Trip Report

14 August 2006

Trip Report

Department of Defense

Human Factors Engineering Technical Advisory Group

(DOD HFE TAG) Meeting #55

15-18 May 2006

The 55^thmeeting of the DoD HFE TAG was held in Las Vegas, NV. The meeting was chaired by Ms. Maureen Bergondy-Wilhelm, Naval Air Systems Command, Orlando, FL. The theme of the meeting was Enabling Decision superiority with HSI. Approximately 125 people attended the meeting, representing the US Army, US Navy, US Air Force, DARPA, NASA, FAA, DoD Laboratories, Canadian DRDC, several human factors-related technical societies and industry associations. Several additional personnel representing industry and academia attended as invited speakers.

Four items are attached:

· Background of the DoD HFE TAG, attachment (1)

· Program Summary, attachment (2)

· Detailed Meeting Agendas and Schedule, attachment (3)

· DoD HFE TAG Operating Board, attachment (4)

· TAG attendees, attachment (5)

· DoD HFE TAG Policies, attachment (6)

Plenary Session Presentations

The DoD HFE TAG Chair for the 55^th meeting, Maureen Bergondy-Wilhelm, welcomed attendees to the meeting and introduced the first plenary session presenter.

Air Force Host Welcome and Overview: Mr. James S. “Odie” Davis, Air Force Research Laboratory Liaison to USAF Warfare Center, Nellis Air Force Base welcomed the TAG participants to Las Vegas (james.davis@nellis.af.mil, (702) 652-8003). Nellis certifies most all USAF equipment and performs operational testing. It is the single source for tactics and doctrine development, provides graduate education and top adversary top graduates, hosts joint exercises and integrated training – in short, it provides solutions to combat problems. The Air Force Research Lab (AFRL) and Air Force Warfare Center (AFWC) have a partnership:

¨ The 98^th range wing employs spatially-separated audio for range control.

¨ The USAF Weapons School performs performance evaluation in high stress environments.

¨ The Combined Air and Space Operations Center provides “ACMI for the CAOC.”

¨ The Joint Air-to-Ground Operations Group provides joint air to ground operational training.

¨ The Predator and UAV Battle Lab performs research on crew fatigue, manning and scheduling for Middle East operations.

¨ The Security Forces and Desert Warfare Training Center employs multi-spectral devices, etc.

Future priorities include: enhancing decision making as a process, capability performance enhancement and providing innovative solutions to urgent needs.

Enabling Decision Superiority with HSI - Major Peter Garretson, Chief, Future Technologies Branch, HQ USAF Future Concepts and Transformation (peter.garretson@pentagon.af.mil, (703) 692-4795) is a C-5 and C-9 pilot, currently at the Pentagon as a long-term planner for the Air Staff. He is an OODA loop advocate. The new scarcity in Air Force aviation is human attention. As the number of airmen is reduced, a high percentage of those remaining will be decision makers. HSI can help select the best decision makers, train them to higher standards, conserve and protect decision makers, understand decision making and eliminate waste, and apply cognitive prostheses. A new thrust, AFSO-21 is causing the Air Force to start over in the way it looks at decision making: investigation areas will include data visualization and augmented reality/augmented cognition, both of which are critical to making significant progress. A much closer working relationship will be needed between HSI and Information Technology (IT) disciplines.

62^nd Engineering CBT Battalion (H): LTC Dave Weston, Engineering Officer, US Army Chief of Staff, 6^th Recruiting Brigade. In Iraq, LTC Watson’s Battalion laid 225 miles of pipeline from Camp Virginia to Talil Airfield. This included:

¨ 60,000 pieces of pipe

¨ 18 pumping stations (800 gallons/minute)

¨ 6 tactical petroleum terminals

¨ 20 million gallon total capacity

¨ Weighing over 4,500 tons

¨ One heavy combat brigade for four months.

During this operation there was very little C². Over the course of about 15 minutes, LTC Weston provided the audience with a graphics-based presentation illustrating the hardships faced by the Army in working in this environment. This provided many examples of where HSI could help.

Operational Neuroscience and its Impact on Decision Superiority: Dr. Amy Kruse, Program Manager, DARPA-DSO, provided several examples of how DARPA is investigating this relationship (amy.kruse@darpa.mil (571) 218-4338). The focus at DARPA is on the human in the loop – with the brain at the center of command and control. DARPA has explored several methods of sensing brain activity:

¨ EEG Electro-encephalography

¨ MEG Magneto- encephalography

¨ fMRI Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging

¨ PET Positron Emission Tomography

¨ fNIR Functional Near Infrared

EEG (electrical activity) and fNIR (oxygenation) hold near-term promise. Their goal is to develop a closed-loop computational system where the computer adapts to the warfighter in order to improve performance. Three different DARPA research projects were briefly discussed:

¨ The Boeing Company (Dr. Rich Edwards, et al), in conjunction with Dr. Glenn Wilson at WPAFB has explored control of four UAVs at a time using fNIR and EEG to sense workload.

¨ The Neuro-technology for Intelligence Analysts (NIA) program has as its goal helping analysts move through imagery more quickly. They are exploring the question: “Are their brain signals associated with targets in satellite imagery?” In this study, EEG 200 msec after target presentation was determined to be associated with target detection. Different scanning techniques were explored to speed target detection. The methodologies being studied have potential application to TSA baggage screening and mammogram screening.

¨ Another program being conducted by Lockheed-Martin, involves Tomahawk Tactical Work Station (TTWS). L-M is attempting to use neuroscience measures to help Human-Computer Interface (HCI) designers identify more usable interfaces that make operators less error-prone. They are attempting to develop a tool to detect and distinguish work workload-induced errors. Primary indicators are EEG, heart rate, GSR and off-head eye tracking.

¨ Another area of investigation is in the training area, where the goal is to use the innate plasticity of the brain to accelerate learning in the operational environment, to accelerate the transition from novice to expert by inducing localized plasticity in the brain. It is thought that increased plasticity in sensory brain structures results in enhanced information processing (synesthesia).

Human Performance Integration – Full Steam Ahead: Mr. Rick Etheridge, Director Human Performance and Systems Acquisition Branch, Chief of Naval Operations [OPNAV N173] discussed some of the initiatives underway in N173 (Richard.etherifdge@navy.mil, (703) 602-5160). N173 is supporting warfighting capabilities by maximizing human performance and minimizing LCC through requirements development, resource sponsorship and acquisition guidance.

The Role of Collaboration in Decision Superiority: Ms. Laura Militello, a Senior Research Psychologist at the University of Dayton Research Institute (militello@udri.udayton.edu, (937-229-2287) summarized some of the work underway at UDIR; they are working with lots of different military teams to optimize decision-making; e.g., Emergency response teams, Tanker Airlift control teams, Logistics Readiness Centers. They are focusing on both human-human, human-human (computer-mediated) and human-technology collaboration. Human-Human (computer-mediated) collaboration may include phone, email VTC, Chat rooms, VOIP and collaborative spaces such as “Net Meeting” and webex. Human-Technology collaboration involves such things as avatars, decision support systems and RFID. Some of the challenges to collaboration are shown below, with associated UDRI projects:

Delayed, more fragile trust → Lab studies of trust in logistics C2

Reduced cohesion Roles & functions workshops

Natural fault lines → Computer-supported conflict mgmt

More extreme decisions → Modeling and simulation technology

Asymmetric Information Flow → Standing Joint Force HQ knowledge

Manager

Clumsy automation → Avatars

Next steps for collaboration research include:

¨ Frameworks for evaluating collaborative technologies – working with AFRL (Logistics Branch) to study trust, cohesion, decision making, and information flow.

¨ Improved Human-Technology communications.

¨ Processes of computer-mediated communications

Resource Foraging Strategies in Uncertain, Event-Driven Environments - Ms. Sandra Garrett, Purdue University (garretsk@ecn.purdue.edu, (765) 464-8867) described some of the work being accomplished in optimal foraging theory – searching for and obtaining the most food while expending the least energy.

Sub-Group Meetings Attended at the DOD HFE TAG:

Human Factors Standardization (HFS) The chair/chair select for the Human Factors Standardization SubTAG is Mr. Dave Britton david.briton@wpafb.af.mil). The HFS website is: http://dtica.dtic.mil/hftag/hfs.html

MIL-STD-2525. Dr. Jake Wetzel, BCI (jake_wetzel@teambci.com) reported that change 2 will be published in august 2006. There will be approximately 50 changes to Appendix A. MIL-STD-2525C will be a major change to the military standard. The goal is to replace all the appendices with rules or “draw rules” for the symbology. The Navy has been quite active in proposing changes for new platforms such as the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), conducting evaluations of such things as symbol size and symbol color, and proposing new engagement symbology. BCI expects a report to be available in the near future.

MIL-STD-1787. Mr. Jim Kinzig (james..kinzig@wpafb.af.mil) reported on status. Deviations to the Standard are now allowed if there are expected performance enhancements, Life Cycle Cost (LCC) reductions, development cost reductions or safety enhancements. Revision “d” updates include:

¨ New definitions added

¨ New rotary wing symbols (from Terry Turpin, Boeing)

¨ Missile launch zones and attack steering depictions

¨ UAV section (currently replicates the manned aircraft section)

Appendix A design guidance has been updated to address consistency issues and provide clarifications. Also, the 3-D Attitude Director Indicator (ADI) Ball display was removed. The future “F” version will include off-boresight Helmet-mounted display (HMD) symbology, widebody/heavy aircraft symbology and additional threat displays. In the future, the rotary wing section will be cleaned up and updated, tactical symbology will be added by subgroup and F-35 Head-up display (HUD) developments will be monitored for possible additions. It is expected that Revision “D” will be published in December 06.

Crew Systems Integrity Process. Ms. Jennifer Farrel reported on the status of the CrewSIP process in the Weapon system Integrity Guide, MIL-HDBK-515. (jennifer.farrel@wpafb.af.mil). The CrewSIP process is to ensure integrity of crew systems through the operational life of the system. Emphasis is placed on cockpit integration, escape systems/crashworthiness systems, threat protection and human-system integration. CrewSIP tasks include:

¨ Task I: Preliminary planning

=> Supports SRR (System Requirements Review)

¨ Task II: Design Information

=> Supports SDR System Design Review)

¨ Task III: Design Analysis & Development Tests

=> Supports SSR (System SW Review)

=> Supports PDR (Prelim. Design Review)

=> Supports CDR (Critical Design Review)

¨ Task IV: Component Development & System Functional Test

=> Supports TRR (Test Readiness Review)

=> Supports FCA (Functional Configuration Audit)

¨ Task V: Force Management:

=> Supports PRR (Production Readiness Review)

=> Supports PCA (Physical Configuration Audit)

FAA Human Factors Design Standard: Ms. Vicki Ahlstrom (Vicki.ahlstrom@faa.gov) reported that the FAA is currently updating the Design Standard section on displays (e.g., plasma, LCD, OLED). Issues to be addressed include:

o Sunlight readability (ATC)

o Off-axis viewing (ATC)

o Reflections and glare (ATC/TRACON)

o Monitor placement

o Environments

o Options and technologies for various environments

o Projection displays

o Helmet-mounted, Head-up, small screen, near screen displays

The approach being followed is to compare the current standard to other standards, perform a literature search, evaluate relevance for FAA use, identify additional topic areas, convert information to “should” or “shall” statements, and organize and prepare for review.

Joint Service Specification Guide: Mr. Dave Britton indicated there is little progress in this area.

MIL-STD-1472F: Mr. Tom Cook (Thomas.cook@amrdec.army.mil) reported that he had spoken with Mr. Lee Gray about updating the standard. The Army wants another Service to help pay for the work.

GEIA & HEB-1: No update was available since Mr. Louis Adams, (Lockheed-Martin, lou.adams@lmco.com) was unavailable to attend the meeting.

Data Item Descriptions (DID): Mr. Dick Armstrong noted that a draft HSI Plan DID has been developed. The draft DID would be reviewed as part of the upcoming tri-service HSI workshop planned for June 2006 in Orlando. Following update of this DID, all six DIDs (Five HFE and one HSI) will be published.

NASA Standard 3000. As part of the new initiative for space exploration, HSI requirements are being authored. The MSIS handbook effort is slated to begin in June 2006.

Technical Society/Industry. The Technical Society/Industry (TS/I) Sub TAG met twice during the TAG meeting on Tuesday morning and afternoon. Mr. Bill Lytle (William.b.lytle@lmco.com, (303) 971-8972) chaired the two meetings.

In the morning session, Dr. Kirby Gilliland (Kirby@ou.edu) and Dr. Robert Schlegel (schlegel@ou.edu) provided an Overview of the Association for Aviation Psychology (AAP). The AAP was founded in the 1960s. Its mission is to promote aviation psychology and related aerospace and environmental disciplines and to apply principles of aviation psychology to the study of aviation and flight. Applications include flight deck design, flight simulation, air traffic control, heads-up and heads-down displays. The web page is: www.avpsych.org. Dr. Gilliland also provided an Overview of the Center for the Study of Human Operator Performance (C-SHOP), at the University of Oklahoma. The C-SHOP develops computer-based tests for assessing human performance across a broad range of military, industrial, educational, medical applications, with a neurophysiology focus. C-SHOP serves in the following roles;

o Clearinghouse for computerized test batteries

o Quality assurance assessment

o Software distribution to users

o Research community focal point

o Customized test batteries

o Data extraction

o Research

C-SHOP is working with the Army on the Automated Neuro-physiological Assessment Metrics (ANAM). ANAM is a large test battery, consisting of traditional, well known and validated tests. Univ. of OK is now the single source of ANAM – they’re the experts. C-SHOP is also working with NSA on operator performance metric development. They are developing metrics for “flying” the robotic manipulation arm on the Shuttle.

Dr. Jennifer Narkevicius (jennifer.narkevicius@skillsnet.com) commented on some work being done under SEAWARRIOR. They are determining what work falls in scope of HSI, what types of work is currently being done, what the current skill base is and what additional training might be needed.

In the afternoon session, Mr. Terry Fullbright addressed the T/SI group to provide an update on the National Training & Simulation Association (NTSA). NTSA is the “voice” of the training and simulation community. It was established in 1988 and merged with the National Defense Industrial Association 1992, as an affiliate. NTSA strives to foster and facilitate communications between industry and the services. NTSA has a Modeling and Simulation Professional Certification Commission. The I/ITSEC conference is their best-know activity, with about 17,000 attendees and 500 exhibits. NTSA also hosts other national and international conferences. The website is: www.trainingsystems.org.

Dr Jennifer Narkevicius continued her presentation on Navy HSI with a focus on the question “What do we do in HSI?” She described the job task analysis activities currently underway to determine if a community of practice exists in the HSI area. HSI SMEs will use the Skillsnet ^®skillObject^®. She stressed that HSI is not only the work that occurs within the seven or eight domains, but includes the tradeoffs and optimization that occurs between them.

Design Tools and Techniques. The first speaker was John S. Barnett, Army Research Institute (john.barnett1@us.army.mil), who spoke on Automated Feedback and Network C3 Research to Support Design. The focus of their work is on networked command, control and communications systems such as the Army’s FBCB2. More specifically, they are looking into benefits of providing immediate feedback or “during action reviews” (as opposed to after-action reviews). The research question is: How do automated alerts affect Situational Awareness under varying workload conditions? Their experimental set-up included FBCB2 and “SHIELD (that provides automated alerting). Some of the automated alerts included:

o “Friendlies” violate a pre-set boundary

o Friendly unit approaches CAS “kill box.”

o Spot report

o New Friendly

o Fire/Plan mismatch

The available options to the Soldier, upon receiving an alert, would be:

o Dismiss or defer

o Read information in a log entry

o Call up a map showing the affected unit

o Call up a Job Aid.

The experimental method involved ARI personnel working with students at the Univerity of Central Florida (UCF) and West Point. FBCB2/SHIELD operated on a laptop in any of several company-level scenarios. The task was to remember “significant events” during the scenarios. Conditions were with or without SHIELD. SAGAT and NASA(TLX) were used to collect data.

The next presenters were USAF Lt. Brneda Bluggel (Brenda.bluggel@mesa.afmc.af.mil) and Lt. Dulcinea Yabut (dulcinea.yabot@mesa.afmc.af.mil) with the Air force Research Laboratory, Williams AFB. They spoke on Collaborative Planning, Briefing and After-Action Review (AAR) – An Agenda for Research and Practice. They are studying planning and after action reviews to identify issues. They are trying to maximize the impact of mission planning and AARs.

The next presenter was Ms. Jennifer Devilbiss (devilbissj@saic.com) who spoke on Computer Automated Requirements Testbed (CART) Virtual Warriors: Computer Generated, Synthetic Teammates for C2 Simulation. Air Operations Center Crew Systems technologies are typically tested through large exercises such as JEFX. They are looking at the ability to test these technologies using synthetic and virtual players, with the synthetic players being driven by IMPRINT models. The next major task will involve tying a real Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (ISR) operator to synthetic models in an operational scenario. It appears as though this type of an approach could have application to large system-of-system developments such as the Army’s Future Combat System (FCS) program.

The last presenter was Dr. Ed Martin (Edward.martin@wpafb.af.mil) who spoke on the Advanced Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Testbed for Human Operator Research (AUTHOR). Dr. Martin is with the Human Effectiveness Directorate of AFRL. The main task of this project is to compare the predictive capabilities of Human Behavioral representation (HBR) models using different architectures, with a focus on UAV control. The USAF Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) study on UAVs, published in July 2003, pointed up several issues. The AFSERS simulator was selected for study – this simulator is capable of handling several UAV platforms simultaneously.

Human Factors Test and Evaluation. This Sub TAG meeting was chaired by Mr. John Rice, Navy Human Performance Center, Norfolk, VA (ricej@cotf.navy.mil). Mr. Rice spoke about some recent changes in acquisition strategy. The JCIDS requires mission capability base investment and mission gap analysis and analysis of alternatives. In the 5000 series, HSI is treated as an enabler of performance. The impact of HSI on DT&E and OT&E is:

o Attend to human mission task performance using the systems being tested

o Emphasize systems command technical authority roles

o Support the increasing complexities of operational testing, such as: meeting Title 10 independent OT requirements, perform early assessments to support “fit early”, and defining and finding “typical operators” for tests.

In order to better address Navy needs, NAVSEA is joining forces more closely with COMOPTEVFOR. Initial collaboration has involved semi-annual meetings of SEA-03 and COMOPTEVFOR to discuss HSI plans, testing and test criteria for the Littoral Combat Ship. Another involves the DDX Bridge COOPEX where an inexpensive mockup of the bridge was used along with good scenarios and hand-picked crews and metrics to identify many problems. The AEGIS (since 1982) team performed a reaction time experiment comparing monochrome and color symbology - the result was a choice to move ahead with color displays.

The second speaker was Dee Quashnock, Director of Architecture and Human Systems, Space and Warfare Systems Command, SPAWAR-052 (diane.quashnock@navy.mil). She discussed activities conducted as part of “TRIDENT WARRIOR 05” as part of the global war on terrorism. This involved joint/collaborative operations with fire departments, police departments, etc. under the SPAWAR working charter and an OPTEVFOR MOA. Goals were to improve commanders’ situational awareness, collaborative information environment, and network visualization and management.

Modeling and Simulation. Lt. Jeff Grubb (NAVAIR, jeff.grubb@navy.mil) is the new Modeling and Simulation SubTAG chair.

Controls and Displays. The first presentation was by Jeffery McCandless, NASA Ames Research Center (jmccandless@mail.arc.nasa.gov), who spoke on Evaluation of Advanced Spacecraft Cockpit Displays. The HSI Division at NASA Ames includes 100 scientists who specialize in:

o Vision science

o Crew Resource Management

o Training and Procedure design

o Virtual environments

o Human-centered automation

o Display design

The existing space shuttle displays are very structured and primitive, with relatively poor consolidation of information. Dr. McCandless described shuttle upgrades #1 and #2 that will be incorporated into the current shuttle’s follow-on system. These upgrades consist of upgrades to cockpit avionics and Fault Management Support System. Error, time, eye movement and eye fixation data were collected and analyzed as a part of both these upgrade activities.

The second presenter was Mr. Eric C. Pierce, who spoke on Development of Computer Peripherals for High Speed craft (eric.pierce@navy.mil).

The third presenter was Bryan Walter, PhD, The Boeing Company (bryan.e.walter@boeing.com) who spoke on. UAV Swarm Control – Calculating Visual Pheromone Fields with the GPU (Graphics Processor Unit). In order to control multiple Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) at one time, the concept of the “swarm” was developed. In a swarm, each UAV is programmed to fly itself to a position without colliding with others, and detect threats and targets through the use of artificial intelligence, sensory information and image processing. The UAVs also communicate with each other and the commander. Pheromones are chemical signals, ‘hints’ that influence and aid in controlling the behavior of animals. Pheromone chemical composition determines what messages are provided. The concept of “digital pheromones” was developed to aid in UAV swarm control. Digital pheromones:

o May be placed on a UAV control map to help influence flight behavior

o Strength propagates to neighboring cells

o Evaporate over time to ensure accurate data at all times

o Are computationally “expensive” because their strength and propagation must be frequently calculated or updated

Pheromones may be of several types:

o Threats (with adjustable sensitivity based on threat level)

o Targets (with adjustable sensitivity based on threat importance)

o Repulsion (e.g., for “keep out” zones)

The operator may input no fly zones (high repulsion) to clear areas so that manned aircraft can transit an area. High interest areas also may be created to bring all the UAVs to it. Each UAV needs only limited information for navigation. They just need to know values of adjacent cells to determine which way to go next.

The next presenter was Dr. Brett Walters (bwalters@maad.com), who described a recently completed Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) project that was just completed for NAVAIR, entitled “Multi-modal Interface Design Advisor”. Factors considered in the design of the multi-mode advisor were:

o Environment

o Individual differences

o Operator tasks

o Parallel tasks

o Control and display components

o Stereotypes (conventions/standards)

Approach: Start with task network modeling with information about the users and the environment and compare to characteristics of each multi-modal technology and results of years of user interface design.

1) Enter the User Characteristics (such as age and visual capabilities), Environmental characteristics (such as light, visibility, noise, temperature) and HW characteristics (relevant technologies).

2) Enter task characteristics (such as standard task and VACP information about each task, mission criticality, time criticality, types of tasks, actions, decisions)

3) Enter Design guidance

4) Build the task network model

5) Run the task network model

6) Analyze results

7) Make design recommendations

Validation studies were conducted using 3 missile defense scenarios and a Navy tactical Tomahawk scenario.

The next presenter was Joycelyn Keillor, Ph.D. from the Defence Research and Development Center (DRDC) Toronto, Canada (joceln.keillor@drdc-rddc.gc.ca) who spoke on Spatial Understanding of Views from Multiple Sensors. Multiple sensors are desirable to increase situational awareness, but having multiple views does not always help. Investigation has used sensors with variable zoom, different fields of view, different angles of obliqueness, degraded operations etc. Field of view affects perception of distance or proximities of one thing to another. A SAR helicopter with a range-gated IR external gimbaled sensor was used to investigation. It was determined that frame of reference was very difficult to maintain when different fields of view (FOV) were used; e.g., world FOV, aircraft oriented FOV, operator FOV, sensor FOV. So, it is important for the SAR operator to maintain a good frame of reference. Does exocentric terrain knowledge provide any help in maintaining situational awareness? Performance of two groups were compared, one with experience with the terrain databases and one without. Performance was better by the group with knowledge of the terrain. Having a map during search was not found to improve coverage effectiveness. Automated sensor sweeping was of no help either, since the auto control is not good enough yet. The conclusion drawn from the investigation thus far is that while multiple sensors are becoming more prevalent, the operator’s 3-D representation of the scene must be supported.

User-Computer Interface. The Sub TAG meeting was co-chaired by Nausheen Momen, LT, MSC, USNR, Ph.D (nmomen@namrl.navy.mil) and Stephen Merriman (stephen.c.merriman@boeing.com). There were 29 attendees. Five presentations were made relevant to the theme of “Enabling Decision Superiority with HSI.”

The first presenter was Dr. Mica Endsley, SA Technologies (mica@satechnologies.com), who spoke on Warfighter-Machine Interface for FCS. Dr. Endsley made a highly graphical presentation on the US Army’s Future Combat System (FCS) program, emphasizing the user interfaces (“Soldier-Machine Interfaces, or SMI”) being conceptualized, designed and built in support FCS. The Future Combat System program is the US Army's major modernization effort for the 21st century. It includes a highly integrated structure of 18 manned and unmanned systems, connected across a distributed network. The Battle Command software that operates across FCS integrates networked communications, networked operations, sensors, training and reconnaissance and surveillance capabilities to provide the opportunity for highly advanced levels of situation awareness and force synchronization. The network of distributed war-fighters operating across all of these systems will be connected by a common, consistent warfighter-machine interface (WMI) that has been tailored for each of the 113 unique warfighter roles involved. Using a Situation Awareness Oriented Design process, the WMI has been designed from the warfighter up to support the highest levels of situation awareness and minimize unnecessary workload. Information is integrated around the war-fighter's goals and decision requirements. There is explicit support for multi-tasking and the at-a-glance understanding of information that is critical for these highly dynamic and fatiguing operational conditions. Operations on the move are supported for a wide variety of collaborative tasks across the distributed warfighting team. The FCS WMI provides a significant advance in warfighter-centered design processes and in achieving a highly usable system for the Army's future war-fighters. [Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited, TACOM 29 Sept 2005, case 05-229.]

The second presenter was Ms. Susan Archer, Micro Analysis and Design, Inc. (sarcher@maad.com), who spoke on GRBIL – A Tool to Evaluate the Usability of Unmanned Vehicle Interfaces. This software tool is being developed under the Army’s Advanced Decision Architectures (ADA) Collaborative Technology Alliance (CTA) basic research effort. GRBIL is a software tool that allows system developers to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of an interface design by simply sketching out the interface graphically – before the operator interfaces are actually developed. This capability is enabled through integration of a cognitive modeling framework with a traditional human-system integration modeling paradigm so that detailed predictions can be made about the possible cognitive errors that might result.

The tool, GRaph-Based Interface Language (GRBIL), takes a graphical description of an interface and automatically generates an Adaptive Control of Thought – Rational (ACT-R) cognitive model of the user interacting with an Improved Performance Research Integration Tool (IMPRINT) task network model of the system. This approach to interface evaluation is underpinned by the first-principle models of cognition implemented within the ACT-R architecture. The degree to which an interface supports the user is a matter of understanding the interplay of both general constraints on cognition and the expertise a user might posses. This is an effective method for evaluating system interfaces to detect potential errors and inefficiencies. In addition, researchers can use the models to identify alternative system designs.

Accomplishments to date include:

• Created an extended prototype GRBIL tool that can run multiple Experimental Unmanned Vehicles (XUVs) simultaneously

• Developed an integrated prototype that automatically generates IMPRINT and ACT-R models directly from user input

• Validated the functionality and output of the prototype tool

• Integrated with AVOCET, a tool to help determine the number of operators required to operate multiple unmanned vehicles

Benefits to Soldiers include:

• Identifies system designs that are easy to use, easy to learn, and are the most efficient interface

• Predicts the Soldier’s ability to effectively control multiple unmanned vehicles

• Informs the design of human-computer interactions early in the design cycle, increasing the likelihood that information technology will actually support the Soldier

The third presentation was made by Dr. Jennifer Narkevicius of Skillsnet, Inc. (Jennifer.narkevicius@skillsnet.com), who spoke on HSI Constraints on UCI Design.

User Computer Interfaces have tended to be the province of Human Factors. As UCI has become more ubiquitous, the user populations continue to become less specific. This trend toward more general use, especially in work settings, increases the necessity to ensure the user requirements are appropriate and flexible. The Human Systems Integration (HSI) domains all have something to contribute to the requirements definition as well as the design and implementation of the software and hardware. This need is emphasized when the UCI is part of a decision superiority support system. Manpower, Personnel, Training and Human Factors all clearly have useful input to the engineering design trade space when systems are designed and implemented. HSI processes and tools can bring power and rigor to the design and enable to best performance from the UCI. Integration of the tools, especially through modeling will result in effective improvements for the systems and their UCI.

The next presentation was by Air Force Cadet Jenny Coker, USAF Academy (c06jenny.coker@usafa.af.mil), who spoke on Eye-tracking Analysis of Usability Evaluation Videos. Advances in technology have given researchers new methods for evaluating human computer interaction and error. Usability evaluation software such as TechSmith Morae provides the usability evaluator with the capability to record audio, video of the user, and desktop screen activity in a “picture-in-picture” (PIP) format, allowing the evaluator to observe the interface screen and the human user simultaneously. The research reported here examined how much attention is given to the PIP video when evaluators are observing results from a usability evaluation session. Eighteen cadets at the Air Force Academy participated in this study. Half of the participants were considered experienced evaluators and half were novice evaluators. Evaluators watched two video recordings that differed in the quality level of the PIP video. Focus of attention was measured with eye-tracking equipment and software. The results showed a significant difference between experienced and novice usability evaluators in terms of the time spent viewing the PIP and number of problems reported. Experienced evaluators spent nearly double the amount of time looking at the PIP video and also found approximately one-third more usability problems. All evaluators spent more time looking at the PIP video when it was set to a higher quality. The results also showed that the quality of the PIP video had no significant effect on an evaluator’s ability to recognize usability problems. Implications for usability evaluation were discussed in addition to follow-on research in this area.

The last presentation was by Air Force Lt Col Terence Andre, USAF Academy (terence.andre@usafa.af.mil), who spoke on Usability Methods for Undergraduate Education and Research. For several years, usability has no longer required justification in most quarters. Because of the growing awareness of its importance, organizations have been expending resources for “doing usability”– building enviable usability laboratories, buying usability equipment, training developers in usability engineering methods and conducting usability testing. This push has created high-end laboratories with state-of-the-art recording equipment. The work at the Air Force Academy has led to the development of a flexible laboratory environment where recording can occur from a large observation room connected to existing research rooms over a local area network. No structural modifications were required to the existing laboratory space (e.g., no one-way mirrors). The large observation room allows for students in human factors, computer science, and systems engineering courses to observe usability recording sessions without any distractions to the participant. As a result, usability evaluation objectives were integrated into the courses with both content and live demonstrations with the objective of making the lab a “teaching machine” for usability. This presentation highlighted the tools that are currently being used in the USAFA laboratory.

Human Factors Engineering/Human Systems Integration: Management and Applications. Not attended.

Personnel Selection and Classification. Not attended.

Sustained/Continuous Operations (SUSOPS/CONOPS). Not attended.

Workload and Stress. Not attended.

Human Factors in Training. Not attended.

System Safety/Health Hazards/Survivability. Not attended.

DOD HFE TAG Operating Board Meeting:

1. MIL-STD-1472 Pocket Guide: The Navy will provide the resources for reprinting this in the near future.

2. Increased NASA Participation: An effort must be made to reach out and encourage additional participation by NASA personnel, especially when meetings are held close to a major NASA facility.

3. SubTAG Chair Replacements: Ms. Barbara Palmer (BAH) will replace Dr. Michael Fineberg (SAIC) as co-chair of the System Safety/Health Hazards/Survivability SubTAG. Dr. Fineberg has had recent difficulties attending TAG meetings. Mirabon Whitmore will take over leadership of the Extreme Environments SubTAG.

4. HSI Workshop: There will be an HSI workshop for approximately 20 government and industry personnel. The workshop’s objectives are to begin identifying methods to improve government HSI guidance to industry. Results of the workshop will be reported at the next DoD HFE TAG meeting.

5. HSI and Congress: Mr. Paul Chatelier will address the next DoD HFE TAG on this subject.

6. Human-Robotic Interaction and Integration Special Interest Group: This new OSD sponsored group will meet in conjunction with the next DoD HFE TAG meeting.

7. TAG-56: The next TAG meeting will be in Monterey, CA, sponsored by the Navy and hosted by the Navy Postgraduate School (NPS). This location is in reasonably close proximity to NASA Ames Research Center.

8. Next TAG Vice Chair: Ms. Katrina Baker, US Army Aberdeen Proving Ground, will be the next TAG Vice Chair.

9. Army Caucus Chair: Pamela Savage-Knepshield will serve as the next Army Caucus chair.

ATTACHMENT (1)

DOD HFE TAG Background

The DoD HFE TAG was begun via memorandum of agreement signed by the Service Secretaries in November 1976. Goals of the TAG were established as follows:

• Provide a mechanism for exchange of technical information in the development and

application of human factors engineering.

• Enhance working level coordination among Government agencies involved in HFE

technology research, development and application.

• Identify human factors engineering technical issues and technology gaps.

• Encourage and sponsor in-depth technical interaction, including subgroups as required in selected topical areas.

• Assist as required in the preparation and coordination of Tri-Service documents such as Technology Coordinating Papers and Topical Reviews.

The TAG addresses research and technologies designed to impact man-machine system development and operation throughout the complete system life cycle. Topics include:

• Procedures for use by HFE specialists, system analysts and design engineers in providing HFE support during system development and modification

• Methodologies to identify and solve operator/maintainer problems related to equipment design, operation and cost/effectiveness

• Mechanisms for applying HFE technologies, including formal and informal approaches to validation and implementation, and the determination of time windows for application.

The TAG comprises technical representatives from Government agencies with research and development responsibilities in the topical areas mentioned above. Additional representatives from activities with allied interests affiliate with the TAG as appropriate. Technical experts in special topic areas may augment attendance at specific meetings. Also participating in the TAG are official representatives of technical societies (e.g., Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, SAFE Association) and industrial associations (e.g., Electronics Industry Alliance) with a stated interest in HFE. These representatives may attend subgroup and general plenary sessions and they must be credentialed by the TAG prior to attending any meetings.

To facilitate detailed technical information exchange, the TAG is composed of committees and subgroups, or “Sub TAGs.” Committees are established to address specific issues or problems and are disestablished upon completion of their tasks. Sub TAGs address problems of a general or continuing nature within a specific field of HFE technology. Membership in Sub TAGs and committees may include non-government personnel involved in research, development and application. Attendance by non-government individuals is possible if the person is either sponsored by a government agency or if accepted by the TAG chair prior to the meeting. Chairing of the various subgroups and committees is typically rotated among the Services and in some cases, NASA, as provided in individual charters.

The current sub-groups typically meeting at the HFE TAG meeting were as follows.

Sub-TAGs:

Affiliated Groups:

· Mission Centric Human Performance Measurement Interest Group

ATTACHMENT (2)

PROGRAM SUMMARY

Department of Defense

Human Factors Engineering Technical Advisory Group

Meeting 55: 15-18 May 2006 Las Vegas, NV

Monday, 15 May

0830 - 1000 Executive Committee meeting

1000 - 1100 New member orientation

1100 - 1300 Luncheon Break

1300 - 1700 Plenary Session

1800 - 2000 Networking Mixer

Tuesday, 16 May

0730 - 0830 Technical Society/Industry

0830 - 1100 Personnel Selection and Classification - Part 1

0830 - 1100 Workload and Stress - Part 1

0830 - 1100 Human Factors Standardization

0930 - 1000 Networking, coffee

1100 - 1230 Luncheon Break

1230 - 1430 Personnel Selection and Classification - Part 2

1230 - 1430 Workload and Stress - Part 2

1230 - 1430 Design: Tools and Techniques - Part 1

1430 - 1500 Networking, coffee

1500 - 1700 Design: Tools and Techniques - Part 2

1500 - 1700 Human Modeling and Simulation

1500 - 1700 Human Factors Test and Evaluation

1700 - 1800 Service Caucuses and TS/I Meetings

Wednesday, 17 May

~~0830 - 1100 System Safety/Health Hazards/Survivability~~ canceled

0830 - 1100 Controls and Displays

0830 - 1100 Human Factors in Training - Part 1

0930 - 1000 Networking, coffee

1100 - 1230 Luncheon Break

1230 - 1430 Human Factors Engineering/Human Systems Integration: Management and Applications

1230 - 1430 User-Computer Interaction

1230 - 1430 Human Factors in Training - Part 2

1430 - 1500 Networking, coffee

~~1500 - 1700 Human Factors in Extreme Environments~~ canceled

1500 - 1700 Sustained/Continuous Operations

1700 - 1800 Mission Performance Measurement Interest Group

1915 - 2100 Social

Thursday, 18 May

0830 - 1000 Operating Board

1000 - 1600 Tour

Workload and Stress (Workload)

Ms. Debra Patton

ARL HRED, Bldg 459

ATTN: AMSRL-HR

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425

(410) 278-5890 DSN 298

dpatton@arl.army.mil

Affiliated Groups (NO VOTE)

Mission Centric Human Performance Measurement Interest Group

Mr. John Rice

Navy Human Performance Center

508 Royal Palm Drive

Virginia Beach, VA 23452

(757) 282-5546 x3802 FAX (757) 282-5532

ricej@coft.navy.mil

ATTACHMENT (5) DoD HFE TAG Attendees

Ms. Maureen Bergondy-Wilhelm Ms. Brenda Blueggel

NAVAIR Orlando TSD, AIR-4961 6030 Kent St

12350 Research Parkway Mesa, AZ 85212

Orlando, FL 32826-3275 (480) 988-6497 DSN 474; Fax (480) 988-6285

(407) 380-4777 DSN 960; FAX (407) 380-4110 brenda.blueggel@mesa.afmc.af.mil

maureen.bergondy@navy.mil

Mr. Clete Booher Dr. Elizabeth K. Bowman

7235 McKeever US Army Research Lab. S/LAD

Pearland, TX 77584 Bldg 459

(281) 489-8375 (281) 799-6041 Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425

creidboo@hotmail.com (410) 278-5924 DSN: 298 FAX: (410) 278-5923

ebowman@arl.army.mil

Ms. Teresa Branscome Mr. David Britton

U.S. Army Research Lab/HRED ASC/ENFA, Bldg 560

Attn: AMSRL-HR-SE 2530 Loop Rd West

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425 Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7101

(410) 278-5951 DSN 298; FAX (410) 278-9694 (937) 255-2030 DSN 785; FAX (937) 255-8063

tbransco@arl.army.mil david.britton@wpafb.af.mil

Dr. Thomas R. Carretta LCDR Joseph Cohn

AFRL/HECI Naval Research Laboratory, Code 5580

2210 Eighth Street, Bldg 146, Rm 122 4555 Overlook Ave. SW

Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433 Washington, DC 20375-5320

(937) 656-7014 DSN 986; FAX (937) 656-4547 (202) 253-1291

thomas.carretta@wpafb.af.mil cohn@itd.nrl.navy.mil

Cadet Jenny Coker Mr. Darren Cole

P.O. Box 1888 43526 Jennifer Ln

USAF Academy, CO 80841 Lancaster, CA 93535

(205) 907-2602 DSN 3050 (661) 275-0171 DSN: 525 FAX: (661) 275-0240

c06jenny.coker@usafa.af.mil darren.cole@edwards.af.mil

Dr. Brad Collie Mr. Thomas Cook

NSWC-PC Army Research Lab, Bldg. 5400 Rm C242

52 Summer Breeze Lane ATTN: AMSRL-HR-MO

Santa Rosa Beach, FL 32459 Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-7290

(850) 234-4744 FAX (850) 235-5152 (256) 876-2048 DSN 746; FAX (256) 876-5327

bradley.collie@navy.mil thomas.cook@amrdec.army.mil

Mr. Rich Cornwall Dr. Joseph Coyne

Alion 1203 Walter St. SE

5365 Robin Hood Rd., Ste 100 Washington, DC 20030

Norfolk, VA 23513 (202) 767-1835

(757) 857-5670x208 coyne@itd.nrl.navy.mil

rcornwall@aolionscience.com

Mr. Ronald Crescini LtCol Darrell Criswell

23745 Kingston Village 680 E. Basse St. #131

Calf, MD 20619 San Antonio, TX 78209

(301) 737-3236 (210) 536-1154 DSN 240; FAX (210) 536-2671

darrell.criswell@brooks.af.mil

Dr. Malford Cullum Mr. James Davis

Naval Institute of Dental and Biomedical Research USAF Warfare Center Liaison

310 B Street, Bld 1-H 4370 N. Washington Blvd, Ste 108

Great Lakes, IL 60088 Nellis AFB, NV 89191

(847) 688-5647 FAX (847) 688-4279 (702) 652-8003 DSN 682; FAX (702) 652-5733

mecullum@nidbr.med.navy.mil james.davis@nellis.af.mil

Ms. Jennifer DeVilbiss Dr. Robert Dick

4031 Colonel Glenn Highway Anacapa Sciences, Inc.

Beavercreek, OH 45431 301 East Carillo Street

(937) 431-2325 (937) 431-2288 Santa Barbara, CA 93101

devilbissj@saic.com (805) 705-6858 (805) 966-6858

radick@anacapasciences.com

Dr. Mica Endsley Mr. Rick Etheridge

SA Technologies Presidential Towers, NC1, Suite 7300

3750 Palladian Village Dr., Suite 600 2511 Jefferson David Highway

Marietta, GA 30066 Arlington, VA 22202

(770) 565-9859 (770) 579-1132 (703) 602-5160 DSN 332; (703) 602-5175

mica@satechnologies.com richard.etheridge@navy.mil

Ms. Jennifer Farrell Ms. Linda Fatkin

ASC/ENFA U.S. Army Research Lab/HRED

2530 Loop Rd W, Bldg 560 429 Acadia Dr

Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433 Joppatowne, MD 21085

(937) 255-8582 DSN 785; (937) 255-8063 (410) 278-5987 DSN 298; FAX (410) 278-9523

jennifer.farrell@wpafb.af.mil lfatkin@arl.army.mil

Mr. Terrell W. Fulbright Maj Peter Garretson

JXT Applications, Inc. HQ USAF/A8XC 5C168

2673 Commons Blvd, Suite 20 1070 Air Force Pentagon

Beavercreek, OH 45431 Washington, DC 20330

(937) 427-0974 (937) 431-1127 (703) 692-4795 (703) 693-9773

tfulbright@jxtai.com peter.garretson@pentagon.af.mil

Ms. Sandra Garrett Mr. Benjamin Gibson

172 Blueberry Lane AMEDDC&S

West Lafayette, IN 47906 14723 Oak Briar

(765) 464-8867 (765) 494-1299 San Antonio, TX 78232

garretsk@ecn.purdue.edu (210) 221-1622 DSN 471; FAX (210) 221-0121

ben.gibson@amedd.army.mil

Dr. Kirby Gilliland Mr. Lee Ky Good

University of Oklahoma C-SHOP 1419 Copper Court

3200 Marshall Avenue, Suite 260 Reno, NV 89509

Norman, OK 73072 (775) 287-3484 (347) 296-3484

(405) 325-7467 FAX (405) 325-4737 ky-g@iN3Partners.com

kirby@ou.edu

LTC John M. Graham LT Jeff Grubb

Department of Behavioral Sciences & Leadership 48110 Shaw Road, Bldg 2187

US Military Academy Suite 2280-D9

West Point, NY 10996 Patuxent River, MD 20670

(845) 938.5022 cell (845) 764-0190 (301) 342-9284 DSN 342

john.graham2@usma.edu jeff.grubb@navy.mil

Ms. Trish Hamburger Mr. David Hardy

NAVSEA HIS Directorate HQ AFOTEC/TSH

17320 Dahlgreen Rd 8500 Gibson Blvd. SE

Dahlgreen, VA 22485 Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5558

(540) 653-1119 (540) 653-3607 (505) 846-1376 DSN 246; FAX (505) 846-7821

patricia.hamburger@navy.mil david.hardy@afotec.af.mil

Ms. Sandra Hart Dr. John K. Hawley

NASA Ames Research Center 10657 Park View Circle

Attn: MS 211-2 El Paso, TX 79935

Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000 (915) 568-2896

(650) 604-6072 FAX (650) 604-4000 jhawley@arl.army.mil

sandra.hart@nasa.gov

Mr. Tom Hughes Ms. Smith Kalita

5200 Springfield Pike Booz Allen Hamilton

Suite 200 1550 Crystal Drive, Suite 1100

Dayton, OH 45431 Arlington, VA 22202

(937) 219-4476 (937) 476-2900 (703) 412-7690 (703) 412-7520

tom.hughes@gd-ais.com kalita.smith@bah.com

Dr. Larry Katz Dr. Jocelyn Keillor

105 E. Maple Ave P.O. Box 2000

Geneva, AL 36340 1133 Sheppard Avenue West

(334) 255-2385 DSN 558; FAX (334) 255-9025 Toronto, ON M3M 3B9

lawrence.katz@rucker.army.mil (416) 767-7316 (416) 635-2187

jocelyn.keillor@drdc-rddc.gc.ca

Cadet Brandon Kennedy Mr. James Kinzig

USMA, Dept of BSL ASC/ENFC, Bldg 560

PO Box 1789 &nb

The DoD HFE TAG Chair for the 55th meeting, Maureen Bergondy-Wilhelm, welcomed attendees to the meeting and introduced the first plenary session presenter.

The DoD HFE TAG Chair for the 55^th meeting, Maureen Bergondy-Wilhelm, welcomed attendees to the meeting and introduced the first plenary session presenter.