Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents: Part 3: IDAC operator response model

This is the third in a series of five papers describing the IDAC (Information, Decision, and Action in Crew context) model for human reliability analysis. An example application of this modeling technique is also discussed in this series. The model is developed to probabilistically predict the responses of the nuclear power plant control room operating crew in accident conditions. The operator response spectrum includes cognitive, emotional, and physical activities during the course of an accident. This paper discusses the modeling components and their process rules. An operator's problem-solving process is divided into three types: information pre-processing (I), diagnosis and decision-making (D), and action execution (A). Explicit and context-dependent behavior rules for each type of operator are developed in the form of tables, and logical or mathematical relations. These regulate the process and activities of each of the three types of response. The behavior rules are developed for three generic types of operator: Decision Maker, Action Taker, and Consultant. This paper also provides a simple approach to calculating normalized probabilities of alternative behaviors given a context.

[1]  S. Sloman,et al.  Similarity as an explanatory construct , 1998, Cognition.

[2]  G Gigerenzer,et al.  Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. , 1996, Psychological review.

[3]  Mathilde Bourrier,et al.  Elements for designing a Self-correcting Organisation: examples from nuclear power plants , 1998 .

[4]  G. R. J. Hockey.  Compensatory control in the regulation of human performance under stress and high workload: A cognitive-energetical framework , 1997, Biological Psychology.

[5]  J E Lisman,et al.  Storage of 7 +/- 2 short-term memories in oscillatory subcycles , 1995, Science.

[6]  Y. Changa,et al.  Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents . Part 2 : IDAC performance influencing factors model , 2007 .

[7]  Ali Mosleh,et al.  Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents: Part 1: Overview of the IDAC Model , 2007, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[8]  G. Robert J. Hockey,et al.  State, Stress, and Time Pressure , 1993 .

[9]  M. Llory,et al.  Operator's knowledge, skill and know-how during the use of emergency procedures: design, training and cultural aspects , 1992, Conference Record for 1992 Fifth Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants.

[10]  Gary Klein,et al.  Decision Making in Complex Naval Command-and-Control Environments , 1996, Hum. Factors.

[11]  N. Cowan.  Attention and Memory: An Integrated Framework , 1995 .

[12]  Emilie M. Roth,et al.  Cognitive environment simulation: An artificial intelligence system for human performance assessment: Modeling human intention formation: (Technical report, May 1986-June 1987) , 1987 .

[13]  N. Cowan,et al.  The role of attention in the development of short-term memory: age differences in the verbal span of apprehension. , 1999, Child development.

[14]  Jürgen S. Sauer,et al.  Effects of Sleep Deprivation and User Interface on Complex Performance: A Multilevel Analysis of Compensatory Control , 1998, Hum. Factors.

[15]  Ali Mosleh,et al.  Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents: Part 5: Dynamic probabilistic simulation of the IDAC model , 2007, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[16]  S. Phillips,et al.  Processing capacity defined by relational complexity: implications for comparative, developmental, and cognitive psychology. , 1998, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[17]  H. Simon,et al.  The mind's eye in chess. , 1973 .

[18]  D E Kieras,et al.  A computational theory of executive cognitive processes and multiple-task performance: Part 1. Basic mechanisms. , 1997, Psychological review.

[19]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[20]  P. Carpenter,et al.  Individual differences in working memory and reading , 1980 .

[21]  Ali Mosleh,et al.  Cognitive modeling and dynamic probabilistic simulation of operating crew response to complex system accidents. Part 4: IDAC causal model of operator problem-solving response , 2007, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[22]  Christopher D Wickens,et al.  Processing Resources in Attention, Dual Task Performance, and Workload Assessment. , 1981 .

[23]  A. John Maule,et al.  The effects of time pressure on human judgement and decision making , 1997 .

[24]  Robert G. Crowder,et al.  Short-term memory: Where do we stand? , 1993, Memory & cognition.

[25]  Andrew Hale,et al.  Safety Management: The Challenge of Change , 2000 .

[26]  L. Pessoa,et al.  Finding out about filling-in: a guide to perceptual completion for visual science and the philosophy of perception. , 1998, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[27]  Morten Lind,et al.  Modeling goals and functions of complex industrial plants , 1994, Appl. Artif. Intell..

[28]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  THE MIND'S EYE IN CHESS , 1988 .

[29]  O. Sträter,et al.  Human-centered modeling in human reliability analysis: some trends based on case studies , 1997 .

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

[31]  N. Cowan.  The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity , 2001, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[32]  S. Folkman,et al.  Stress, appraisal, and coping , 1974 .

[33]  Jan Hovden,et al.  Models of Organisations versus Safety Management Approaches , 1998 .

[34]  Jens Rasmussen,et al.  Information Processing and Human-Machine Interaction: An Approach to Cognitive Engineering , 1986 .

[35]  G. A. Miller.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .