Mental workload and situation awareness are both outgrowths of the practical need to assess operators' performing and managing dynamic complex tasks. Mental workload refers to the cost placed on the human operator's cognitive processing abilities by performing the required task-related mental processing. Situation awareness is the operator's apprehension of the current situation. Common goals of designing a new system or modifying an existing one are often to reduce the operator's mental workload while increasing the operator's situation awareness. However, the empirical database obtained from concurrent evaluation of mental workload and situation awareness demonstrates that the two measures generally do not co-vary in such a simple fashion. The lack of a single straightforward correlation could be interpreted as an indication that mental workload and situation awareness must be considered independent of each other. However, parsing the available studies into sub-categories based on the type of manipulation that was investigated allows some possible relationships between mental workload and situation awareness to emerge. This suggests that researchers should continue to examine the relationship between these concepts and system evaluators should not consider mental workload or situation awareness in isolation from the other.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
NOTE - References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the 18-study database.
2.
BusquetsA.M.ParrishR.V.WilliamsS.P.NoldD.E. (1994). Comparison of pilots' acceptance and spatial awareness when using EFIS vs. pictorial display formats for complex, curved landing approaches. In GilsonR.D.GarlandD.J.KoonceJ.M. (Eds.), Situational awareness in complex systems: Proceedings of a CAHFA Conference (pp. 139–167). Daytona Beach: Embry-Riddle Press.
3.
Carmody-BubbM.A.MayburyD.A. (1998). Evaluation of prototype display of enemy launch acceptability region (LAR) on the F/A-18 HUD. In Proceedings for the Third Annual Symposium and Exhibition on Situational Awareness in the Tactical Air Environment (pp. 9–15). Patuxent River: Naval Air Warfare Center.
4.
CasperP.A. (1997). A full mission success story: RPA simulation at CSRDF yields promising results. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 41st Annual Meeting (Volume 1, pp. 95–99). Santa Monica: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
5.
EndsleyM.R. (1993). Situation awareness and workload: Flip sides of the same coin. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (Volume 2, pp. 906–911). Columbus: Ohio State University.
6.
EndsleyM.R.SollenbergerR.SteinE. (1999). The use of predictive displays for aiding controller situation awareness. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 43rd Annual Meeting (Volume 1, pp. 51–55). Santa Monica: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
7.
FechtigS.D.BoucekG.S.GeiselmanE.E. (1998). Preliminary results of the effective information fusion for the helmet mounted display technologies program. In Proceedings for the Third Annual Symposium and Exhibition on Situational Awareness in the Tactical Air Environment (pp. 51–68). Patuxent River: Naval Air Warfare Center.
8.
GlummM.M.BranscomeT.A.PattonD.J.MullinsL.L.BurtonP.A. (1999). The effects of an auditory versus a visual presentation of information on soldier performance. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 43rd Annual Meeting (Volume 2, pp. 1041–1044). Santa Monica: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
9.
GuttmanJ. (1986). Evaluation of the F/A-18 Head-Up-Display for recover from unusual attitudes (NADC-86157-60). Warminster: Naval Air Development Center.
10.
HartS.G.ChappelS.L. (1983). Influence of pilot workload and traffic information on pilot's situation awareness. In Nineteenth Annual Conference on Manual Control (pp. 4–26). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
11.
HaskellI.D.WickensC.D. (1993). Two- and Three-dimensional Displays for Aviation: A theoretical and empirical comparison. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 87–109.
12.
HendyK.C. (1995). Situation awareness and workload: Birds of a feather?). In AGARD Conference Proceedings 575 - Situation Awareness: Limitations and Enhancement in the Aviation Environment (pp. 21 - 1–21-7). Neuilly-Sur-Seine: AGARD.
13.
HettingerL.J.BrickmanB.J.RoeM.M.NelsonW.T.HaasM.W. (1996). Effects of virtually-augmented fighter cockpit displays on pilot performance, workload, and situation awareness. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 40th Annual Meeting (pp. 30–33). Santa Monica: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
14.
HughesE.R.HassounJ.A.WardG.F.RuebJ.D. (1990). An assessment of selected workload and situation awareness metrics in a part-mission simulation (Tech. Report No. ASD-TR-90-5009). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base: Aeronautical Systems Division.
15.
MarshakW.P.KupermanG.RamseyE.G.WilsonD. (1987). Situational awareness in map displays. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting (Volume 1, pp. 533–535). Santa Monica: Human Factors Society.
16.
MelansonD.CurryR.E.HowellJ.D.ConnellyM.E. (1973). The effects of communications and traffic situation displays on pilots' awareness of traffic in the terminal area. In Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Conference on Manual Control (pp. 25–39). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
17.
OlsonJ.L.ArbakC.J.JauerR.A. (1991, May). Panoramic Cockpit Control and Display System Volume 2: PCCADS 2000 (AFWAL-TR-88-1038, Volume 2). Wright-Patterson AFB: Wright Laboratory.
18.
RegalD.WhittingtonD. (1995). Guidance symbology for curved flight paths. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (Volume 1, pp. 74–79). Columbus: Ohio State University.
19.
SelconS.J.HardimanT.D.CroftD.G.EndsleyM.R. (1996). A test-battery approach to cognitive engineering: To meta-measure or not to meta-measure, that is the question! In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 40th Annual Meeting (Volume 1, pp. 228–232). Santa Monica: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
20.
ShamoM.K.DrorR.DeganiA. (1999). A multidimensional evaluation technology for new cockpit systems. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (Volume 2, pp. 821–826). Columbus: Ohio State University.
21.
SmythC.C. (1999). Directing targets from a moving vehicle with a head-mounted display and sound localization. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 43rd, Annual Meeting (Volume 2, pp. 1045–1049). Santa Monica: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
22.
TsangP.S.WilsonG.F. (1997). Mental workload. In SalvendyG. (ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (2nd ed., pp. 417–449). New York: Wiley.
23.
VidulichM.A. (in press). Testing the sensitivity of situation awareness metrics in interface evaluations. To appear in, EndsleyM.R.GarlandD.J. (eds.), Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement.Mahwah: Erlbaum.
24.
WardG.F.HassounJ.A. (1990, July). The effects of head-up display (HUD) pitch ladder articulation, pitch number location and horizon line length on unusual attitude recoveries for the F-16 (Tech. Report No. ASD-TR-90-5008). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base: Aeronautical Systems Division.
25.
WickensC.D. (1995). Situation awareness: Impact of automation and display technology. In AGARD Conference Proceedings 575 - Situation Awareness: Limitations and Enhancement in the Aviation Environment (pp. K2-1–K2-13). Neuilly-Sur-Seine: AGARD.
