099637 Attention Processes – Evaluation and measurement of performer workload in task performance

099637 Attention Processes –  Evaluation and measurement of performer workload in task performance.  

Professor Daniel Gopher

Industrial Engineering and Management

Spring 2017

This course will discuss contemporary concepts and aspects of evaluating human performers mental workload and the limits of the human processing and response system, These will be examined in light of their implication to the costs of performance when coping with task demands. Alternative measurment approaches and methods will be compared to the evaluation of the influence of task workload, and attention limitations. A special emphasis will given to to the implications and linkage  of  theoretical constructs in cognitive psychology to measurment of task performance in daily tasks and work, such as driving, flying and control operation rooms.

Syllabus and Topics

  1. Attention workload and task performance

1) 20.03 Limitations and workload while using cell phone in driving

2) 27.03 Comparing screen and paper modes in text processing tasks

3) 03.04 Training to cope with the workload and demands of flight

  1. Underlying processes and mechanisms

4) 24.04 Joined operation of two processing and response systems, 1&2

5) 08.05 The two processing and response systems, 1&2

6) 15.05 Attention systems

7) 22.05 working memory

8) 29.05 Resources and POCs

9) 05.06 Values and expected utilities

  1. Methods of mental load measurement

10) 12.06 behavioral measures – secondary tasks

11) 22.06 behavioral measures multitasking

12) 29.06 subjective measures and scales

13) 03.07 Physiological measures- pupil dilation, evoked potentials.

Reading list 

Ackerman, R., & Goldsmith, M. (2011). Metacognitive regulation of text learning: On screen versus on paper. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 17(1), 18–32.

Ackerman, R., & Lauterman, T. (2012). Taking reading comprehension exams on screen or on paper? A metacognitive analysis of learning texts under time pressure. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5), 1816

Baddeley A. (2012) Working Memory: Theories, Models, and Controversies. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 63:1–29.

Beatty, J. (1982), “Task-evoked pupilary responses, processing load and the structure of processing resources”.  Psychological Bulletin, 91, pp. 276-292.

Drews, F. A., Pasupathi, M., & Strayer, D. L. (2008). Passenger and cell-phone conversations in simulated driving. Journal  of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 392–400.

Drews F A, Yazdani H, GodfreyC N, Cooper J M, Strayer D L (2009) Text Messaging During Simulated Driving. Human Factors, December 2009.

Estes S. The workload curve (2015). HUMAN FACTORS 57,7, pp. 1174–1187

Gopher, D. (1994)  “Analysis and measurement of mental load”. In:  S’YdWalle, Elen P. & Bertelson, P. (Eds.), International Perspectives on Cognetive Psychology, Vol. II. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gopher,D., Brickner, M. and Navon, D. (1982). “Different difficulty manipulations interact differently with task emphasis: Evidence for multiple resources”, Journal Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,8, 146-157.

Hart, S.G. & Straveland, L.H. (1988), “Development of NASA TLX (task

load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research”.  In: Hancock, A.

& Meshkati, N. (Eds.), human Mental Workload.  Amsterdam: North  Holland,  pp. 139-184.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking , Fast and Slow. Part 1. Macmillan. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2

Kurzban R, Duckworth A, Kable J, Myers J,(2013) An opportunity cost model of subjective effort and task performance.  BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES 36, 661–726

Navon, D. & Gopher, D. (1979)  “On the economy of the human processing system”, Psychol. Rev., 86, pp. 214-255.

Pasher, H. & Johnston, J. (1998)  “Attention limitation in dual task performance”.  In:  Pashler, H. (Ed.), Attention, London: Academic Press, 4, 155-185.

Posner M. &. Rothbart M. (2007) Research on Attention Networks as a Model for the Integration of Psychological Science. Annual Review of Psychology 58:1–23        2A0D04

Rubio S Diaz E, Martם J, Puente J. (2004) Evaluation of Subjective Mental Workload: A Comparison of SWAT, NASA-TLX, and Workload Profile Methods APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 53 (1), 61–86.

Reid, G.B. & Nygren, T.E. (1988), “The subjective workload assessment technique: A scaling procedure for measuring mental workload”.  In: Hancock, A. & Meshkati, N. (Eds.), Human Mental Workload.  Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 185-218.

Sidi, Y, Shpigelman, M., Zalmanov, H., & Ackerman, R. (in press). Understanding metacognitive inferiority on screen by exposing cues for depth of processing. Learning and Instruction.

Strayer D., Johnston W. (2001). DRIVEN TO DISTRACTION: Dual-Task Studies of Simulated Driving and Conversing on a Cellular Telephone. Psychological Science, 12, 462-466.

Strayer, D. L Drews, F. A., & Johnston, W. A. (2003). Cell phone induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 23–52.

Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Crouch, D. (2006). A comparison of the

cell-phone driver and the drunk driver. Human Factors, 48, 381–391

Wickens, C., Kramer, A., Vanasse, L., & Donchin, E. (1983). Performance of concurrent tasks: A psychophysiological analysis of the reciprocity of information-processing resources. Science, 221(4615), 1080–1082. doi:10.1126/science.6879207

Wickens C, Goh, J, John, Helleberg j, William J. Horrey, W, Talleur D. Attentional Models of Multitask Pilot Performance Using Advanced Display Technology(2003). HUMAN FACTORS, 45, pp. 360–380