Manzey, D.: Space Psychology and Psychiatry, 2nd edn. Microcosm/Springer, El Segundo/Dordrecht (2008)Google Scholar
  26. Kanas, N., Saylor, S., Harris, M., Neylan, T., Boyd, J., Weiss, D.S., Baskin, P., Cook, C., Marmar, C.: High versus low crewmember autonomy in space simulation environments. Acta Astronaut. 67, 731–738 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kanas, N., Sandal, G.M., Boyd, J.E., Gushin, V.I., Manzey, D., North, R., Leon, G.R., Suedfeld, P., Bishop, S.L., Fiedler, E.R., Inoue, N., Johannes, B., Kealey, D.J., Kraft, N.O., Matsuzaki, I., Musson, D., Palinkas, L.A., Salnitskiy, V.P., Sipes, W., Stuster, J., Wang, J.: Psychology and culture during long-duration space missions. In: Vakoch, D.A. (ed.) On Orbit and Beyond: Psychological Perspectives on Human Spaceflight. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  28. Kirschbaum, C., Hellhammer, D.H.: Salivary cortisol in psychoneuroendocrine research: recent developments and applications. Psychoneuroendocrinology 19, 313–333 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kudielka, B.M., Hellhammer, D.H., Wüst, S.: Why do we respond so differently? Reviewing determinants of human salivary cortisol responses to challenge. Psychoneuroendocrinology 34, 2–18 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Langfred, C.W., Moye, N.A.: Effects of task autonomy on performance: an extended model considering motivational, informational, and structural mechanisms. J. Appl. Psychol. 89, 934–945 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lloyd, R.B., Nemeroff, C.B.: The role of corticotropin-releasing hormone in the pathophysiology of depression: therapeutic implications. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 11, 609–617 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maina, G., Palmas, A., Bovenzi, M., Filon, F.L.: Salivary cortisol and psychosocial hazards at work. Am. J. Ind. Med. 52, 251–260 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mallis, M.M., DeRoshia, C.W.: Circadian rhythms, sleep, and performance in space. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 76, B94–B107 (2005)Google Scholar
  34. Mollicone, D.J., Van Dongen, H.P., Rogers, N.L., Dinges, D.F.: Response surface mapping of neurobehavioral performance: testing the feasibility of split sleep schedules for space operations. Acta Astronaut. 63, 833–840 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pennebaker, J.W., King, L.A.: Linguistic styles: language use as an individual difference. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77, 1296–1312 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pettit, D.: Mars landing on earth: an astronaut’s perspective. J. Cosmol. 12, 3529–3536 (2010)Google Scholar
  37. Plessow, F., Kiesel, A., Kirschbaum, C.: The stressed prefrontal cortex and goal-directed behaviour: acute psychosocial stress impairs the flexible implementation of task goals. Exp. Brain Res. 216(3), 397–408 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roma, P.G., Hursh, S.R., Hienz, R.D., Emurian, H.H., Gasior, E.D., Brinson, Z.S., Brady, J.V.: Behavioral and biological effects of autonomous versus scheduled mission management in simulated space-dwelling groups. Acta Astronaut. 68, 1581–1588 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Salas, E., Wilson, K.A., Murphy, C.E., King, H., Salisbury, M.: Communicating, coordinating, and cooperating when lives depend on it: tips for teamwork. Jt. Comm. J. Qual. Patient Saf. 34, 333–341 (2008)Google Scholar
  40. Schmidt, L.L., Keeton, K., Slack, K.J., Leveton, L.B., Shea, C.: Risk of performance errors due to poor team cohesion and performance, inadequate selection/team composition, inadequate training, and poor psychosocial adaptation. In: McPhee, J.C., Charles, J.B. (eds.) Human Health and Performance Risks of Space Exploration Missions: Evidence Reviewed by the NASA Human Research Program, pp. 45–84. NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston (2009)Google Scholar
  41. Shea, C., Slack, K.J., Keeton, K.E., Palinkas, L.A., Leveton, L.B.: Antarctica meta-analysis: psychosocial factors related to long-duration isolation and confinement. Final Report submitted to the NASA Behavioral Health and Performance Element (2009)Google Scholar
  42. Stepanova, S.I., Nesterov, V.F., Saraev, I.F., Galichiy, V.A., Savchenko, E.G., Lavrentieva, I.N., Rudometkin, N.M.: The ISS crew work/rest schedule (WRS): open issues and satellite challenges. Paper presented at the biannual meeting of the International Academy of Astronautics’ Humans in Space Symposium, Moscow (2009)Google Scholar
  43. Suedfeld, P., Wilk, K.E., Cassel, L.: Flying with strangers: postmission reflections of multinational space crews. In: Vakoch, D.A. (ed.) Psychology of Space Exploration: Contemporary Research in Historical Perspective, pp. 143–175. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC (2011)Google Scholar
  44. Wilson, K.A., Salas, E., Priest, H.A., Andrews, D.: Errors in the heat of battle: taking a closer look at shared cognition breakdowns through teamwork. Hum. Factors 49, 243–256 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter G. Roma
    • 1
  • Steven R. Hursh
    • 1
  • Robert D. Hienz
    • 1
  • Zabecca S. Brinson
    • 2
  • Eric D. Gasior
    • 2
  • Joseph V. Brady
    • 1
  1. 1.Institutes for Behavior ResourcesJohns Hopkins University School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Institutes for Behavior ResourcesBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations