Cyber Vigilance

Cyber security operators in the military and civilian sector face a lengthy repetitive work assignment with few critical signal occurrences under conditions in which they have little control over what transpires. In this sense, their task is similar to vigilance tasks that have received considerable attention from human factors specialists in regard to other operational assignments such as air traffic control, industrial process control, and medical monitoring. Accordingly, this study was designed to determine if cyber security tasks can be linked to more traditional vigilance tasks in regard to several factors known to influence vigilance performance and perceived mental workload including time on task, the probability of critical signal occurrence, and event rate (the number of stimulus events that must be monitored in order to detect critical signals). Consistent with the results obtained in traditional vigilance experiments, signal detection on a 40-minute simulated cyber security task declined significantly over time, was directly related to signal probability, and inversely related to event rate. In addition, as in traditional vigilance tasks, perceived mental workload in the cyber task, as reflected by the NASA Task Load Index, was high. The results of this study have potential meaning for designers of cyber security systems in regard to psychophysical factors that might influence task performance and the need to keep the workload of such systems from exceeding the information processing bounds of security operators.

[1]  Daniel R. Tesone,et al.  Achieving Cyber Defense Situational Awareness: A Cognitive Task Analysis of Information Assurance Analysts , 2005 .

[2]  J. G. Hollands,et al.  Engineering Psychology and Human Performance , 1984 .

[3]  W. N. Dember,et al.  Effects of Task Type and Stimulus Heterogeneity on the Event Rate Function in Sustained Attention , 1987, Human factors.

[4]  Joel S. Warm,et al.  Vigilance Requires Hard Mental Work and Is Stressful , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[5]  M. Loeb,et al.  The Psychology of Vigilance , 1982 .

[6]  P. Hancock,et al.  In search of vigilance: the problem of iatrogenically created psychological phenomena. , 2013, The American psychologist.

[7]  Joel S. Warm,et al.  Viewing the Workload of Vigilance Through the Lenses of the NASA-TLX and the MRQ , 2013, Hum. Factors.

[8]  John P. McIntire,et al.  Eye Metrics: An Alternative Vigilance Detector , 2012 .

[9]  Joel S. Warm,et al.  Cerebral Hemodynamics and Vigilance Performance , 2009 .

[10]  Thomas E. Nygren,et al.  Psychometric Properties of Subjective Workload Measurement Techniques: Implications for Their Use in the Assessment of Perceived Mental Workload , 1991 .

[11]  Joel S. Warm,et al.  The Psychophysics of Vigilance , 1980 .

[12]  Robert W Proctor,et al.  Cumulative knowledge and progress in human factors. , 2010, Annual review of psychology.

[13]  Joel S. Warm,et al.  Selection for vigilance assignments: a review and proposed new direction , 2011 .

[14]  C. Wickens.  Engineering psychology and human performance, 2nd ed. , 1992 .

[15]  D. Washburn,et al.  Task engagement, cerebral blood flow velocity, and diagnostic monitoring for sustained attention. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[16]  Raymond S. Nickerson,et al.  Looking Ahead: Human Factors Challenges in A Changing World , 1992 .

[17]  P. Hancock,et al.  A Dynamic Model of Stress and Sustained Attention , 1989, Human factors.

[18]  S. Hart,et al.  Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research , 1988 .

[19]  Petra Holtzmann,et al.  Sustained Attention In Human Performance , 2016 .

[20]  J. M. Humes,et al.  Monitoring of Complex Visual Displays: IV. Training for Vigilance , 1963, Human factors.