|
Task Progress:
|
In future missions, NASA plans to venture beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Communication between the spacecraft and Earth will be subject to longer delays, and in some cases, will be unavailable. These spacecraft will require systems that will allow the crew to perform procedures without assistance from Mission Control. Crewmembers will rely much more heavily on the automated, computer-based tools available within their vehicle or habitat. Given the increased autonomy from the ground, missions will likely be even more dependent on procedures for day-to-day operations and survival. Crewmembers will need to be able to independently operate procedures without missing important steps, keep track of who is working each procedure (i.e., their crewmate, or the system automation), and maintain a view into the vehicle or habitat system’s health and status, along with the effects of their actions on those systems.
Current state-of-the-art electronic procedures, such as those used in the aviation domain, can potentially offer some of the support previously provided by Mission Control. This includes assisting the crew in keeping track of the current step, allowing for some automated execution of steps, providing reminder features when multiple procedures are being worked, and providing some level of integration with system telemetry to assist the crewmember in monitoring and timely decision making. Automating functions within these systems has the potential to make crew more autonomous from Mission Control. If not implemented carefully, however, this change could increase astronaut workload, decrease efficiency and situation awareness (SA), and increase the risk of suboptimal task execution (Parasuraman & Manzey, 2010; Parasuraman, Malloy, & Singh, 1993; Metzger & Parasuraman, 2005; Singh, Sharma, Parasuraman, 2001).
Two key questions addressed in the present research are: 1) When incorporating automation into electronic procedures, how much automation should be provided? 2) What is the importance of a relevant graphical system display in the execution of electronic procedures, and how important is the visual integration of that display with electronic procedures? Of primary interest is the effect of these different procedure configurations on human performance, namely SA and workload. The three aims of this research are as follows:
Aim 1: Determine the effect of level of automation of procedure step execution on SA, and other human-system performance metrics.
Aim 2: In a complex, multiple-procedure scenario, determine the effect of procedure management aids (e.g., availability of task allocation information) on SA and other human-system performance metrics.
Aim 3: Determine the effect of the level of integration of system and procedural information on SA and other human-system performance metrics.
Two studies were completed as part of this research project: Study 1 addressing level of automation of electronic procedures (Aims 1 and 2 above), and Study 2 addressing procedure/display integration (Aim 3). One of the key measures of interest in both studies was Situation Awareness, which was measured using the Situation Presence Assessment Method (SPAM; Durso, Hackworth, Truitt, Crutchfield, and Manning, 1998). SPAM uses time to answer a query about the system as a measure of situation awareness. Accuracy, workload, trust, usability and subjective preferences were also measured in both studies.
Study 1 involved twenty-seven crew-like subjects learning and performing tasks with PRocedure Integrated Development Environment (PRIDE) procedures and a habitat simulation system developed by TRACLabs. Subjects completed the scenario-based procedures while seated at a workstation intended to simulate a Habitat Control Station. The station consisted of two computers: the Procedures computer used to complete electronic procedures using PRIDE, and the Mission Control Center (MCC) computer where subjects answered computer-based questions from a mock Mission Control Center throughout the test session. MCC questions were Situation Awareness queries or simple progress questions (distractors). For the within-subjects study, subjects completed the procedures under conditions of: 1) no automation, 2) mixed automation, and 3) high automation. Another experimental factor was the location of a procedure management aid (always visible or on request).
Study 2 involved twenty crew-like subjects learning and performing tasks with an electronic procedures system and a flight control simulation. Subjects completed the scenario-based procedures, which included responding to alarms, performing malfunction procedures, and monitoring spacecraft launches, while seated at a workstation intended to simulate a future space vehicle control station. The station consisted of two computers: the Procedures computer used to complete electronic procedures using Orion-like procedures developed by the Crew Interface Rapid Prototyping Laboratory, and a Mission Control Center (MCC) computer where the subjects answered computer-based questions from a mock Mission Control Center throughout the test session. MCC questions were Situation Awareness queries or Bedford workload rating scales. For the within-subjects study, subjects completed the procedures under one of the following configurations: 1) procedures-only (no system display, telemetry only), 2) serial procedures (procedure was shown with an associated system display in toggle fashion, only for commands or on request), and 3) simultaneous procedures (procedure and related system display were shown on the same monitor). In addition to accuracy, workload, trust, usability and subjective preferences, performance data were collected from an eyetracker and a prototype functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS) sensor.
Results have implications for the design of electronic procedures systems, including use of automation and the role of systems displays. Results from both studies are currently being prepared for submittal to a technical journal.
References
Parasuraman, R., & Manzey, D. H. (2010). Complacency and bias in human use of automation: An attentional integration. Human factors, 52(3), 381-410.
Parasuraman, R., Molloy, R., & Singh, I. L. (1993). Performance consequences of automation-induced 'complacency'. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3(1), 1-23.
Metzger, U., & Parasuraman, R. (2005). Automation in future air traffic management: Effects of decision aid reliability on controller performance and mental workload. Human Factors, 47(1), 35-49.
Singh, I. L., Sharma, H. O., & Parasuraman, R. (2001). Effects of manual training and automation reliability on automation induced complacency in flight simulation task. Psychological Studies-University of Calicut, 46(1/2), 21-27.
Durso, F.T., Hackworth, C.A., Truitt, T., Crutchfield, J., and Manning, C.A. (1998). Situation awareness as a predictor of performance in en route air traffic controllers, Air Traffic Quarterly, 6, pp. 1-20.
|
Home
Developed and operated by: NASA Research and Education Support Services