14 August
2006
Trip Report
Department of Defense
Human Factors Engineering Technical Advisory Group
(DOD HFE TAG) Meeting #55
15-18
May 2006
The 55th meeting 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
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 98th
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.
62nd Engineering CBT Battalion (H): LTC Dave Weston, Engineering Officer, US Army Chief of Staff, 6th
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
ATTACHMENT (3)
Detailed Meeting Agendas and Schedule
MONDAY, 15 MAY (meeting rooms are subject to change)
Executive Committee – 0830 – 1000 - Grand Ballroom 8
New Member Orientation – 1000 – 1100 - Grand Ballroom 8
Plenary – 1300 – 1700 - Grand Ballroom 8
1300
Welcome - DoD HFE Chair
1310
Welcome and Overview - Mr. James S. “Odie” Davis, Air Force Research Laboratory
Liaison to USAF Warfare Center, Nellis Air Force Base
1330
Title Pending - Lt Col Brad Borman, Effects Based Operations, Joint Forces Command
1400
Operational Neuroscience and its Impact on Decision Superiority - Dr. Amy Kruse,
Program Manager, DARPA-DSO
1430
Break
1500
The Role of Collaboration in Decision Superiority - Ms Laura Militello, Sr.
Research Psychologist, University of Dayton Research Institute
1530
Enabling Decision Superiority with HSI - Major Peter Garretson, Chief, Future
Technologies Branch, HQ USAF Future Concepts and Transformation
1600
Title Pending - Mr. Rick Etheridge, Director Human Performance and Systems
Acquisition Branch, Chief of Naval Operations OPNAV N173
1630
Resource Foraging Strategies in Uncertain, Event-Driven Environments - Ms.
Sandra Garrett, Purdue University
1700
Wrap up
1800
– 2000 - TAG Mixer
TUESDAY, 16 MAY
Technical Society/Industry –
0730 – 0830 Sapphire 1
• Association
for Aviation Psychology (AAP): an overview; Dr. Kirby Gilliland, TS/I Alt. Rep.
AAP
• Research at
C-SHOP; Dr. Kirby Gilliland, Director of Center for the Study of Human Operator
Performance, University of Oklahoma
• "What
do we do in HSI?" SkillsNET and SEAPRINT's quest (part 1); Dr. Jennifer
Narkevicius
Personnel Selection and Classification - 0830 – 1430 Sapphire A
• Test of
Basic Aviation Skills: Pre-Implementation Status - Dr. Tom Carretta, Air Force
Research Laboratory
• NPRST Whole
Assessment Approach to Selection and Classification - Dr. Amanda Lords, Navy
Personnel Research, Studies, and Technology
• Development
of an Army Aviator Selection Instrument - Dr. Lawrence Katz, Army Research Institute
Rotary Wing Aviation Research Unit
• NAMIS
Screening Technology Development - Dr. Lisa Mills, CNO-N141 Navy Selection,
Classification
& Surveys • ASTB Redevelopment Efforts – Program Update - CAPT John
Schmidt, Naval Operational
Medicine
Institute • Psychomotor Testing in Naval Aviation Selection and Demo - LT Brent
Olde, Naval Operational
Medicine
Institute Discussion and Wrap-Up
•
Workload and Stress - 0830 – 1430 Sapphire B
Part 1 - 0830 - 1100
Posters:
• Effects of Stress and Coping Style on Basic Combat Training Confidence, Performance, and Discipline – Davis, T.W., PhD (Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering Directorate)
• Effects of
Shift Work and Sustained Operations: Operator Performance in Remotely Piloted
Aircraft (OP-Repair) –Tvaryanas, A. P., Thompson, W. T., Lopez, N., et
al. (311th Human Systems
Wing, Performance Enhancement Directorate; Air Force Research Laboratory, Human
Effectiveness Directorate).
Briefings:
• Effects of Individual Factors and Workload Level on Performance in a Multi-task Environment - Branscome, T. A., & Grynovicki, J.O. (Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering Directorate)
• A Dynamic Workload Prediction: Applications of Commercial Off-The-Shelf Gaming Environments to Cognitive Exploration - Klein, E., and Wertz, J.(United States Military Academy, Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership)
• Crew Mental Models of Shared Workload for an Automated Military Ground Vehicle - Smyth, C. (Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering Directorate)
• Workload and
Information Quality in Effects Based Operations: Lessons from MNE 4 - Bowman,
E., PhD, Thomas, J., MS (Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and
Engineering Directorate)
• Individual Differences in Stress Resilience and Human Performance During Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape Training: The SERE Study - Taylor, M.K., Sausen, K.P., Mujica-Parodi, L.R., Potterat, E.G., Yanagi, M.A., & Kim, H. (Naval Health Research Center, State University of New York, Fleet Aviation Specialized Training Group)
• Effect of
Movement and Physical Exertion on Dismounted Soldier Vigilance - Mahoney, C.R.,
Hirsch, E., Hasselquist, L., Lesher, L.L., & Lieberman, H.R. (Natick
Soldier Center, Science Applications International Corporation, U.S. Army
Research Institute of Environmental Medicine)
Part 2 - 1230 - 1430
Salivary Cortisol as a Biological Marker for Enlisted Submariners -
Osborne, L.A.,DNSc, LCDR, O’Connor, K.H., PhD, Coen, M.L., MS, Crepeau, L.J. LCDR,
Whanger, J.C., PhD., & Cullum, M.E., PhD, (Naval Institute for Dental and
Biomedical Research)
Hands-On Workshop:
Cognitive Readiness in HSI – A
demonstration of the Army’s newest automated cognitive battery, Army Cognitive
Readiness Assessment (ACRA). Ways to incorporate the cognitive data within
model-based technology evaluations will be discussed. Fatkin, L., Swann, M.,
Thomas, J. (Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering
Directorate)
Workshop is limited to 15 participants, unlimited observers. The
registered participants will receive a CD containing the ACRA. Please click on
link to see flyer with computer system requirements - http://hfetag.dtic.mil/docs-meet/Workload
and Stress flyer.pdf
If you are interested in participating in this workshop please
contact Debbie Patton (dpatton@arl.army.mil; DSN 298-5890, COMM
410-278-5890)
Human Factors Standardization –
0830 – 1100
• Introduction
of Attendees
• Status
Reports
MIL-STD-1472 (Human Engineering)
EIA HEB-1 (Human Engineering Principles and Practices)
MIL-STD-1474 (Noise Limits)
MIL-STD-1787 (Aircraft Display Symbology)
Joint Service Specification Guide-2010
Crew Systems Integrity Program (CrewSIP)
FAA Human Factors Design Standard
NASA-STD-3000 (Human Systems Integration Standard)
HFES & ISO TC 159 (Ergonomics)
Data Item Descriptions
• Putting
SubTAG products into DTIC
• New Chair
Elect
• New Business
Design: Tools and Techniques - 1230
– 1700
Part 1 - 1230 - 1430
• Introduction
to the Session - Pam Savage-Knepshield, Ph.D., Research Psychologist, U.S. Army
Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering Directorate, Fort Monmouth,
NJ.
• Case Study
for Designing a Simulated Training and Testing System - Carole Kortenhaus, U.S.
Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering Directorate, Orlando,
FL & Al Galbavy, Chenega Technology Services Corp, Orlando, FL
• Research to
Support Design: Automated Feedback and Networked C3 Systems - John S. Barnett,
Ph.D., Research Psychologist and Dr. Larry L. Meliza, Battle Command Feedback
Team Leader, U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social
Sciences, Orlando, FL.
•
Collaborative Planning, Briefing, and After-Action-Review: An Agenda for
Research and Practice - Lt. Brenda Blueggel and Lt. Dulcinea Yabut, Air Force
Researach Laboratory, Human Effectiveness Directorate, Mesa, AZ.
• Virtual Warriors: Synthetic Teammates for Command and Control Testing and Training -Jennifer DeVilbiss, Science Applications International Corporation, Dayton, OH.
• Advanced UAV Testbed for Human Operator Research (AUTHOR) - Edward A. Martin Technical Director, Combat Automation Requirements Testbed (CART) Program, Air force Research Laboratory, Human Effectiveness Directorate, Wright Patterson AFB, OH.
Part 2 –Introduction to the Session, Pam Savage-Knepshield, PhD, Research Psychologist, US Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering Directorate, Fort Monmouth, NJ.
• HCI Design Patterns for C4SIR: A Vision for a DoD
Design Reference Library - Terry Standard Ph.D., Research Psychologist; Jeff
Wampler, Systems Engineer; Kendall Conrad, Research Fellow of the Consortium of
Universities of the Washington Metropolitan Area, Air Force Research
Laboratory, Human Effectiveness Directorate, WPAFB, Ohio; and Glen Osga,
Business Area Manager, User-Centered Design Code 2461, Space & Naval
WarfareSystems Center San Diego, CA.
• Work-Centered HCI Pattern Quality Metrics - Glenn Osga, Business Area Manager, User-Centered Design Code 2461, Space & Naval Warfare Systems Center, San Diego, CA. Exploiting Patterns in Work-Centered HCI Design: Leaping from One Sensor Domain to Another – With a Safety Net. Robert Dick, Ph.D., Principal Scientist and V. Alan Spiker Principal Scientist, Anacapa Sciences, Inc., Santa Barbara, CA.
• HCI Design Patterns Discussion Forum: Next Steps - Terry Stanard, Ph.D., Research Psychologist, Air Force Research Laboratory, Human Effectiveness Directorate, Wright Patterson AFB, OH and Glenn Osga, Business 2461, Space & Naval Warfare Systems Center San Diego
Human Modeling and Simulation 1500-1700
• Introduction to the Session - LT Jeff Grubb, NAVAIR Human Systems Department, NAS Patuxent River, MD
• Recent
Trends in Digital Human Modeling and the Concurrent Issues that Face Human
Modeling Approach - Sudhakar Rajulu, L. Javier Gonzalez, Sarah Margerum, Kurt
Clowers, Richard Moreny, Andrew Abercromby and Luis Velasquez, Anthropometry
& BiomecFacility, Habitability and Human Factors Office, NASA- Johnson
Space Center, Houston, TX
• Validation of a Task Network Human Performance Model of Driving - Josephine Q. Wojciechowski, US Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
• TITLE TBD - Rich Cornwall, Alion
Science and Technology, Norfolk, VA Demonstration of SantosTM: A New
System for Human Modeling and Simulation - Timothy Marler, Steve Beck, and
Karim Abdel-Malek, The US Army Virtual Soldier Research Program, The University
of Iowa, Iowa City , IA
• Presentation of a Revised Charter - LT Jeff Grubb, NAVAIR Human Systems Department, NAS Patuxent River, MD
Human Factors Test and Evaluation – 1500 – 1700
Technical Society/Industry - 1700 – 1830 Sapphire 1
• National
Training Systems Association (NTSA): an overview; Terry Fulbright, TS/I Rep.
for NTSA
• "What you can do to help HSI" SkillsNET and SEAPRINT's appeal to T/SI, Dr. Jennifer Narkevicius (new TS/I chair)
Army Caucus - 1700 – 1830
Sapphire A
Air Force Caucus - 1700 – 1830
Sapphire B
Navy Caucus - 1700 – 1830 TAG Suite
WEDNESDAY, 17 MAY
Controls and Displays – 0830 – 1100
• Evaluation of Advanced Spacecraft Cockpit Displays - Jeffrey W. McCandless, Ph.D. Deputy Manager for Space Human Factors Engineering, NASA Ames Research Center
• Human spatial understanding of views from multiple sensors - Jocelyn Keillor, Ph.D., Defence Scientist, Defence R&D Canada – Toronto, Canada
• Development of Computer Peripherals for High Speed Craft Environment - Eric C. Pierce, Human Factors Engineer, Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) - Panama City
• UAV Swarm
Control: Calculating Digital Pheromone Fields with the GPU - Bryan Walter,
Human Factors Engineer, Boeing, Integrated Defens
• Overview of the Multi-modal Interface Design Advisor (MIDA) - Brett Walters, Human Factors Engineer, Micro Analysis and Design, Boulder, CO
Human Factors Engineering/Human Systems Integration: Management and Applications - 1230 – 1430
• Optimizing
Human Performance (OHP) Front End Analysis (FEA) (tm) - Janis E. Nagy,
SeniAssociate, Booz Allen Hamilton
• Identifying Human Performance Problems in a Submarine Environment Utilizing the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) Framework - Katie Shobe, Ph.D., LT, MSC, USN Human Performance Detachment, Submarine Learning Center
• Do it fast
but Get it Right: Making decisions with C4ISR systems - Uldi, Shvern, Engineer,
ATest and Evaluation Command, Alexandria, VA.
• Commercial
Speech Technology in the Military Domain - David Williamson, Senior Crew Systems
Engineer, Human Effectiveness Directorate's Collaborative Interfaces Branch at
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
• MANPRINT at Redstone Arsenal - Thomas C. Cook, Army Research and Engineering Directorate, Redstone Arsenal, AL
Human
Factors in Training -– 0830 – 1430
Part 1 - 0830 – 1100
• Welcome & Session Overview - Melissa
Walwanis Nelson, Danielle C. Merket
• A Method To Provide Cognitive Realism to
Train Decision Making - Susan Archer
• Testing System Capabilities Through Manipulation of User
Performance and Proficiency – Dennis Vincenzi, Ph.D., Paul Radtke, and
Joan Johnston, Ph.D.
• Landing Helicopters in the Classroom Training: Sailors on a Virtual Flight Deck,
Thomas M. Franz, Psy.D. and John Ruffner, PhD.
• Locus of Control, Attribution Theory, and the “Five Deadly Sins” of Aviation - John Stewart, Ph.D.
Part 2 – 1230 – 1430
• Training
Dilemmas for Real-Time Command & Control Decision Making - John K. Hawley,
Ph.D.
• Identifying Interface Limitations for
Virtual Environment Training Systems - Roy Stripling, Ph.D, James N. Templeman,
Ph.D., Linda E. Sibert, Joseph T. Coyne, Robert G. Page,Zina La Budde, and
DanielAfergan.
• Training to
Collaborate: Command Post of the Furute in Iraq, Cadet Brnadon Kennedy and LTC
John Graham, Ph.D., United States Military Academy
• Session Wrap Up
User-Computer
Interaction - 1230 - 1430
• Warfighter-Machine Interface for FCS - Mica Endsley, SA Technologies (Marietta, GA) and Matt Hannen, Boeing (Mesa, AZ)
• The Role of Performance Prediction in UCI Design - Sue Archer, Micro Analysis & Design, Boulder, CO
• HSI
Constraints on UCI Design - Jennifer Narkevicius, Ph.D, Skillsnet, Inc.
(Alexandria, VA)
• Eye-tracking
Analysis of Usability Evaluation Videos - Lt Col Terence Dept Head for
Research, DFBL and Jenny Coker, Cadet First Class
• Usability Methods for
Undergraduate Education and Research - Lt Col Terence Andre, Ph.D., Deputy Dept
Head for Research, DFBL
• Aviators’
Attitudes & the Five Deadly Mistakes - John Stewart, Ph.D.
Sustained/Continuous Operations –1500 - 1700
• Opening Comments - Matthew Yanagi,
SPAWAR (SSC) & Naval Health Research Center San Diego, CA
• Eye-Com® Oculometric, EEG and Cognitive-Performance Monitoring of Sleep-Deprived Subjects in a Drive/Flight Simulator Outfitted with Tele-Communications Transmission, Recording and Alerting Technology - William Torch, MD, Eye-Com Corp & Washoe SleeDisorders Center Reno, NV
• Real-time Quantification of EEG Indices
of Drowsiness: Methods for Early Identification of Individuals Most Susceptible
to Sleep Deprivation - Chris Berka, Daniel J. Levendowski, PWestbrook, Gene
Davis, Michelle N. Lumicao, Vladimir T. Zivkovic, Richard Olmstead* Ambulatory
Brain Monitoring, Inc. San Diego, CA *
Healthcare System Los Angeles, CA
• Computer-based Performance Assessment to Enhance Decision
Superiority – Robert E.
Schlegel, Ph.D. & Kirby Gilliland,
Ph.D. Center for the Study of Human Operator P Performance
(C-SHOP) – University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK
• “Short Sleepers” and “Long Sleepers”: Individual Difference
in Performance After Sleep Deprivation - Marcus Taylor, Ph.D.,
• Summary, questions,
discussion, SubTAG discussions.
THURSDAY, 18 MAY
Operating Board
– 0830 – 1000
Tour – 1100-1600
1100 - Depart
Aladdin for Nellis AFB
1145 - Arrive
Nellis AFB. Met at Craig Road Gate Visitor Center by Mr. James S. Davis.
1500 – Depart
Nellis AFB
ATTACHMENT (4) DOD HFE TAG Operating Board
Proponent
Robert E. Foster, Phd
Director, BioSystems
ODUSD(S&T)/ODDR&E/OUSD(AT&L)
3080 Defense Pentagon, Rm 3E801
Washington, DC 20301-3080
(703)
588-7437 DSN 425; FAX (703) 588-7560
robert.foster@osd.mil
PrograHFE TAG Coordinator
Ms.
Sheryl Cosing
10822
Crippen Vale Ct.
Reston,
VA 20194
(703)
925-9791; FAX (703) 925-9694
scosing@comcast.net
OPERATING BOARD
January 2006
Executive Committee
Current Chair (Navy)
Ms. Maureen Bergondy-Wilhelm
NAVAIR
Orlando TSD, AIR-4961
12350
Research Parkway
Orlando, FL 32826-3275
(407)
380-4777 DSN 960; FAX
(407) 380-4110
maureen.bergondy@navy.mil
Vice Chair (Air Force)
Mr. Adrian Salinas
Engineer,
HSI CONOPS Division
2485
Gillingham Drive
Brooks
City-Base, TX 78235-5115
Brooks AFB, TX 78235
(210) 536-4428 DSN 240; FAX (210) 536-4475
adrian.salinas@brooks.af.mil
Immediate Past Chair
(Army)
Ms. Dawn Woods
AMSRD-NSC-SS-E Attn: Dawn Woods
100 Kansas St.
Natick, MA 01760-5020
(508) 233-5069 DSN 256; FAX (508) 233-6472
dawn.woods@natick.army.mil
NASA Representative
Ms. Faith Chandler
NASA Headquarters
300 E. Street, SW
Washington, DC 20546
(202) 358-0411; FAX
(202) 358-2778
fchandle@hq.nasa.gov
Ar my Army Representative
Mr.
Benjamin Gibson
AMEDDC&S
14723 Oak Briar
San
Antonio, TX 78232-4679
(210) 221-1622 DSN 471; FAX (210) 221-0121
ben.gibson@amedd.army.mil
Na vy Navy Representative
LCDR Joseph Cohn
Naval Research Laboratory
4555 Overlook Avenue SE
Washington, DC 20375-5320
(202) 404-8624; FAX (202) 767-1608 cohn@itd.nrl.navy.mil
Forc Air Force Representative
Dr. Robert Nullmeyer
AFRL/HEA
6030 S. Kent St.
Mesa, AZ 85212-6061
(480) 988-6561x283 DSN 474; FAX (480) 988-6285
robert.nullmeyer@mesa.afmc.af.mil
FAA Representative
Dr. Thomas McCloy
FAA; ATO- P R&D, Rm.
907
800 Independence Ave., S.
W.
Washington, DC 20591
(202) 267‑7167; FAX
(202) 267‑5797
tom.mccloy@faa.gov
Ex Officio Members - SubTAG Chairs
Controls and Displays
(Controls)
Mr. Adrian Salinas
Engineer,
HSI CONOPS Division
2485
Gillingham Drive
Brooks
City-Base, TX 78235-5115
Brooks AFB, TX 78235
(210) 536-4428 DSN 240; FAX (210) 536-4475
adrian.salinas@brooks.af.mil
Ms. Marianne Paulsen
NSWC-PC
110 Vernon Ave, Code E24
Panama City, FL
32407-7001
(850) 235-5527; FAX (850)
235-5511
Marianne.paulsen@navy.mil
Design: Tools and
Techniques (DTT)
Dr. Pamela
Savage-Knepshield
Attn:
AMSRD-ARL-HR-ML
Myer Center
Rm 2D311
Fort
Monmouth, NJ 07703-5630
(732)
427-3854 DSN: 987 FAX: (732) 427-3184
psavageknepshield@arl.army.mil
Mr. Joseph
Barretta
Aberdeen Test
Center, CSTE-DTC-AT-WF-S
400 Colleran
Rd. Bldg. 321
Aberdeen
Proving Ground, MD 21005
(410) 278-4172
joseph.barretta@atc.army.mil
Human Factors
Engineering/Human Systems Integration: Management and Applications (HSI)
Ms. Katrina Baker
Aberdeen Test Center
400 Colleran Drive
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005
(410) 278-3472 DSN 298; FAX (410) 278-0295
katrina.baker@atc.army.mil
Mr. Corey Cook
NSWC-PC
110 Vernon Ave, Code E24
Panama City, FL 32407-7001
(850) 234-4829; FAX (850)
235-5511
corey.cook@Navy.Mil
Human Factors in
Extreme Environments (Environments)
Mr. Charles Weaver
NSWC-PC
110 Vernon Ave, Code E24
Panama City, FL
32407-7001
(850) 234-4152; FAX (850)
235-5511
charles.weaver1@navy.mil
Human Factors in Training
(Training)
Ms. Melissa
Walwanis-Nelson
NAVAIR
Orlando TSD
12350 Research
Parkway, ATTN: AIR 4961
Orlando, FL 32826-3275
(407) 380-4749 DSN 960; FAX
(407) 380-4110
Ms.
Danielle Merket
NAVAIR
Orlando TSD, AIR-4961
12350
Research Parkway
Orlando, FL
32826-3275
(407) 380-4792 DSN
960; FAX (407) 380-4110
Human Factors
Standardization (HFS)
Mr. David
Britton
ASC/ENFC,
Bldg 560
2530 Loop Rd
West
Wright-Patterson
AFB, OH 45433-7101
(937)
255-2030 DSN 785; FAX (937) 255-8063
david.britton@wpafb.af.mil
Human Factors Test
& Evaluation (T&E)
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
Mr.
Darren Cole
118
East Jones Road, Bldg. 145
Edwards
AFB, CA 93524-8290
(661)
275-0171 FAX (661) 275-0240 darren.cole@edwards.af.mil
Human Modeling and
Simulation (Modeling)
LT Jeff Grubb
NAVAIR
48110 Shaw Road
Suite 2280-D9
Patuxent River, MD 20670
(301) 342-9284
jeff.grubb@navy.mil
Personnel Selection and
Classification (Personnel)
LT
Tatana Olson, Ph.D., MSC, USNR
Naval
Operational Medicine Institute
Operational
Psychology Department
340 Hulse
Road
Pensacola,
FL 32508-1092
(850)
452-2257 ext. 1090
tmolson@nomi.navy.med.mil
Dr. Raymond King
3812 Buckingham Drive
Norman, OK 73072
(405) 408-5216 FAX
(405) 954-4852
Skyking321@aol.com
Sustained/Continuous
Operation (SUSOPS)
LCDR Walter
Carr
NMETC & NIH/NIDCD
5512 Charles
Street
Bethesda, MD 20814
carrw@nidcd.nih.gov
Thomas E. Nesthus, Ph.D.
FAA Civil Aerospace
Medical Institute
Human Factors Research Lab (AAM-510)
PO Box 25082
Oklahoma City, OK 73125
(405) 954-6297; FAX (405) 954-4852
tom.nesthus@faa.gov
System
Safety/Health Hazards/Survivability (SS/HH/Sv)
George
Murnyak
USACHPPM, ATTN: MCHB-TS-OHH
5158 Blackhawk Rd
Aberdeen
Proving Ground, MD 21010-5403
(410) 436-2925 DSN 584; FAX (410) 436-1016
george.murnyak@amedd.army.mil
Dr. Michael Fineberg
SAIC
7990 Science
Applications Ct., MS CV-61
Vienna, VA
22182
(703)
676-0060
finebergm@saic.com
Technical
Society/Industry (TSI)
Mr. William Lytle
AsHF/AsMA
Lockheed Martin Astronautics
PO Box 179
Denver, CO 80201-0179
(303) 971-8972 FAX (303) 971-3174
william.b.lytle@lmco.com
User-Computer
Interaction (UCI)
LT Nausheen Momen
NAMRL
280 Fred
Bauer Street
Pensacola, FL 32526
(850) 452-3668 DSN 922; FAX (850) 452-9290
nmomen@kent.edu
Mr. Steve
Merriman
The Boeing
Company
Future
Combat Systems
MANPRINT Senior
Manager
250 E
Arapaho, Suite 225
Richardson,
TX 75081-2777
(972)
705-8219; (214) 316-7071 cell
stephen.c.merriman@boeing.com
scmerriman@comcast.net
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