a psychophysiological investigation of the state of monotony amongst air traffic controllers icrat...
TRANSCRIPT
A Psychophysiological Investigation of the State of Monotony
amongst Air Traffic Controllers
ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Sonja Straussberger, Wolfgang Kallus & Dirk Schäfer
Introduction
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D.
Today’s talk•Relevance of Monotony for Air Traffic Controllers
•The Concept of Monotony
•Results of an Experimental Study
ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Introduction
Monotony in ISO 10075
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D. ICRAT 2004, Zilina
INDIVIDUAL
WORK ENVIRONMENT
Mental Stress
Mental Strain
Activation Warming-up
Mental fatigue
Monotony Reduced vigilance
Mental satiation
Facilitating EffectsImpairing effects
Introduction
What needs to be considered?-Ill-defined and mixed terms
•Monotony (e.g., McBain, 1970)
•Boredom (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
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D.
Experimental Design2 (Break Activity) x 2 (Repetitiveness) x 2 (Sequence of DD) x 2 (Run) x 3 vs. 15 (Interval)-Mixed Design
ICRAT 2004, Zilina
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
Break
Run 3
n 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
n total 24
DD=Sequence of Dynamic Density in Traffic (high (H) - low (L) vs. H (High) – L (Low))
Methods
Operationalization of Repetitiveness & Dynamic Density
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D. ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Methods
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 (NASA-TLX, Hart & Staveland, 1988) + feeling of monotony, SA Other measures collected
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D.
Dependent Variables
ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Results
Physiological level: heart rate
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D. ICRAT 2004, Zilina
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)
Intervals: Run 1
151413121110987654321
me
an
HR
(co
rr.)
8
6
4
2
0
-2
Repetitiveness
non repetitive
repetitive
Intervals: Run 2
151413121110987654321
me
an
HR
(co
rr.)
8
6
4
2
0
-2
Repetitiveness
non repetitive
repetitive
Results
Physiological level: HRV
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D. ICRAT 2004, Zilina
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)
Intervals: Run 1
151413121110987654321
me
an
HR
V
60
50
40
30
20
10
Repetitiveness
non repetitive
repetitive
Intervals: Run 2
151413121110987654321
me
an
HR
V
60
50
40
30
20
10
Repetitiveness
non repetitive
repetitive
Results
Rating: “feeling of monotony”
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D. ICRAT 2004, Zilina
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)
Runs for DD sequence 'l-h'
21
Ave
rag
e r
atin
gs
for
fee
ling
of
mo
no
ton
y
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
Repetitiveness
non repetitive
repetitive
Runs for DD sequence 'h-l'
21
Ave
rag
e r
atin
gs
for
fee
ling
of
mo
no
ton
y
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
Repetitiveness
non repetitive
repetitive
Results
Rating: “sleepiness”
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D. ICRAT 2004, Zilina
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)
Intervals: Run 1
321
Ch
an
ge
fro
m B
ase
line
in p
erc
eiv
ed
Sle
ep
ine
ss
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
,5
0,0
-,5
-1,0
Repetitiveness
non repetitive
repetitive
Intervals: Run 2
321
Ch
an
ge
fro
m B
ase
line
in p
erc
eiv
ed
Sle
ep
ine
ss
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
,5
0,0
-,5
-1,0
Repetitiveness
non repetitive
repetitive
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
Results
Rating: “boredom”
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D. ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Intervals: Run 1
321
Cha
nge
from
bas
elin
e in
per
ceiv
ed b
ored
om
3,0
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
,5
0,0
-,5
Repetitivity
non repetitive
repetitive
Intervals: Run 2
321
Cha
nge
from
bas
elin
e in
per
ceiv
ed b
ored
om
3,0
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
,5
0,0
-,5
Repetitivity
non repetitive
repetitive
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)
Results
Rating: “motivation”
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D. ICRAT 2004, Zilina
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;)
Runs for DD sequence 'l-h'
21
Me
an
ra
ting
s fo
r m
otiv
atio
n
,4
,2
0,0
-,2
-,4
-,6
-,8
-1,0
-1,2
-1,4
-1,6
Repetitiveness
non repetitive
repetitive
Runs for DD sequence 'h-l'
21
Me
an
ra
ting
s fo
r m
otiv
atio
n
,4
,2
0,0
-,2
-,4
-,6
-,8
-1,0
-1,2
-1,4
-1,6
Repetitiveness
non repetitive
repetitive
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
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D.
Proceduremin
1. Welcome, Summary of Controller Handbook, open questions 102. Preparation of physiological measures + Questionnaires 403. Training 404. Baseline, Scales 55. Run 1 456. Baseline, Scales 307. Run 2 458. Baseline, Scales 309. Break with vs. without activity 1010. Run 3 1011. Baseline, Scales 512. Performance Tests 1513. Remove equipment 514. Debriefing 10
Total Time 295
Session Start 8:00 vs. 14:00ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Methods
Dynamic Density
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D.
• 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)
ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Methods
Independent Variables
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D.
-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]
ICRAT 2004, Zilina
Methods
Further Variables
Straussberger, S., Kallus, W. & Schäfer, D.
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