Measures of Workload, Stress and Secondary Tasks

  • Christopher D. Wickens
Part of the NATO Conference Series book series (NATOCS, volume 8)

Abstract

In the context of my approach, the concept of operator workload is defined in terms of the human’s limited processing resources. Operator workload scales monotonically with the extent to which the tasks performed by the operator utilize these limited resources. Since workload is defined in terms of the hypothetical construct of “processing resources”, some operational definition must be provided of the latter term. This definition is provided in terms of secondary task performance.

Keywords

Primary Task Secondary Task Tracking Task Processing Resource Concurrent Task 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baty, D.L. Human transinformation rates during one-to-four axis tracking. Proceedings 7th Annual Conference on Manual Control. NASA, SP-281. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.Google Scholar
  2. Beatty, J. Pupilometric measurement of cognitive workload in complex man/machine systems. Proceedings 12th Annual Conference on Manual Control. Urbana, Illinois, May 1976.Google Scholar
  3. Briggs, G., Peters, G., and Fisher, R.P. On the laws of the divided attention effects. Perception and Psychophysics, 1972, 11, 315–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Damos, D. and Wickens, C.D. A quasi-linear control theory analysis of time-sharing skills. Proceedings 13th Annual NASA Conference on Manual Control. M.I.T. Cambridge, Mass., 1977.Google Scholar
  5. Enstrom, K.D. and Rouse, W.B. Telling a computer how a human has allocated his attention between control and monitoring tasks. Proceedings 12th Annual Conference on Manual Control. Urbana, Illinois, May 1976.Google Scholar
  6. Gopher, D. and Kahneman, D. Individual differences in attention and the prediction of flight criteria. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1971, 33, 1335–1342.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hart, Sondra. Time estimation as a secondary task to measure workload. Proceedings 11th Annual Conference on Manual Control, NASA TMX 62, 464, Moffett Field, California, 1975.Google Scholar
  8. Heffley, E., Wickens, C. and Donchin, E. Intra modality selective attention and the P-300 - a reexamination in a visual monitoring task. Paper presented at Society for Psycho-Physiological Research, Philadelphia, Nov. 1977.Google Scholar
  9. Hicks, R.H. Attention and prospective judgments of temporal duration. Paper presented at 17th Annual Meeting, The Psychonomics Society, St. Louis, 1976.Google Scholar
  10. Jex, H. Two applications of a critical-instability task to secondary workload research. IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, 1967, HFE-8, 279–282.Google Scholar
  11. Kahneman, D. Attention and Effort. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1973.Google Scholar
  12. Kalsbeek, J.W. and Sykes, R.N. Objective measurements of mental load. In Sanders (Ed.), Attention and Performance I. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Co., 1967.Google Scholar
  13. Kantowitz, B.H. and Knight, J.L. Testing tapping time sharing: II. Auditory Secondary Task. Acta Psychologica, 1976, 40, 343–362.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kantowitz, B.H. and Knight, J. On experimenter limited processes. Psychological Review, 1976, 83, 502–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. LaFayelle, Dinand, and Gentil. Average evoked potentials in relation to attitude, mental load, and intelligence. In W.T. Singleton, R.S. Easterby, and D.E. Whitfield (Eds.), Measurement of Man at Work. London: Taylor and Francis, 1971.Google Scholar
  16. Michon, J.A. Tapping regularity as a measure of perceptual motor load. Ergonomics, 9, 401–412.Google Scholar
  17. Moray, N. Where is capacity limited? A survey and a model. Acta Psychologica, 1967, 27, 84–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moray, N. and Fitter, M. A theory and measurement of attention. In Kornblum, S. (Ed.), Attention and Performance IV. New York: Academic Press, 1974.Google Scholar
  19. Moray, N. Attention, control and sampling behavior. In Sheridan and Johanssen (Eds.), Monitoring and Supervisory Control. New York: Plenum Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  20. Neisser, U. Cognition and Reality. San Francisco: Freeman, 1977.Google Scholar
  21. Norman, D. and Bobrow, D. On data-limited and resource limited processes. Cognitive Psychology, 1975, 7, 44–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. North, R. Task Functional Demands as Factors in Dual Task Performance. Proceedings, 21st Annual Meeting, Human Factors Society. San Francisco, October 1977.Google Scholar
  23. North, R. and Gopher, D. Measures of attention as predictors of flight performance. Human Factors, 1976, 18, 1–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Pachella, R. The interpretation of reaction time in information processing research. In Kantowitz, B.H. (Ed.), Human Information Processing. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1974.Google Scholar
  25. Pew, R.W. Comments on “Promotion of Man”: Challenges in Socio-technical systems: Design for the individual operator. Global Systems Dynamics Intl. Symposium. Charlottesville, N.C., 1969, pp. 59–65.Google Scholar
  26. Poulton, E.C. On increasing the sensitivity of measures of performance. Ergonomics, 1965, 8, 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roediger, H., Knight, J. and Kantowitz, B. Inferring decay in short-term memory: The issue of capacity. Memory and Cognition, 1977, 5, 167–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sem-Jacobsen, C.W. EKG monitoring of heart failure and pilot load/ overload by the Vesle seatpad. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 1977, in press.Google Scholar
  29. Wickens, C.D. The effect of time-sharing on the performance of information processing tasks. (Technical Report No. 51 ) Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Human Performance Center, August 1974.Google Scholar
  30. Wickens, C.D. The effects of divided attention on information processing in manual tracking. Journal of Experimental Psychology; Human Perception and Performance. 1976, 2, pp. 1–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wickens, C.D. and Gopher, D. Control theory measures of tracking as indices of attention allocation strategies. Human Factors, 1977, 19, 349–365.Google Scholar
  32. Wickens, C., Israel, J., McCarthy, G., Gopher, D., and Donchin, E. The use of event related potentials in the enhancement of man-machine system performance. Proceedings 12th Annual Conference on Manual Control. Urbana, Illinois, May 1976.Google Scholar
  33. Wickens, C.D., Israel, J., and Donchin, E. The event-related cortical potential as an index of task workload in adaptive man-machine systems. Proceedings Meeting of the Human Factors Society, San Francisco, October, 1977.Google Scholar
  34. Wickens, C.D. and Kessel, C. The effect of participatory mode and task workload on the detection of dynamic system failures. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Manual Control. U.S. Government Printing OfficeGoogle Scholar
  35. Wiener, E.L. Controlled flight into terrain accidents: System-induced errors. Human Factors, 1977, 19, 171–182.Google Scholar
  36. Young, C.R. On adaptive manual control. IEEE Trans. on Man-Machine Systems, 1969, MMS-10, 292–351.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher D. Wickens
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of IllinoisChampaign-UrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations