Effects of the Multi-Modal Communication tool on Communication and Change Detection for Command & Control Operators

Abstract

Due to the highly demanding and stressful mission set encountered by Command and Control (C2) operators, researchers at the Air Force Research Laboratory have developed a network-centric, multi-modal communication-monitoring suite. In previous studies, this tool has been shown to increase communication monitoring effectiveness and reduced workload for participants monitoring communication displays. However, in addition to communication displays, C2 operators often have the additional burden of monitoring tactical displays in order to create real-time representations of dynamic battlefield conditions. Creating this real-time picture is necessary to efficiently plan, coordinate, and control assets to accomplish mission objectives. This multi-tasking environment across different displays leaves C2 operators susceptible to missed information. The current study examined the performance and workload associated with monitoring both communication and tactical displays for critical information or changed events with varying communication management tools. Results indicated that the Multi-Modal Communication suite aided performance on both the communication and change detection task when compared with standard radio and chat displays. In addition, Multi-Modal Communication suite was found to reduce the perceived mental workload of this complex task.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alberts

D. S.

Hayes

R. E.

(2003). Power to the edge: Command and control in the information age. Washington, DC: Command and Control Research Program.

Boila

R. S.

(2003). Effects of spatial intercoms and active noise reduction headsets on speech intelligibility in an AWACS environment. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 47, 100-103.

Cebrowski

A.K.

Garstka

J.J.

(1998). Network Centric Warfare: Its origin and future, Naval Institute Proceedings, 124/1, 28-35.

Cummings

(2004). The need for command and control instant message adaptive interface: Lessons learned for tactical tomahawk human-in-the-loop simulations. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7, 653-661.

DiVita

Obermayer

Nugent

Linville

J.M.

(2004). Verification of the change blindness phenomenon while managing critical events on a combat information display. Human Factors, 46, 205-218.

Durlach

P.J.

(2004). Change blindness and its implications for complex monitoring and control systems design and operator training. Human-Computer Interaction, 19, 423-451.

Finomore

V.S.

Popik

D.K.

Castle

C.E.

Dallman

R.C.

(2010). Effects of network-centric multi-modal communication on a communication-monitoring task. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54, 2125- 2129.

Finomore

V.S.

Popik

D.K.

Dallman

R.C.

Stewart

(2011). Demonstration of a network-centric communication management suite: multi-modal communication. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 55, 1832-1835

Hart

S. G.

Staveland

L. E.

(1988). Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In Hancock

P. A.

Meshkati

(Eds.), Human mental workload. (pp. 139-183). Oxford, UK: North-Holland.

10.

Knott

Funke

Knott

Miller

Panganiban

(2010). Visual attention in a team C2 change blindness task. In Marek

Karwowski

Rice

(Eds.), Advances in Understanding Human Performance; Neuroergonomics, Human Factors, Design, and Special Populations (pp.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press / Taylor & Francis Group.

11.

Maxwell

S. E.

Delaney

H. D.

(2004). Designing experiments and analyzing data (2^nd ed.). New Jersey: Erlbaum.

12.

McCarley

J.S.

Vais

Pringle

Kramer

A.F.

Irwin

D.E.

Strayer

D.L.

(2004). Conversation disrupts scanning and change detection in complex visual scenes. Human Factors, 46, 424-436.

13.

Muthard

E.K.

Wickens

C.D.

(2002). Factors that mediate flight plan monitoring and errors in plan revision: An examination of planning under automated conditions (AHFD-02011/NASA-02-8). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois, Aviation Human Factors Division.

14.

Ramachandran

Jansen

Bascara

Carpenter

Denning

Sucillon

(2009). After action review tools for team training with chat communications. Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference.

15.

Rayner

Pollatsek

(1989). The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

16.

Rensink

R.A.

O’Regan

J.K.

Clark

J.J.

(1997). To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science, 8, 368-373.

17.

Satterfield

Finomore

Castle

Warm

(2011). Evaluation of tools to aid command and control operators in chat-based communication monitoring. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 55,480-484.

18.

Scott

S.D.

Cummings

M.L.

Graeber

D.A.

Nelson

W.T.

Bolia

R.S.

(2006). Collaboration Technology in Military Team Operations: Lessons Learned from the Corporate Domain. Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, San Diego, CA.

19.

Simons

D.J.

Levin

D.T.

(1997). Change blindness. Trends in Cognitive Science, 1, 261-267.

20.

United States Air Force. (2006). Air Force Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures 3-1.1, Operational brevity words definitions, and communication standards (U). Nellis AFB, NV.

21.

Vidulich

M.A.

Bolia

R.S.

Nelson

W.T.

(2003). Technology, organization, and collaborative situation awareness in air battle management: Historical and theoretical perspective. In Banbury

(Ed.). A Cognitive Approach to Situation Awareness Theory, Measures, and Applications, Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing.

22.

Wesensten

N.J.

Belenky

balkin

T.J.

(2005). Cognitive readiness in network-centric operations. Parameter, 94-105.