Predicting a challenge point in performance requires an examination of individual differences in cognitive, perceptual and motor abilities. The following paper poses an approach to the previously established challenge point framework that integrates abilities in different populations while incorporating subjective workload and stress measures. Results will allow human factors and ergonomics to merge existing knowledge about these areas into several applications for real world performance success in a variety of tasks.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AckermanP. L. (1988). Determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition: Cognitive abilities and information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117(3), 288–318.
2.
BasakC.BootW.R.VossM.WKramerA.F. (2008). Can training in a real-time strategy video game attenuate cognitive decline in older adults?Psychology and Aging, 23(4), 765–777.
3.
BirrenJ.E.SchaieK.W. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of the Psychology of Aging. San Diego, California: Academic Press.
4.
BjorkR. A. (1994). Instructional impediments to effective training. In DruckmandD.BjorkR. A. (Eds) Learning, Remembering, Believing: Enhancing Individual and Team Performance. (pp. 285–306) Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
5.
BjorkR. A. (1999). Assessing our own competence: Heuristics and illusions. In GopherD.KoriatA. (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII. Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
BroadbentD. E. (1979). Human performance and noise. In BroadbentD. E. (Ed.) Handbook of Noise Control. New York, McGraw-Hill.
7.
CamarataS.WoodcockR. (2006). Sex differences in processing speed: Developmental effects in males and females. Intelligence34(3), 231–52.
8.
CattellR.B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 1–22.
9.
FaubertJ. (2002). Visual perception and aging. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56(3), 163–76.
10.
FittsP.M.PosnerM.I. (1967). Human Performance. Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
11.
GuadagnoliM.A.LeeT. D. (2004). Challenge Point: A framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning. Journal of Motor Behavior, 36(2), 212–224.
12.
HancockP. A.WarmJ. S. (1989). A dynamic model of stress and sustained attention. Human Performance in Extreme Environments, 7(1), 15–28.
13.
JacobyL. L. (1991). A process dissociation framework: Separating automatic from intentional uses of memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 20(5), 513–541.
14.
LongmanR. S.SaklofskeD. H.FungT. S. (2007). WAIS-III percentile scores by education and sec for U.S. and Canadian Populations. Assessment, 14(4), 426–432.
15.
MarteniukR.G. (1976). Information processing in motor skills. New York: Holt, Rhinehart, and Winston.
16.
MeierB.Perrig-ChielloP.PerrigW. (2002). Personality and memory in old age. Aging, Neurpsychology, and Cognition, 9(2), 135–144.
17.
NeupertS. D.AlmeidaD. M.MroczekD. K.SpiroA. (2006). Daily stressors and memory failures in a naturalistic setting: Findings from the VA normative aging study. Psychology and Aging, 21(2), 424–429.
18.
ParkD. C.PuglisiJ. T.SmithA. D. (1986). Memory for pictures: Does an age-related decline exist?Psychology and Aging, 1(1), 11–17.
19.
PooleB. J.KaneM. J. (2009). Working-memory capacity predicts the executive control of visual search among distractors: The influences of sustained and selective attention. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(7), 1430–54.
20.
SalmoniA. W.SchmidtR. A.WalterC. B. (1984). Knowledge of results and motor learning: A review and critical reappraisal. Psychological Review, 95(3), 355–86.
21.
SalthouseT. A. (2004). What and when of cognitive aging. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(4), 140–144.
22.
SandersA. F. (1982). Towards a model of stress and human performance. Acta Psychologica, 53(1), 61–97.
23.
SchneiderW.ShiffrinR. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing : I. Detection, search and attention. Psychological Review, 84(1), 1–66.
24.
ShiffrinR. M.SchneiderW.Controlled and automatic human information processing : II. Perceptual Learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84(2), 127–90.
25.
SilvermanI. W. (2006). Sex differences in simple visual reaction time : A historical meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 54(1-2), 57–68.
26.
SmithJ. L. (2004). Understanding the process of stereotype threat: A review of mediational variables and new performance goal directions. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 177–206.
27.
SzalmaJ. L. (2009). Individual differences in performance, workload, and stress in sustained attention: Optimism and pessimism. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(5), 444–451.
28.
TerleckiM.S.NewcombeN.S.LittleM. (2008). Durable and generalizable effects of spatial experience on mental rotation: Gender differences in growth patterns. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 996–1013.
29.
TreismanA. M.GeladeG. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12(1), 97–136.
30.
VoelkleM.WittmannW.AckermanP. (2006). Abilities and skill acquisition: A latent growth curve approach. Learning and individual differences, 16(4), 303–319.
31.
WinsteinC. J.SchmidtR. A. (1990). Reduced frequency of knowledge of results enhances motor skill learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16(4), 677–91.
32.
WickensC. D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3(2), 159–177.
33.
WohlwillJ. F.NasarJ. L.DeJoyD. M.ForuzaniH.H. (1976). Behavioral effects of a noisy environment: Task involvement versus passive exposure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 67–74.
34.
YoungM. S.StantonN. A. (2007). What’s skill got to do with it? Vehicle automation and driver mental workload. Ergonomics, 50(8), 1324–39.
