Transcript Document

A Psychophysiological Investigation
of the State of Monotony
amongst Air Traffic Controllers
Sonja Straussberger, Wolfgang Kallus & Dirk Schäfer
ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Introduction
Today’s talk
•Relevance
•The
of Monotony for Air Traffic Controllers
Concept of Monotony
•Results
of an Experimental Study
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D.
ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Introduction
Monotony in ISO 10075
WORK ENVIRONMENT
Mental Stress
INDIVIDUAL
Mental Strain
Activation Warming-up
Facilitating Effects
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D.
Mental Monotony Reduced Mental
fatigue
vigilance satiation
Impairing effects
ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Introduction
What needs to be considered?
-Ill-defined
and mixed terms
Monotony
•
Boredom
•
(e.g., McBain, 1970)
(e.g., Mikulas & Vodanovich, 1993)
Underload
•
(e.g., Young & Stanton, 2002)
-Contributing
factors?
Task Characteristics
•
(e.g. Pfendl, 1985)
Personality Factors
(e.g. Hill, 1975)
Situational Factors
(e.g. Marvje & Horne, 1994)
•
•
-Short-term
and long-term impairments
(e.g., Thackray, 1975; Kass, Vodanovich & Callender, 2001)
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D.
ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Introduction
What is a State of Monotony?
Bartenwerfer’s concept of Monotony (1960, 1985):
-Specific
consequence in situations when
continuous engagement in a restricted task is
required
-Tasks
may be characterized by low stimulation,
high repetition, low difficulty level, longer time on
Task
-Impacts
on physiological, subjective and
performance level
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D.
ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Introduction
Research Questions
In simulated Air Traffic Control– depending on
repetitiveness and dynamic density (DD) in traffic …
…is there a difference in physiological indicators for
a state of monotony
…is there a difference in subjective indicators for a
state of monotony
in Air Traffic Controllers?
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D.
ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Methods
Experimental Design
2 (Break Activity) x 2 (Repetitiveness) x 2 (Sequence of DD)
x 2 (Run) x 3 vs. 15 (Interval)-Mixed Design
Break Activity
active
non active
Repetitiveness
Repetitiveness
repetitive
non
repetitive
repetitive
non
repetitive
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
Run 1
l
h
l
h
l
h
l
h
Run 2
h
l
h
l
h
l
h
l
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Break
Run 3
n
n total
24
DD=Sequence of Dynamic Density in Traffic
(high (H) - low (L) vs. H (High) – L (Low))
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D.
ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Methods
Operationalization of Repetitiveness
& Dynamic Density
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D.
ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Methods
Dependent Variables
Physiological Measures:
mean HR, mean HRV in 3-minute-intervals during scenarios
Subjective State :
During Scenario:
attentiveness, fatigue, boredom, irritation, strain,
concentration, motivation, sleepiness (TSI, Thackray et al.,
1975; 7-point-rating-scale; ext.)
After Scenario:
Mental demand, physical demand, temporal demand,
performance, effort, frustration, overall workload (NASATLX, Hart & Staveland, 1988) + feeling of monotony, SA
Other measures collected
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D.
ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Results
Physiological level: heart rate
8
6
6
mean HR (corr.)
8
4
2
4
2
Repetitiveness
0
Repetitiveness
0
non repetitive
repetitive
-2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15
Intervals: Run 1
non repetitive
-2
repetitive
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15
Intervals: Run 2
Average corrected HR during first and second run for groups
with non repetitive (n=12) and repetitive (n=12) traffic
(Repetitiveness: F1=4.41, p=.05; Run: F1= 17.68, p=.001)
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D.
ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Physiological level: HRV
60
60
50
50
mean HRV
mean HRV
Results
40
30
40
30
Repetitiveness
20
Repetitiveness
20
non repetitive
10
repetitive
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15
Intervals: Run 1
non repetitive
10
repetitive
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15
Intervals: Run 2
Average HRV during first and second run
for groups with non repetitive (n=12) and
repetitive (n=12) traffic
(Repetitiveness: F1=7.52, p=.013;
Run: F1= 24.98, p=.000)
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D.
ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Results
Rating: “feeling of monotony”
90
Average ratings for feeling of monotony
90
80
70
60
50
40
80
70
60
50
40
non repetitive
non repetitive
30
repetitive
1
Repetitiveness
Repetitiveness
2
Runs for DD sequence 'l-h'
30
repetitive
1
2
Runs for DD sequence 'h-l'
Average ratings for feeling of monotony after first and second run as a function
of repetitiveness and sequence of DD
(Run x Repetitiveness: F1=8.83, p=.008; Run x Sequence: F1= 5.39, p=.031;
Run x Repetitiveness x Sequence F2=10.57, p=.004)
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D.
ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Results
Rating: “sleepiness”
2,5
Change from Baseline in perceived Sleepiness
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
,5
0,0
-,5
-1,0
1
2,0
1,5
1,0
,5
Repetitiveness
non repetitive
repetitive
2
3
Intervals: Run 1
0,0
Repetitiveness
-,5
non repetitive
repetitive
-1,0
1
2
3
Intervals: Run 2
Average change from baseline in perceived sleepiness
during first and second run for groups with
non repetitive (n=12) and repetitive (n=12) traffic
(Run: F1=14.35, p=.001; Interval: F2=17.80, p=.000;
Run x Sequence: F1=8.44, p=.009;
Run x Interval x Repetitiveness: F2=5.83, p=.011)
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D.
ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Discussion
Summary & Discussion
-Supports for Theory of Monotony: physiological
deactivation
-Self-reports more complex
-Consideration of impairing and facilitating effects
-Implications for work design, work organization
and controller selection
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D.
ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Thank you for your attention!
For further information:
[email protected]
Results
Rating: “boredom”
3,0
2 ,5
2,5
Change from baseline in perceived boredom
3 ,0
2 ,0
1 ,5
1 ,0
,5
0 ,0
- ,5
1
2
Intervals: Run 1
2,0
1,5
1,0
,5
Repetitivity
Repetitivity
0,0
non repetitive
n o n re p e ti tiv e
r ep e ti tiv e
3
-,5
repetitive
1
2
3
Intervals: Run 2
Average change from baseline in perceived boredom during first
and second run for groups with non repetitive (n=12) and
repetitive (n=12) traffic
(Repetitiveness: F1=9.24, p=.006; Interval: F2=17.87, p=.000; Run x
Repetitiveness: F1=5.14, p=.035; Interval x Repetitiveness: F2=22.69,
p=.000)
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D.
ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Results
Rating: “motivation”
,4
,2
,2
0,0
0,0
Mean ratings for motivation
,4
-,2
-,4
-,6
-,8
-1,0
-,2
-,4
-,6
-,8
-1,0
Repetitiveness
Repetitiveness
-1,2
-1,2
non repetitive
-1,4
-1,6
repetitive
1
2
Runs for DD sequence 'l-h'
non repetitive
-1,4
-1,6
repetitive
1
2
Runs for DD sequence 'h-l'
Mean ratings of motivation perceived boredom during first and
second run for groups with non repetitive (n=12) and repetitive
(n=12) traffic for each Sequence of DD from Run 1 to Run 2
(Run: F1=19.41 p=.000; Interval: F2=12.24, p=.000; Run x Sequence:
F1=7.39, p=.013; Run x Repetitiveness x Sequence: F1=5.49, p=.03;)
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D.
ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Results
Some more results: TXL
TLX:
-Mental demand higher for nrep;
-Temporal demand remains higher for nrep, from
Run 1 to Run 2 decrease stronger for h-l as
increase for l-h
-Performance rated higher from nrep
-Effort rated higher from nrep
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D.
ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Results
Some more results: TSI
TSI:
-Attentiveness remains constant for repetitive
(rep) group and decreases for non-repetitive
(nrep) group
-Fatigue higher for H-L group; higher von nrep in
Run 1 and rep in Run 2
-Concentration decreases more for nonrep
-Sleepiness: increased over time, but more in
Run 2 for h-l
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D.
ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Methods
Participants
24 Enroute ATCOs
18 male, 6 female
21-47 years
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D.
ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Methods
Procedure
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
min
Welcome, Summary of Controller Handbook, open questions 10
Preparation of physiological measures + Questionnaires
40
Training
40
Baseline, Scales
5
Run 1
45
Baseline, Scales
30
Run 2
45
Baseline, Scales
30
Break with vs. without activity
10
Run 3
10
Baseline, Scales
5
Performance Tests
15
Remove equipment
5
Debriefing
10
Total Time
295
Session Start 8:00 vs. 14:00
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D.
ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Methods
Dynamic Density
• Traffic density (amount of AC)
• Traffic complexity
– Heading Change
– Speed Change
– Altitude Change
– Minimum Distance 0-5 n.mi.
– Minimum Distance 5-10 n.mi.
– Predicted conflicts 0-25 n.mi.
– Predicted conflicts 25-40 n.mi.
– Predicted conflicts 40-70 n.mi.
• (Controller intent)
Laudemann et al. (1998)
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D.
ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Methods
Independent Variables
-Repetitiveness
(repetitive vs. non-repetitive
conflict patterns)
-Sequence
of Dynamic Density in Traffic (high (H) low (L) vs. H - L)
-2
Runs (1. Scenario vs. 2. Scenario)
-(Time
over Scenarios)
-[Activity
in Rest Break]
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D.
ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Methods
Further Variables
Continuous Variables:
-RSQ (Recovery-Stress-Questionnaire, Kallus, 1995)
-ACS-90 (Action Control Strategy, Kuhl, 1992)
-Boredom Proneness Scale (Farmer & Sundberg, 1986)
-Morningness-Eveningness-Scale (Horne & Ostberg, 1976)
-Big Five Markers (Goldstein, 1992,1999)
Control Variables:
-Initial State (FAL), age, sex, nationality, mother tongue,
ratings for working position, experience, actual worked sector,
handedness, body weight, body height, vision, smoking, time,
room temperature, movement, respiration
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D.