Behavioral and biological effects of autonomous versus scheduled mission management in simulated space-dwelling groups

Abstract Logistical constraints during long-duration space expeditions will limit the ability of Earth-based mission control personnel to manage their astronaut crews and will thus increase the prevalence of autonomous operations. Despite this inevitability, little research exists regarding crew performance and psychosocial adaptation under such autonomous conditions. To this end, a newly-initiated study on crew management systems was conducted to assess crew performance effectiveness under rigid schedule-based management of crew activities by Mission Control versus more flexible, autonomous management of activities by the crews themselves. Nine volunteers formed three long-term crews and were extensively trained in a simulated planetary geological exploration task over the course of several months. Each crew then embarked on two separate 3–4 h missions in a counterbalanced sequence: Scheduled, in which the crews were directed by Mission Control according to a strict topographic and temporal region-searching sequence, and Autonomous, in which the well-trained crews received equivalent baseline support from Mission Control but were free to explore the planetary surface as they saw fit. Under the autonomous missions, performance in all three crews improved (more high-valued geologic samples were retrieved), subjective self-reports of negative emotional states decreased, unstructured debriefing logs contained fewer references to negative emotions and greater use of socially-referent language, and salivary cortisol output across the missions was attenuated. The present study provides evidence that crew autonomy may improve performance and help sustain if not enhance psychosocial adaptation and biobehavioral health. These controlled experimental data contribute to an emerging empirical database on crew autonomy which the international astronautics community may build upon for future research and ultimately draw upon when designing and managing missions.

[1]  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.

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

[3]  R. K. Singh ESP: Communication constraints , 1983 .

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

[5]  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.

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

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

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

[9]  Peter G. Roma The SPIT Method for Simultaneous and Unobtrusive Collection of Salivary Cortisol from Individually Housed Infant Monkeys , 2006 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

[16]  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.

[17]  D. H. Carson Man-environment interactions : evaluations and applications , 1974 .

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

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

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

[21]  Levi Lennart,et al.  Society, stress, and disease. , 1977, WHO chronicle.

[22]  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.

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

[24]  Gene P. Sackett,et al.  Nursery Rearing of Nonhuman Primates in the 21st Century , 2006 .

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

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

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

[28]  Nick Kanas,et al.  Space Psychology and Psychiatry , 2003 .

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

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