Advertisement

Are the Intrusive Effects of SPAM Probes Present When Operators Differ by Skill Level and Training?

  • Hector I. Silva
  • Jason Ziccardi
  • Tristan Grigoleit
  • Vernol Battiste
  • Thomas Z. Strybel
  • Kim-Phuong L. Vu
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8016)

Abstract

The Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) plans to implement a series of automated tools into the National Airspace System to aid air traffic controllers (ATCos) in managing a two to three times increase in air traffic density. However, introducing automated technologies into a system like air traffic management (ATM) changes the responsibilities of the ATCo from an active controller to a passive monitor, which can result in lower levels of situation awareness (SA). To measure SA objectively in such a dynamic task as ATM, the Situation Present Awareness Method (SPAM) is often used. SPAM provides the operator with SA probes while the operator is performing the task. Some studies have shown that the use of SPAM to measure SA is intrusive because it provides the operator with a secondary task. The present study examines whether these intrusive effects of SPAM are present when the operator has achieved a high skill level at the time of test, and whether training operators to rely more or less on NextGen automated tools influence their performance when SPAM queries are presented as a secondary task.

Keywords

situation awareness online probe methodology situation present assessment method 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Joint Planning and Development Office. Concept of operations for the next generation air transportation system version (2010), http://www.jpdo.gov/library/NextGenConOps.pdf (retrieved January 10, 2012)
  2. 2.
    Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T.B., Wickens, C.D.: A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part A: Systems and Humans 30(3), 286–297 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wickens, C.D., Dixon, S.R.: The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: a synthesis of the literature. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 8(3), 201–212 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kaber, D.B., Onal, E., Endsley, M.R.: Design automation for telerobots and the effect on performance, operator situation awareness, and subjective workload. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing 10(4), 409–430 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chiappe, D., Strybel, T.Z., Vu, K.-P.L.:   Mechanisms for the acquisition of Situation Awareness in situated agents. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Sciences 13, 625–647 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Durso, F.T., Dattel, A.: SPAM: The real-time assessment of SA. In: Banbury, S., Trembley, S. (eds.) A Cognitive Approach to Situation Awareness: Theory, Measures and Application, pp. 137–154. Aldershot, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Durso, F.T., Hackworth, C.A., Truitt, T.R., Crutchfield, J., Nikolic, D., Manning, C.A.: Situation awareness as a predictor of performance for en route air traffic controllers. Air Traffic Control Quarterly 6, 1–20 (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jeannot, E., Kelly, C., Thompson, D.: The development of situation awareness measures in ATM systems. EATMP Report, HRS/HSP-005-REP-01 (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Salmon, P.M., Stanton, N.A., Walker, G.H., Green, D.: Situation awareness measurement: A review of applicability for C4i environments. Applied Ergonomics 37, 225–238 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pierce, R.S.: The effect of SPAM administration during a dynamic situation. Human Factors 54, 838–848 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Langan-Fox, J., Sankey, M., Canty, J.: Human factors measurement for future air traffic control systems. Human Factors 51, 595–637 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bacon, L.P., Strybel, T.Z.: Assessment of the validity and intrusiveness of online-probe questions for situation awareness in a simulated air-traffic-management task with student air-traffic controllers. Safety Science (in press)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prevot, T.: Exploring the many perspectives of distributed air traffic management: The Multi-Aircraft Control System MACS. In: Chatty, S., Hansman, J., Boy, G. (eds.) HCI-Aero 2002, pp. 149–154. AIAA Press, Menlo Park (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hah, S., Willems, B., Schulz, K.: The evaluation of data communication for the future air traffic control system (NextGen). In: Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA, pp. 99–103 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hector I. Silva
    • 1
  • Jason Ziccardi
    • 1
  • Tristan Grigoleit
    • 1
  • Vernol Battiste
    • 2
  • Thomas Z. Strybel
    • 1
  • Kim-Phuong L. Vu
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Human Factors in Advanced Aeronautics Technologies, Department of PsychologyCalifornia State University Long BeachLong BeachUSA
  2. 2.San Jose State University Foundation and NASA Ames Research CenterUSA

Personalised recommendations