Demonstrating a Methodology for Assessing Cognitive Capacities across Sensory Systems: M-SWAP

Abstract

This demonstration highlights the development of and applications of a methodology for assessing cognitive workload across three sensory systems: vision, audition, and touch. The methodology, called Multi-Sensory Workload Assessment Protocol (M-SWAP), is typically administered simultaneously with the primary task of interest. Participants are presented with a random series of visual, auditory, or vibrotactile signals and are asked to respond via a response box after receiving a certain number of these signals. Counting errors are scored in terms of both classic and fuzzy signal detection metrics (hits, misses, false alarms, and correct rejections), and the number of errors is indicative of the operator's cognitive-perceptual workload. The demand level of M-SWAP is scalable, which avoids traditional ceiling effects.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Broadbent

(1958). Perception and communication. New York: Pergamon.

Hancock

P. A.

Chignell

M. H.

(1988). Mental workload dynamics in adaptive interface design. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 18, 647–658.

Hart

Staveland

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

Meshkati

Human mental workload. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Jerison

H. J.

(1955). Effect of a combination of noise and fatigue on a complex counting task (Report Number WADC TR-55–360). Dayton, Ohio: Wright Air Development Center, Wright Patterson AFB.

Jerison

H. J.

(1956). Differential effects of noise and fatigue on a complex counting task (Report Number WADC TR-55–359). Dayton, Ohio: Wright Air Development Center, Wright Patterson AFB.

Khaneman

(1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kennedy

R. S.

(1971). A comparison of performance on visual and auditory monitoring tasks. Human Factors, 13(2), 93–97.

Linton

(1975). VFA-STOL crew loading analysis (NADC-57209–40). Warminster, PA: U.S. Naval Air Development Center.

Mouloua

Rinalducci

Hancock

P. A.

Brill

J. C.

(2003). Evaluating workload associated with telematic devices via a secondary task protocol. Paper presented at the Second International Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design, Park City, UT.

10.

Meshkati

Hancock

P. A.

Rahimi

Dawes

S. M.

(1995). Techniques in mental workload assessment. In Wilson

J. R.

Corlett

E. N.

Evaluation of human work: A practical ergonomics methodology (pp. 749–782. Taylor & Francis, Philadelphia, PA.

11.

Navon

Gopher

(1979). On the economy of the human-processing system. Psychological Review, 86, 214–255.

12.

North

Riley

(1988). W/INDEX: A predictive model of operator workload. In MacMillian

Human performance models. Orlando, FL: NATO AGARD Symposium.

13.

Wickens

C. D.

(1984). Processing resources in attention. In Parasuraman

Davies

Varieties of attention (pp. 63–101. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.