Developing Methodology for Experimentation Using a Nuclear Power Plant Simulator

  • Lauren Reinerman-Jones
  • Svyatoslav Guznov
  • Joseph Mercado
  • Amy D’Agostino
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8027)


Many of today’s most complicated systems are human-machine systems that involve extensive advanced technology and a team of highly trained operators. As these human-machine systems are so complex, it is important to understand the factors that influence operator performance, operator state (e.g., overloaded, underload, stress) and the types of errors that operators make. Thus, it is desirable to develop an experimental methodology for studying complex systems that involve team operations. This paper looks at Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) operations as a test case for building this methodology. The methodology will reference some aspects/details specific to NPPs, but the general principles are intended to extend to any complex system that involves team operations.


Nuclear Power Plant Task Type Cerebral Blood Flow Velocity Response Planning Subject Matter Expert 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ayaz, H., Shewokis, P.A., Bunce, S., Izzetoglu, K., Willems, B., Onaral, B.: Optical brain monitoring for operator training and mental workload assessment. NeuroImage 59(1), 36–47 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ayaz, H., Willems, B., Bunce, S., Shewokis, P.A., Hah, S., Deshmukh, A.R., Onaral, B.: Cognitive workload assessment of air traffic controllers using optical brain imaging sensors. In: Marek, T., Karwowski, W., Rice, V. (eds.) Advances in Understanding Human Performance: Neuroergonomics, Human Factors Design, and Special Populations, pp. 21–32. Taylor & Francis Group (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baker, K., Olson, J., Morisseau, D.: Work practices, fatigue, and nuclear powerplant safety performance. Human Factors 36, 244–257 (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brookings, J.B., Wilson, G.F., Swain, C.R.: Psychophysiological responses to changes in workload during simulated air traffic control. Biological Psychology 42(3), 361–377 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jorna, P.G.A.M.: Heart-rate and workload variations in actual and simulated flight. Ergonomics 36(9), 1043–1054 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kieras, D.E., Bovair, S.: The role of a mental model in learnng to operate a device. Cognitive Science 8, 255–274 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kramer, A.F.: Physiological metrics of mental workload: A review of recent progress. In: Damos, D.L. (ed.) Multiple-task Performance. Taylor & Francis Group, London (1991)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mumaw, R.J., Roth, E.M., Vicente, K.J., Burns, C.M.: There is more to monitoring a nuclear power plant than meets the eye. Human Factors 42(1), 36–55 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    O’Hara, J.M., Higgins, J.C.: Human-system interfaces to automatic systems: Review guidance and technical bases. Human Factors of advanced reactors (NRC JCN Y-6529) BNL Tech Report No BNL91017-2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    O’Hara, J., Higgins, J., Brown, W., Fink, R., Persensky, J., Lewis, P., Kramer, J., Szabo, A., Boggi, M.: Human Factors Considerations with Respect to Emerging Technology in Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG/CR-6947). U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. (2008a) Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reinerman-Jones, L.E., Cosenzo, K., Nicholson, D.: Subjective and objecttive measures of operator state in automated systems. In: Marek, T., Karwowski, W., Rice, V. (eds.) Advances in Understanding Human Performance: Neuroergonomics, Human Factors Design, and Special Populations (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reinerman-Jones, L.E., Matthews, G., Langheim, L.K., Warm, J.S.: Selection for vigilance assignments: A review and proposed new directions. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 1–23 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roscoe, A.H.: Assessing pilot workload: Why measure heart-rate, HRV and respiration. Biological Psychology 34(2-3), 259–287 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roscoe, A.H.: Heart-rate as a psychophysiological measure for in-flight workload assessment. Ergonomics 36(9), 1055–1062 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Veltman, J.A., Gaillard, A.W.K.: Physiological indices of workload in a simulated flight task. Biological Psychology 42, 323–342 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wilson, G.F., Fullenkamp, P., Davis, I.: Evoked-potential, cardiac, blink, and respiration measures of pilot workload in air-to-ground missions. Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine 65(2), 100–105 (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lauren Reinerman-Jones
    • 1
  • Svyatoslav Guznov
    • 1
  • Joseph Mercado
    • 1
  • Amy D’Agostino
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Simulation & TrainingUniversity of Central FloridaUSA
  2. 2.Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)USA

Personalised recommendations