Situation Awareness Recovery

Objective: We describe a novel concept, situation awareness recovery (SAR), and we identify perceptual and cognitive processes that characterize SAR. Background: Situation awareness (SA) is typically described in terms of perceiving relevant elements of the environment, comprehending how those elements are integrated into a meaningful whole, and projecting that meaning into the future. Yet SA fluctuates during the time course of a task, making it important to understand the process by which SA is recovered after it is degraded. Method: We investigated SAR using different types of interruptions to degrade SA. In Experiment 1, participants watched short videos of an operator performing a supervisory control task, and then the participants were either interrupted or not interrupted, after which SA was assessed using a questionnaire. In Experiment 2, participants performed a supervisory control task in which they guided vehicles to their respective targets and either experienced an interruption, during which they performed a visual search task in a different panel, or were not interrupted. Results: The SAR processes we identified included shorter fixation durations, increased number of objects scanned, longer resumption lags, and a greater likelihood of refixating on objects that were previously looked at. Conclusions: We interpret these findings in terms of the memory-for-goals model, which suggests that SAR consists of increased scanning in order to compensate for decay, and previously viewed cues act as associative primes that reactivate memory traces of goals and plans.

[1]  M R Endsley,et al.  Sources of situation awareness errors in aviation. , 1996, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[2]  Deborah A Boehm-Davis,et al.  Reducing the disruptive effects of interruption: a cognitive framework for analysing the costs and benefits of intervention strategies. , 2009, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[3]  Dylan M. Jones,et al.  Contextual cues aid recovery from interruption: the role of associative activation. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[4]  Daniel C. McFarlane,et al.  Comparison of Four Primary Methods for Coordinating the Interruption of People in Human-Computer Interaction , 2002, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[5]  M. Cummings,et al.  Behavioral Recognition and Prediction of an Operator Supervising Multiple Heterogeneous Unmanned Vehicles , 2008 .

[6]  J. Gregory Trafton,et al.  Preparing to resume an interrupted task: effects of prospective goal encoding and retrospective rehearsal , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[7]  E. M. Altmann,et al.  Momentary interruptions can derail the train of thought. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[8]  E. M. Altmann,et al.  Timecourse of recovery from task interruption: Data and a model , 2006, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[9]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Distribution of Attention, Situation Awareness and Workload in a Passive Air Traffic Control Task: Implications for Operational Errors and Automation , 1998 .

[10]  Danko Nikolić,et al.  Expertise and chess: A pilot study comparing situation awareness methodologies , 1995 .

[11]  J. Gregory Trafton,et al.  Memory for goals: an activation-based model , 2002, Cogn. Sci..

[12]  Harvey S. Smallman,et al.  Staying Up to Speed: Four Design Principles for Maintaining and Recovering Situation Awareness , 2008 .

[13]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Measurement of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[14]  E. M. Altmann,et al.  Task Interruption: Resumption Lag and the Role of Cues , 2004 .

[15]  Christopher A. Monk,et al.  Recovering From Interruptions: Implications for Driver Distraction Research , 2004, Hum. Factors.

[16]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Direct Measurement of Situation Awareness: Validity and Use of SAGAT , 2000 .

[17]  Raj M. Ratwani,et al.  Predicting postcompletion errors using eye movements , 2008, CHI.

[18]  Charmine E. J. Härtel,et al.  Defining aircrew coordination: Searching mishaps for meaning , 1989 .

[19]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[20]  Raj M. Ratwani,et al.  The Effect of Interruption Modality on Primary Task Resumption , 2008 .

[21]  Raj M. Ratwani,et al.  A memory for goals model of sequence errors , 2011, Cognitive Systems Research.

[22]  M. McDaniel,et al.  Prospective memory : theory and applications , 2014 .

[23]  Neville Stanton,et al.  Situation awareness measurement: a review of applicability for C4i environments. , 2006, Applied ergonomics.

[24]  Stephanie M. Doane,et al.  Memory Processes of Flight Situation Awareness: Interactive Roles of Working Memory Capacity, Long-Term Working Memory, and Expertise , 2004, Hum. Factors.

[25]  John R Anderson,et al.  An integrated theory of the mind. , 2004, Psychological review.

[26]  Daniel J. Garland,et al.  Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement , 2009 .

[27]  Kip Smith,et al.  Situation Awareness Is Adaptive, Externally Directed Consciousness , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[28]  Michael A. Goodrich,et al.  Validating human-robot interaction schemes in multitasking environments , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[29]  A. Kirlik,et al.  Situation awareness as judgment I: Statistical modeling and quantitative measurement , 2006 .

[30]  Raj M. Ratwani,et al.  A Real-Time Eye Tracking System for Predicting and Preventing Postcompletion Errors , 2011, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[31]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  An integrated model of cognitive control in task switching. , 2008, Psychological review.