Effects of autonomous mission management on crew performance, behavior, and physiology: Insights from ground-based experiments

Technical constraints during long-duration space expeditions will limit the ability for Earth-based management of astronaut crews and will thus increase the prevalence of autonomous operations. To provide experimentally-derived insights on the effects of crew autonomy, we utilized a laboratory-based simulation model to assess crew performance effectiveness and biopsychosocial adaptation under rigid schedule-based management of crew activities by Mission Control versus more flexible, autonomous management of activities by the crews themselves. In 2 separate experiments, 33 research volunteers formed 11 long-term 3-person mixed-gender crews that were extensively trained over several months in an interdependent computer-based planetary surface exploration task. Following training, in Experiment 1, three crews each completed two different types of 3–4 h test missions: Scheduled missions, in which they were directed by Mission Control according to a strict topographic and temporal region-searching sequence, and Autonomous missions, in which the crews received minimal baseline support from Mission Control and were free to establish their own protocols for exploring the planetary surface. In Experiment 2, eight 3-person crews were trained in identical fashion as Experiment 1, except these crews were each tested under four different scenarios, with the Scheduled and Autonomous sessions completed either under normal conditions of full communications capabilities or following the unexpected loss of audio and text-messaging functions. Overall, autonomous mission management led to improved task performance (more high-valued geologic samples were retrieved), increased subjective self-reports of positive mood, fewer references to negative emotions, greater use of socially-referent language in unstructured debriefing logs, and attenuated physiological stress reactivity. Consistent with observational field research, these laboratory-based investigations provide powerful experimental evidence supporting a causal relationship between crew autonomy and improved performance, enhanced psychosocial adaptation, and sustained biobehavioral health. Future work should systematically examine interactions with culture and personality in diverse multinational crews, assess the effects of other operationally-relevant stressors such as heavy workload and circadian disruption, and evaluate the effects of bounded autonomy in space analogue environments and on the International Space Station using rigorous experimental methods. The controlled laboratory data presented herein contribute to an emerging empirical knowledge base on crew autonomy which the international astronautics community may build upon for future research and ultimately draw upon when designing and managing long-duration exploratory missions.

[1]  Nick Kanas,et al.  High versus low crewmember autonomy in space simulation environments , 2010 .

[2]  J. Brady,et al.  Behavioral health: the propaedeutic requirement. , 2005, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[3]  Peter Suedfeld,et al.  Flying with Strangers: Postmission Reflections of Multinational Space Crews , 2013 .

[4]  Claus W. Langfred,et al.  Effects of task autonomy on performance: an extended model considering motivational, informational, and structural mechanisms. , 2004, The Journal of applied psychology.

[5]  Heather A. Priest,et al.  Errors in the Heat of Battle: Taking a Closer Look at Shared Cognition Breakdowns Through Teamwork , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[6]  C. Nemeroff,et al.  The role of corticotropin-releasing hormone in the pathophysiology of depression: therapeutic implications. , 2011, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[7]  M. Hegel,et al.  An interactive media program for managing psychosocial problems on long-duration spaceflights. , 2005, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[8]  Amy L. Byers,et al.  Depression and risk of developing dementia , 2011, Nature Reviews Neurology.

[9]  M M Mallis,et al.  Circadian rhythms, sleep, and performance in space. , 2005, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[10]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  Linguistic styles: language use as an individual difference. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[11]  Andrea Kiesel,et al.  The stressed prefrontal cortex and goal-directed behaviour: acute psychosocial stress impairs the flexible implementation of task goals , 2011, Experimental Brain Research.

[12]  Steven R. Hursh,et al.  Effects of incentives on psychosocial performances in simulated space-dwelling groups , 2008 .

[13]  E. Fehr,et al.  Prejudice and truth about the effect of testosterone on human bargaining behaviour , 2010, Nature.

[14]  Alexander Bystritsky,et al.  Computer‐assisted delivery of cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety disorders in primary‐care settings , 2009, Depression and anxiety.

[15]  R D Hienz,et al.  Distributed communication and psychosocial performance in simulated space dwelling groups. , 2005, Acta astronautica.

[16]  Massimo Bovenzi,et al.  Salivary cortisol and psychosocial hazards at work. , 2009, American journal of industrial medicine.

[17]  Joseph V. Brady,et al.  Behavioral Health Management of Space Dwelling Groups : Safe Passage Beyond Earth Orbit , 2007 .

[18]  C. Kirschbaum,et al.  Salivary cortisol in psychoneuroendocrine research: Recent developments and applications , 1994, Psychoneuroendocrinology.

[19]  David Wainwright,et al.  Job Strain, Effort-Reward Imbalance and Mental Distress: A study of occupations in general medical practice , 2000 .

[20]  Kip Canfield,et al.  Behavioral Systems Management of Confined Microsocieties: An Agenda for Research and Applications , 2009 .

[21]  J. Hackman,et al.  Employee reactions to job characteristics. , 1971 .

[22]  Lawrence A. Palinkas,et al.  Antarctica Meta-analysis: Psychosocial Factors Related to Long-duration Isolation and Confinement , 2009 .

[23]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Communicating, coordinating, and cooperating when lives depend on it: tips for teamwork. , 2008, Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety.

[24]  Jens C. Pruessner,et al.  The salivary alpha amylase over cortisol ratio as a marker to assess dysregulations of the stress systems , 2012, Physiology & Behavior.

[25]  Stefan Wüst,et al.  Why do we respond so differently? Reviewing determinants of human salivary cortisol responses to challenge , 2009, Psychoneuroendocrinology.

[26]  Patrick Meyer,et al.  In-Space Crew-Collaborative Task Scheduling , 2006 .

[27]  Steven R. Hursh,et al.  Behavioral and biological effects of autonomous versus scheduled mission management in simulated space-dwelling groups , 2011 .

[28]  Steven R. Hursh,et al.  Communication constraints, indexical countermeasures, and crew configuration effects in simulated space-dwelling groups , 2007 .

[29]  K. R. Milner,et al.  A multiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance. , 2004, The Journal of applied psychology.

[30]  Hans P A Van Dongen,et al.  Response Surface Mapping of Neurobehavioral Performance: Testing the Feasibility of Split Sleep Schedules for Space Operations. , 2008, Acta astronautica.

[31]  Steven R. Hursh,et al.  Distributed interactive communication in simulated space-dwelling groups , 2004, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[32]  E. Fehr,et al.  The role of testosterone in social interaction , 2011, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[33]  Lawrence A. Palinkas,et al.  Psychology and culture during long-duration space missions ☆ , 2009 .