Team Vigilance

Operator vigilance is a vital concern to the Human Factors/Ergonomic community in regard to cockpit monitoring, air-traffic control, border security, baggage inspection, the supervisory control of unmanned aerial vehicles, and the monitoring of anesthesia gauges, among others. Of key interest is the performance of teams of observers because of the reliance of modern operations on good teamwork. Previous literature has examined the efficacy of team vigilance performance by comparing the frequency of target detections by teams in comparison to those obtained by operators working alone. Team performance has consistently exceeded singleoperator performance. The present study replicates this effect and provides the initial experimental investigation of the cost of being a team member. Results indicated that team members worked harder in terms of theta band activity, but reported similar subjective workload values when compared to that of single operators in the performance of a simulated UAV monitoring task.

[1]  Sean A. Rands,et al.  Self-Improvement for Team-Players: The Effects of Individual Effort on Aggregated Group Information , 2010, PloS one.

[2]  E. Klinger,et al.  Feedback effects and social facilitation of vigilance performance: Mere coaction versus potential evaluation , 1969 .

[3]  Daniel R. Ilgen,et al.  Team performance on monitoring tasks: An examination of decision errors in contexts requiring sustained attention. , 1995 .

[4]  G Hertel,et al.  Motivation gains in performance groups: paradigmatic and theoretical developments on the Köhler effect. , 2000, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[5]  E L WIENER.  The Performance of Multi-Man Monitoring Teams1 , 1964, Human factors.

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

[7]  E. A. Alluisi,et al.  On the inferred independence of paired watchkeepers , 1965 .

[8]  Julian O. Morrissette,et al.  Team Organization and Monitoring Performance , 1975 .

[9]  D. Major,et al.  Multiple Monitors and Knowledge of Results in Vigilance: The Decrement Still Wins , 1996 .

[10]  Joel S. Warm,et al.  Cerebral Hemodynamics and Vigilance , 2006, Neuroergonomics.

[11]  Tyler H. Shaw,et al.  Predicting vigilance: A fresh look at an old problem , 2009, Ergonomics.

[12]  Richard L. Martz.  SIGNAL PRESENTATION RATE, AUDITORY THRESHOLD, AND GROUP VIGILANCE , 1966 .

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

[14]  William N. Dember,et al.  VIGILANCE AND WORKLOAD IN AUTOMATED SYSTEMS. , 1996 .

[15]  J P Hornseth,et al.  Individual and Two-Man Team Target Finding Performance1 , 1967, Human factors.

[16]  Mustapha Mouloua,et al.  Automation and Human Performance : Theory and Applications , 1996 .

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

[18]  Michael E. Smith,et al.  Neurophysiological measures of cognitive workload during human-computer interaction , 2003 .

[19]  Michael E. Smith,et al.  Monitoring Working Memory Load during Computer-Based Tasks with EEG Pattern Recognition Methods , 1998, Hum. Factors.

[20]  Alan Gevins,et al.  Electroencephalography (EEG) in Neuroergonomics , 2006, Neuroergonomics.

[21]  Wayne L. Waag,et al.  Team Size and Decision Rule in the Performance of Simulated Monitoring Teams , 1972 .

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

[23]  B. Bergum,et al.  Vigilance performance as a function of paired monitoring. , 1962 .