The Difficulty to Break a Relational Complexity Network Can Predict Air Traffic Controllers’ Mental Workload and Performance in Conflict Resolution

Abstract

Objective

To test the network disentangling model for explaining air traffic controllers’ (ATCos) conflict resolution performance. The network rigidity index (NRI), and the steps to break the relational complexity network following a central-available-node-first rule, was hypothesized to explain the overall task demand, whereas marginal-effort-decrease rule was expected to explain the actual operational outcome.

Background

Understanding the conflict resolution process of ATCos is important for aviation safety and efficiency. However, linear models are insufficient. We proposed a new model that ATCos behavior can be largely considered as a process to break the relational complexity network, in which nodes represent the aircraft while links represent the cognitive complexity to understand the aircraft dyad relationship.

Method

Twenty-one professional ATCos completed 27 conflict resolution scenarios that varied in the NRI and other control variables. Multilevel regression analyses were performed to understand the influence of the NRI on the number of interventions, mental workload, and unresolved rate. A cross-validation was performed to evaluate the predictive power of the model.

Results

NRI influenced ATCos intervention number in a curvilinear manner, which further leads to ATCo’s mental workload. The deviance between the number of interventions and the NRI was strongly linked with unresolved rate. Cross-validation suggests that the models predictions are robust.

Conclusion

The network disentangling model provides a useful theory-driven way to explain controllers’ conflict resolution workload and other important performance outcomes such as intervention probability.

Application

The proposed model can potentially be used for workload management, sector design, and intelligent decision support tool development.

Keywords

relational complexity network workload air traffic controllers conflict resolution network disentangling error operation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Armstrong

(2001). Principles of forecasting: A handbook for researchers and practitioners. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Averty

Collet

Dittmar

Athenes

Vernet-Maury

(2004). Mental workload in air traffic control: An index constructed from field tests. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 75, 333–341.

Boag

Neal

Loft

Halford

G. S.

(2006). An analysis of relational complexity in an air traffic control conflict detection task. Ergonomics, 49, 1508–1526.

Callaway

D. S.

Newman

M. E.

Strogatz

S. H.

Watts

D. J.

(2000). Network robustness and fragility: Percolation on random graphs. Physical Review Letters, 85, 5468–5471.

Desmond

P. A.

Hoyes

T. W.

(1996). Workload variation, intrinsic risk and utility in a simulated air traffic control task: Evidence for compensatory effects. Safety Science, 22, 87–101.

Gianazza

Guittet

(2006). Selection and evaluation of air traffic complexity metrics. In IEEE/AIAA 25th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (pp. 1–12). New York, NY: IEEE.

Hart

S. G.

Staveland

L. E.

(1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in Psychology, 52, 139–183.

Hopkin

V. D.

(1995). Human factors in air traffic control. London, England: Taylor & Francis.

International Civil Aviation Organization. (2005). Global air traffic management operational concept (No. Document 9854). Montreal, Québec, Canada: Author.

10.

International Civil Aviation Organization. (2013). Global air transport outlook to 2030 and trends to 2040 (No. Cir 333, AT/190). Montréal, Québec, Canada: Author.

11.

Kahneman

Slovic

Tversky

(1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

12.

Klein

G. A.

(1999). Sources of power: How people make decisions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

13.

Kuk

Arnold

Ritter

F. E.

(1999). Effects of light and heavy workload on air traffic tactical operations: A hazard rate model. Ergonomics, 42, 1133–1148.

14.

Laudeman

I. V.

Shelden

S. G.

Branstrom

Brasil

C. L.

(1998). Dynamic density: An air traffic management metric (No. NASA-TM-1988-11226). Moffet Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.

15.

Loft

Bolland

Humphreys

M. S.

Neal

(2009). A theory and model of conflict detection in air traffic control: Incorporating environmental constraints. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 106–124.

16.

Loft

Sanderson

Neal

Mooij

(2007). Modeling and predicting mental workload in en route air traffic control: Critical review and broader implications. Human Factors, 49, 376–399.

17.

Metzger

Parasuraman

(2005). Automation in future air traffic management: Effects of decision aid reliability on controller performance and mental workload. Human Factors, 47, 35–49.

18.

Mogford

R. H.

Guttman

J. A.

Morrow

S. L.

Kopardekar

(1995). The complexity construct in air traffic control: A review and synthesis of the literature (No. DOT/FAA/CT-TN95/22). Atlantic City, NJ: Federal Aviation Administration, William Hughes Technical Center.

19.

Moray

(1997). Human factors in process control. In Salvendy

(Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 1944–1971). New York, NY: Wiley.

20.

Prandini

Piroddi

Puechmorel

Brazdilova

S. L.

(2011). Toward air traffic complexity assessment in new generation air traffic management systems. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 12, 809–818.

21.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

(2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

22.

Seamster

T. L.

Redding

R. E.

Cannon

J. R.

Ryder

J. M.

Purcell

J. A.

(1993). Cognitive task analysis of expertise in air traffic control. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 257–283.

23.

Simon

H. A.

(1979). Rational decision making in business organizations. The American Economic Review, 69, 493–513.

24.

Simon

H. A.

(1990). Invariants of human behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 1–20.

25.

Sperandio

J.-C.

(1978). The regulation of working methods as a function of work-load among air traffic controllers. Ergonomics, 21, 195–202.

26.

Todd

P. M.

Gigerenzer

(2007). Environments that make us smart: Ecological rationality. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 167–171.

27.

Vuckovic

Sanderson

Neal

Gaukrodger

Wong

B. L. W.

(2013). Relative position vectors: An alternative approach to conflict detection in air traffic control. Human Factors, 55, 946–964.

28.

Zhang

(2015). Relational complexity network and air traffic controllers’ workload and performance. In Harris

(Ed.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science (EPCE 2015): Engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics (Vol. 9174, pp. 513–522). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

29.

Zhang

Ren

(2014). Modeling air traffic controllers’ decision making processes with relational complexity network. In 2014 IEEE 17th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) (pp. 2663–2668). New York, NY: IEEE.

30.

Zhang

Yang

(2015). From trees to forest: Relational complexity network and workload of air traffic controllers. Ergonomics, 58, 1320–1336.