Development of Human Performance Measures for Human Factors Validation in Advanced Nuclear Power Plants

Main control room(MCR) man-machine interface(MMI) design of advanced nuclear power plants(NPPs) such as APR(advanced power reactor)-1400 can be validated through performance-based tests to determine whether it acceptably supports safe operation of the plant. In this work, plant performance, personnel task, situation awareness, workload, teamwork, and anthropometric/physiological factor are considered as factors for the human performance evaluation. For development of measures in each of the factors, techniques generally used in various industries and empirically proven to be useful are adopted as main measures and some helpful techniques are developed in order to complement the main measures. Also the development of the measures is addressed based on the theoretical background. Finally we discuss the way in which the measures can be effectively integrated and then HUPESS(HUman Performance Evaluation Support System) which is in development based on the integrated way is briefly introduced.

[1]  Laura Lin,et al.  Supporting Situation Awareness of Individuals and Teams Using Group View Displays , 1998 .

[2]  D. de Waard,et al.  The use of psychophysiology to assess driver status. , 1993, Ergonomics.

[3]  Poong Hyun Seong,et al.  EEG Analysis during complex diagnostic tasks in Nuclear Power Plants - Simulator-based Experimental Study , 2005 .

[4]  R Goldstein,et al.  Effects of Information-Processing Demands on Physiological Response Patterns , 1987, Human factors.

[5]  Y. Lin,et al.  Using eye movement parameters for evaluating human-machine interface frameworks under normal control operation and fault detection situations , 2003, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[6]  K. Pope,et al.  Cognitive tasks augment gamma EEG power , 2004, Clinical Neurophysiology.

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

[8]  Renate Rau,et al.  Psychophysiological assessment of human reliability in a simulated complex system , 1996, Biological Psychology.

[9]  Poong Hyun Seong,et al.  Investigation on relationship between information flow rate and mental workload of accident diagnosis tasks in NPPs , 2006 .

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

[11]  J. Stern,et al.  The endogenous eyeblink. , 1984, Psychophysiology.

[12]  D. Schroeder,et al.  Blink Rate: A Possible Measure of Fatigue , 1994, Human factors.

[13]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[14]  Terence S. Abbott,et al.  Comparison of Workload Measures on Computer—Generated Primary Flight Displays , 1987 .

[15]  J. C. Byers,et al.  Comparison of Four Subjective Workload Rating Scales , 1992 .

[16]  F. Thomas Eggemeier,et al.  Workload assessment methodology. , 1986 .

[17]  Poong-Hyun Seong,et al.  A computational model for knowledge-driven monitoring of nuclear power plant operators based on information theory , 2006, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[18]  Daniel G Bobrow,et al.  On data-limited and resource-limited processes , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[19]  Susan G. Hill,et al.  Workload Assessment of a Remotely Piloted Vehicle (RPV) System , 1988 .

[20]  Glenn F. Wilson,et al.  Psychophysiological responses to changes in workload during simulated air traffic control , 1996, Biological Psychology.

[21]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Design and Evaluation for Situation Awareness Enhancement , 1988 .

[22]  Y. Tanaka,et al.  Blink Activity and Task Difficulty , 1993, Perceptual and motor skills.

[23]  Eugene Chekaluk,et al.  The Role of eye movements in perceptual processes , 1992 .

[24]  John M. O'Hara,et al.  Human Factors Engineering Program Review Model , 2004 .

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

[26]  Vernoi Battiste,et al.  Transport Pilot Workload: A Comparison of Two Subjective Techniques , 1988 .

[27]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT) , 1988, Proceedings of the IEEE 1988 National Aerospace and Electronics Conference.

[28]  A Sebok,et al.  Team performance in process control: influences of interface design and staffing levels , 2000, Ergonomics.

[29]  Marilyn Jager Adams,et al.  Situation Awareness and the Cognitive Management of Complex Systems , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[30]  David N. Hogg,et al.  Development of a situation awareness measure to evaluate advanced alarm systems in nuclear power plant control rooms , 1995 .

[31]  Poong Hyun Seong,et al.  An Experimental Study: EEG Analysis with Eye Fixation Data during Complex Diagnostic Tasks in Nuclear Power Plants , 2005 .

[32]  G. Underwood,et al.  The Role of Eye Movements in Reading: Some Limitations of the Eye-Mind Assumption , 1992 .

[33]  David Woods,et al.  Situation Awareness: A Critical But Ill-Defined Phenomenon , 1991 .

[34]  J. Veltman,et al.  Physiological indices of workload in a simulated flight task , 1996, Biological Psychology.

[35]  N Moray,et al.  Fault management in process control: eye movements and action. , 1989, Ergonomics.

[36]  Robert C. Williges,et al.  Behavioral Measures of Aircrew Mental Workload , 1979 .

[37]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  The Out-of-the-Loop Performance Problem and Level of Control in Automation , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[38]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. , 1977 .

[39]  E.M. Roth,et al.  Human factors evaluation issues for advanced control rooms: a research agenda , 1992, Conference Record for 1992 Fifth Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants.