Operator’s Human Error Features in Compensatory Tracking Task Based on Cognitive Process

  • Jintao Wu
  • Yan Lv
  • Weicai Tang
  • Qianxiang ZhouEmail author
  • Yi Xiao
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1204)


To explore the cognitive characteristics of human error in different cognitive processes and the correlations between basic cognitive abilities and compensation tracking task, a simulated compensatory tracking task with four stages (perception task, judgment task, regulation task and comprehensive task, in which the comprehensive task include perception link, judgment link and regulation link) was performed. Four basic cognitive ability of 36 volunteers and the performance of the compensatory tracking task were obtained for statistical analysis. The results showed that the error rate of perception task/link was the lowest and that of regulation task/link was the highest. Moreover, the sustained attention ability was significantly associated with perception and regulation task. The working memory ability was significantly related to perception task. These observations indicated that human errors are most likely to occur in the regulation phase, and sustained attention and working memory are important abilities in compensatory tracking task.


Human error Compensatory tracking task Cognitive process Cognitive ability 


  1. 1.
    NASA Committee: Report of the shuttle processing review team. R. 94N28178, NASA Kennedy Space Center, Florida (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baker, C.C., McCafferty, D.B.: Accident database review of human element concerns: what do the results mean for classification. Human Factors in Ship Design, Safety and Operation, London (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    NASA NASA-STD-3000: Man-Systems integration standards. NASA, Washington D.C. (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    NASA NASA-STD-3001: Space flight human-system standard. NASA, Washington D.C. (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    NASA NASA/SP-2010-3407: Human integration design handbook, NASA, Washington D.C. (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    O’Connor, B., Chief S.: Human-rating requirements for space systems. Report NASA/NPR, Washington D.C. (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hollnagel, E.: Cognitive Reliability and Error Analysis Method (CREAM). Elsevier, Amsterdam (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cooper, S.E., Wreathall, J., Thompson, C.M., et al.: Knowledge-base for the new human reliability analysis method, a technique for human error analysis (ATHEANA). Brookhaven National Lab, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gueugneau, N., Pozzo, T., Darlot, C., et al.: Daily modulation of the speed–accuracy trade-off. J. Neurosci. 356, 142–150 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jintao Wu
    • 1
  • Yan Lv
    • 2
  • Weicai Tang
    • 3
  • Qianxiang Zhou
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yi Xiao
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Biological Science and Medical EngineeringBeihang UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Beijing Institute of Control and Electronic TechnologyBeijingChina
  3. 3.National Key Laboratory of Human Factors EngineeringChina Astronaut Research and Training CenterBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations