For this article, the relationships between body posture and workload for four mental tasks simulated on a computer were studied.
Background:
Human behaviors are observable during work and are related to human mental activities. A novel supplementary method, based on human behavior but not directly related to task execution, is proposed to assess the workload in mental work situations.
Method:
Body posture was quantitatively analyzed with the use of a video-based analysis system. The distance between a participant’s head and the display, the distance between the shoulder and the hip, and the trunk angle of the shoulder and the hip with respect to the gravitational field were calculated.
Results:
The various tasks affected the distance between the head and the display (p < .001) and the trunk angle (p < .001). The distance between the head and the display decreased with increasing workload (p = .007).
Conclusion:
These results indicate that body posture can be used as an indicator for overall workload assessment.
Application:
The proposed method of workload may be useful for real-time observations or the monitoring of mental states in mental work environments (e.g., rail traffic dispatching, air traffic control).
BalabanC. D.CohnJ.RedfernM.PrinkeyJ.StriplingR.HofferM. (2004). Postural control as a probe for cognitive state: Exploiting human information processing. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 17, 275–287.
2.
BednyG.KarwowskiW. (2006). A systemic-structural theory of activity: Applications to human performance and work design. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
3.
BednyG. Z.SeglinM. H.MeisterD. (2000). Activity theory: History, research and application. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 1, 168–206.
4.
CainB. (2007). A review of the mental workload literature (Tech. Rep. RTO-TR-HFM-121-Part-II) Toronto, Canada: Defence Research and Development Toronto.
5.
DellemanN. J.HaslegraveC. M.ChaffinD. B. (2004). Working postures and movements: Tools for evaluation and engineering. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
6.
EggemeierF.WilsonG. (1991). Performance-based and subjective assessment of workload in multi-task environments. In DamosD. (Ed.), Multiple-task performance (pp. 217–278). London, UK: Taylor and Francis.
7.
FarmerE.BrownsonA. (2003). Review of workload measurement, analysis and interpretation methods. Brussels: European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation.
8.
FeyerR. G. (2007). Bridging the gap: Exploring interactions between digital human models and cognitive models. In DuffyV. G. (Ed.), Digital human modeling, HCII 2007, LNCS 4561 (pp. 382–391). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
GrafM.GuggenbühlU.KruegerH. (1995). An assessment of seated activity and postures at five workplaces. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 15, 81–90.
11.
HanleyJ. A.NegassaA.EdwardesM. D. deB.ForresterJ. E. (2003). Statistical analysis of correlated data using generalized estimating equations: An orientation. American Journal of Epidemiology, 157, 364–375.
HartS. G. (2006). NASA–Task Load Index (NASA-TLX): 20 years later. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting (pp. 904–908). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
14.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In HancockP.MeshkatiN. (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
15.
KeijzerF. (2005). Theoretical behaviorism meets embodied cognition: Two theoretical analyses of behavior. Philosophical Psychology, 18, 123–143.
16.
LiangK.-Y.ZegerS. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika, 73, 13–22.
17.
MakeigS.JolleyK. (1996). COMPTRACK: A compensatory tracking task for monitoring alertness (Tech. Document 96-3C). San Diego, CA: Naval Health Research Center. Retrieved from http://sccn.ucsd.edu/~scott/pdf/COMPTRACK.pdf
18.
MeshkatiN. (1988). Heart Rate variability and mental workload assessment. In HancockP.MeshkatiN. (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp.103-116). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
19.
MeshkatiN.HancockP. A.RahimiM.DawesS. M. (1995). Techniques in mental workload assessment. In WilsonJ.CorlettE. (Eds.), Evaluation of human work: A practical ergonomics methodology (pp. 749–782). Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis.
MulderG. (1979). Perception as information processing. Urban Ecology, 4, 103–118.
22.
NachreinerF. (2002). Über einige aktuelle Probleme bei der Erfassung, Messung und Beurteilung psychischer Belastung und Beanspruchung [On some current problems in collection, measurement and assessment of mental stress and strain]. ZeitschriftfürArbeitzwissenschaft, 56, 10–21.
23.
O’DonnellR.EggemeierF. T. (1986). Workload assessment methodology. In BoffK.KaufmanL.ThomasJ.BoffK.KaufmanL.ThomasJ. (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance (pp. 41–49). New York, NY: Wiley.
24.
PerezW. A.MaslineP. J.RamseyE. G.UrbanK. E. (1984). Unified Tri-Services Cognitive Performance Assessment Battery: Review and methodology. Technical report, Systems Research Labs, Dayton, OH. Retrieved from http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA181697
25.
ReidG. B.NygrenT. E. (1988). The subjective workload assessment technique: A scaling procedure for measuring mental workload. In HancockP.MeshkatiN. (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 185–218). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
26.
RohmertW. (1989). Ergonomics concept of work, stress and strain. International Review of Applied Psychology, 35, 159–181.
27.
RogéJ.PebayleT.MuzetA. (2001). Variations of the level of vigilance and of behavioral activities during simulated automobile driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 33, 181–186.
28.
RöttingM. (2001). Parametersystematik der Augen- und Blickbewegungen für arbeitswissenschaftliche Untersuchungen [Parameter systematics of the eyes and eye movements for ergonomic research]. Aachen, Germany: Shaker Verlag.
29.
SchmidtkeH. (2002). Vom sinn und unsinn der messung psychischer belastung und beanspruchung [Sense and nonsense of mental stress and strain measurement]. ZeitschriftfürArbeitswissenschaft, 56, 4–9.
30.
ShalliceI. (1982). Specific impairment of planning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 298, 199–209.
31.
VidulichM. A. (1988). The cognitive psychology of subjective mental workload. In HancockP.MeshkatiN. (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 219–230). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
32.
VogtJ.HagemannT.KastnerM. (2006). The impact of workload on heart rate and blood pressure in en-route and tower air traffic control. Journal of Psychophysiology, 20, 297–314.
33.
WatsonD.ClarkL. A.TellegenA. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
34.
WierwilleW. W.EggemeierF. T. (1993). Recommendations for mental workload measurement in a test and evaluation environment. Human Factors, 35, 263–285.
35.
ZieglerA. (1999). The generalised estimating equations: An annotated bibliography. Biometrical Journal, 40, 115–139.
