Three groups of subjects, differing in the kinds of augmentation provided, were trained to control a continuously moving track in a second-order system. Differences in performance among the three groups occurred only in transfer experiments when subjects were required to apply their knowledge, or their internal model, to solve system problems. These results indicated that subjects in a parabola-augmented group had learned to internalize this cue and mentally manipulate it to solve system problems even when the cue was not displayed. Subjects in the other two groups, a point-augmented group and a nonaugmented control group, used a set of simplifying rules, some correct and others incorrect, to guide their behavior. The results indicated that accurate control of the system does not necessarily imply that the operator's internal model of the system is also accurate. In addition, augmentation that made the system appear consistent was important in the development of an internal model.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bainbridge, L. (1974). Analysis of verbal protocols from a process control task. In E. Edwards and F. P. Lees (Eds.), The human operator in process control (pp. 146–158). New York: Halsted Press.
2.
Barnard, P. J., Hammond, N. V., Morton, J., and Long, J. B. (1981). Consistency and compatibility in human-computer dialogue. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 15, 87–134.
3.
Baty, D. L. (1976). Evaluating a CRT map predictor for airborn use. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-6, 209–215.
4.
Bernotat, R., and Widlok, H. (1966). Principles and applications of prediction display. Institute of Navigation Journal, 19, 361–370.
5.
De Kleer, J., and Brown, J. S. (1981). Mental models of physical mechanisms and their acquisition. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 285–309). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
Eberts, R. E., and Brock, J. B. (1984). Computer applications to instruction. In F. A. Muckier (Ed.), Human factors review: 1984 (pp. 239–284). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
7.
Eberts, R. E., and Schneider, W. (1980). Computer assisted displays enabling internalization and reduction of operator workload in higher order systems, or pushing the barrier of human control beyond second order systems. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 24th Annual Meeting (pp. 54–62). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
8.
Edwards, E., and Lees, F. P. (Eds.). (1974). The human operator in process control. New York: Halsted Press.
9.
Fargel, L. C., and Ulbrich, E. A. (1963). Aerospace simulators prove predictor displays extend manual operation. Control Engineering, 8, 57–60.
10.
Fisk, A. D., and Schneider, W. (1983). Category and word search: Generalizing search principles to complex processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 177–195.
11.
Gaines, B. R. (1969). Linear and nonlinear models of the human controller. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, I, 333–360.
12.
Gottsdanker, R. M. (1952). The accuracy of prediction motion. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43, 25–36.
13.
Hollan, J., Stevens, A., and Williams, M. (1980, August). STEAMER: An advanced computer-assisted instruction system for propulsion engineering. Paper presented at the Summer Simulation Conference, Scattle, WA.
14.
Johnson, S. L., and Roscoe, S. N. (1972). What moves, the airplane or the world?Human Factors, 14, 107–129.
15.
Kelley, C. R. (1960, March). Developing and testing the effectiveness of the predictor instrument (Office of Naval Research Technical Report 252–60–1). Stamford, CT: Dunlap and Associates.
16.
Kelley, C. R. (1968). Manual and automatic control. New York: Wiley.
17.
Kennedy, R. S., Smith, R. L., Queen, J. E., Burger, W. J., and Wulfeck, J. W. (1975, October).Two studies of predictor displays for jet aircraft landings (Technical Publication TP-75–55). Point Mugu, CA: Pacific Missilc Test Center.
18.
Kessel, C. J., and Wickens, C. D. (1982). The transfer of failure-detection skills between monitoring and controlling dynamic systems. Human Factors, 24, 49–60.
19.
Knauepper, A., and Rouse, W. B. (1983). A model of human problem solving in dynamic environments. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 27th Annual Meeting (pp. 695–699). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
20.
Laios, L. (1978). Predictive aids for discrcte decision tasks with input uncertainty. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-8, 19–29.
21.
Larkin, J. H. (1981). Enriching formal knowledge: A model for learning to solve problems in physics. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 311–334). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22.
Lintern, G. (1980). Transfer of landing skill after training with supplementary visual cues. Human Factors, 22, 81–88.
23.
Lintern, G., and Roscoe, S. N. (1980). Visual cue augmentation in contact flight simulation. In S. N. Roscoe (Ed.), Aviation psychology (pp. 239–250). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
24.
Mayer, R. E. (1981). The psychology of how novices learn computer programming. Computing Surveys, 13, 121–141.
25.
McCloskey, M. (1983). Naive theories of motion. In D. Gentner and A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 299–324). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
26.
McCloskey, M., Caramazza, A., and Green, B. (1980). Curvilinear motion in the absence of external forces: Naive beliefs about the motion of objects. Science, 210, 1139–1141.
27.
Newell, A., and Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
28.
Payne, S. J., and Green, T. R. G. (1983). The user's perception of the interaction language: A two-level model. In Proceedings CHI Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 202–206). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
29.
Rasmussen, J. (1981). Models of mental strategies in process plant diagnosis. In J. Rasmussen and W. B. Rouse (Eds.), Human detection and diagnosis of system failures (pp. 241–258). New York: Plenum.
30.
Rouse, W. B. (1977). A theory of human decisionmaking in stochastic estimation tasks. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-7, 274–283.
31.
Schneider, W., and Fisk, A. D. (1982). Concurrent visual search: Can processing occur without resource cost?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 8,261–278.
32.
Schneider, W., and Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84,1–66.
33.
Sheridan, T. B., and Johannsen, G. (Eds.). (1976). Monitoring behavior and supervisory control. New York: Plenum.
34.
Shiffrin, R. M., and Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.
35.
Simon, H. A., and Newell, A. (1971). Human problem solving: The state of the theory in 1970. American Psychologist, 26, 145–159.
36.
Veldhuyzen, W., and Stassen, H. G. (1976). The internal model: What does it mean? In T. B. Sheridan and G. Johannsen (Eds.), Monitoring behavior and supervisory control (pp. 157–171). New York: Plenum.
37.
Wheaton, G. R., Rose, A. M., Fingerman, P. W., Korotkin, A. L., and Holding, D. H.M. (1976, June). Evaluation of the effectiveness of training devices: Literature review and preliminary model (Research Memorandum 76–6). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
38.
Wierwille, W. W. (1964). Improvement of the human operator's tracking performance by means of optimum filtering and prediction. IEEE Transactions On Human Factors in Electronics, HFE-5, 20–24.
39.
Young, L. R. (1969). On adaptive manual control. IEEE Transactions on Man-Machine Systems, MMS-IO, 292–331.
40.
Young, L. R., and Meiry, J. L. (1965). Bang-bang aspects on manual control in high-order systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, AC-IO, 336–341.
