Situation Awareness Reacquisition in a Supervisory Control Task

External interruptions, task switching, distractions, and multi-tasking can all affect situation awareness (SA). This study focused on how SA is reacquired after a brief task-related break. Participants controlled multiple unmanned aerial vehicles, avoiding hazards and navigating vehicles to their target destination. In the dual-task condition, participants completed a payload sub-task after engaging a vehicle for mission completion. In the single task condition, participants did not complete the additional sub-task after engaging a vehicle for mission completion. Patterns of eye fixations were found that characterized instances when SA was being reacquired (dual task) and instances when there was continuous task performance (single task). After a task break, SA was reacquired by quickly scanning a diverse group of objects that had been previously looked at. When there was no task break, participants slowly fixated on a few objects that were novel. We interpret these findings as suggesting that when SA needs to be reacquired, previous goals and plans need to be reinstated, while during normal task behavior, participants seek novel and changing events. These findings support the Memory for Goals (MFG) model and the integrated framework for maintaining and recovering SA. We discuss implications for developing process models that evaluate SA in real-time.

[1]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[2]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Measurement of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[3]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Contextual cues aid recovery from interruption: the role of associative activation. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[4]  J. Gregory Trafton,et al.  Memory for goals: an activation-based model , 2002, Cogn. Sci..

[5]  Office Of The Secretary Of Defense (OSD) , 2022 .

[6]  E. M. Altmann,et al.  Task Interruption: Resumption Lag and the Role of Cues , 2004 .

[7]  John R Anderson,et al.  An integrated theory of the mind. , 2004, Psychological review.

[8]  E. M. Altmann,et al.  Timecourse of recovery from task interruption: Data and a model , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[9]  Danko Nikolić,et al.  Expertise and chess: A pilot study comparing situation awareness methodologies , 1995 .

[10]  Raj M. Ratwani,et al.  A memory for goals model of sequence errors , 2011, Cognitive Systems Research.

[11]  Harvey S. Smallman,et al.  Staying Up to Speed: Four Design Principles for Maintaining and Recovering Situation Awareness , 2008 .

[12]  M. Cummings,et al.  Behavioral Recognition and Prediction of an Operator Supervising Multiple Heterogeneous Unmanned Vehicles , 2008 .

[13]  Raj M. Ratwani,et al.  Single operator, multiple robots: An eye movement based theoretic model of operator situation awareness , 2010, 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[14]  Christopher A. Monk,et al.  Recovering From Interruptions: Implications for Driver Distraction Research , 2004, Hum. Factors.

[15]  Raj M. Ratwani,et al.  Predicting postcompletion errors using eye movements , 2008, CHI.

[16]  Neville Stanton,et al.  Situation awareness measurement: a review of applicability for C4i environments. , 2006, Applied ergonomics.

[17]  J. Gregory Trafton,et al.  Preparing to resume an interrupted task: effects of prospective goal encoding and retrospective rehearsal , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[18]  Michael A. Goodrich,et al.  Validating human-robot interaction schemes in multitasking environments , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[19]  M R Endsley,et al.  Sources of situation awareness errors in aviation. , 1996, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[20]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  An integrated model of cognitive control in task switching. , 2008, Psychological review.