Cognitive Load and Situation Awareness for Soldiers: Effects of Message Presentation Rate and Sensory Modality

Abstract

Objective:

We sought to determine the influence of message presentation rate (MPR) and sensory modality on soldier cognitive load.

Background:

Soldiers commonly communicate tactical information by radio. The Canadian Army is equipping soldiers with a battle management system (BMS), which also allows them to communicate by text.

Method:

We varied presentation modality (auditory vs. visual) and MPR (fast or slow) in an experiment involving a tactical scenario. Participants (soldiers) received messages and periodically provided situation reports to higher level command, and the scored reports were used to provide a measure of situation awareness (SA). The detection response task (DRT) and NASA-TLX were used to measure cognitive load.

Results:

The fast MPR reduced DRT accuracy and increased response times relative to slow MPR. The NASA-TLX results also showed higher subjective workload ratings for several subscales with fast MPR. Messages presented visually produced greater cognitive load, with slower DRT response times for the visual than the auditory condition. SA scores were higher with slower MPR and auditory presentation. There was no statistical interaction of presentation modality and rate for any measure.

Conclusion:

Fast MPR and visual presentation increased cognitive load and degraded SA.

Application:

These findings show that the DRT can be used to measure workload effectively in a tactical military context and that the method of information presentation affects how soldiers process information in a BMS.

Keywords

mental workload cognitive load situation awareness detection response task

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baddeley

A. D.

(2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory. Trends in Cognitive Science, 4, 417–423.

Bailey

B. P.

Iqbal

S. T.

(2008). Understanding changes in mental workload during execution of goal-directed tasks and its application for interruption management. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 14(4), 1–28.

Banbury

Tremblay

(Eds.). (2004). A cognitive approach to situation awareness: Theory and application. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Bell

R. W.

(2012, June). Enduring army hard problems: Presentation to the Army S&T Board [slide deck]. Presentation to the Army Science & Technology Board. Canadian Army Land Warfare Centre, Directorate of Land Concepts and Designs.

Carver

R. P.

(1970). Effect of a “chunked” typography on reading rate and comprehension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 288–296.

Cowan

. (2000). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–185.

Durso

F. T.

Sethumadhavan

(2008). Situation awareness: Understanding dynamic environments. Human Factors, 50, 442–448.

Endsley

M. R.

(1988). Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting (pp. 97–101). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.

Endsley

M. R.

(1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37, 32–64.

10.

Endsley

M. R.

Garland

D. G.

(Eds.). (2001). Situation awareness analysis and measurement (pp. 3–32). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

11.

Hart

S. G.

Staveland

L. E.

(1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Advances in psychology (Vol. 52, pp. 139–183). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

12.

Hawkins

(2018). Free special effects. Retrieved from https://www.freespecialeffects.co.uk

13.

International Organization for Standardization. (2016). Road vehicles: Transport information and control systems—Detection-response task (DRT) for assessing selective attention in driving (ISO 17488:2016). Geneva: Author.

14.

Jarmasz

Hollands

J. G.

(2009). Confidence intervals in repeated-measures designs: The number of observations principle. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 124–128.

15.

Moray

(Ed.). (1979). Mental workload: Its theory and measurement. New York, NY: Plenum.

16.

Norman

Bobrow

(1975). On data limited and resource limited processing. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 44–60.

17.

Parasuraman

Hancock

P. A.

(2001). Adaptive control of workload. In Hancock

P. A.

Desmond

P. E.

(Eds.), Stress, workload, and fatigue (pp. 305–320). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

18.

Strayer

D. L.

Turrill

Cooper

J. M.

Coleman

J. R.

Medeiros-Ward

Biondi

(2015). Assessing cognitive distraction in the automobile. Human Factors, 57, 1300–1324.

19.

Tack

Nakaza

(2016). Cognitive task analysis of target engagements in a near peer scenario. Toronto, ON: DRDC Contract Report (Draft).

20.

Tapper

(2012). The outpost. New York, NY: Little, Brown.

21.

Vidulich

M. A.

Tsang

P. S.

(2012). Mental workload and situation awareness. In Salvendy

(Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (4th ed., pp. 243–273). New York, NY: Wiley.

22.

Wickens

C. D.

(1984) Processing resources in attention. In Parasuraman

Davies

D. R.

(Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63–101). Orlando, FL: Academic.

23.

Wickens

C. D.

(2008a). Multiple resources and mental workload. Human Factors, 50, 449–455.

24.

Wickens

C. D.

(2008b). Situation awareness: Review of Mica Endsley’s 1995 articles on situation awareness theory and measurement. Human Factors, 50, 397–403.

25.

Yuan

Liberman

Cieri

(2006). Towards an integrated understanding of speaking rate in conversation. In Ninth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, INTERSPEECH-2006 (paper 1795-Mon3A30.1). Baixas, France: International Speech Communication Association.