Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Endoscopic surgery–a procedure wherein a target organ is displayed on a monitor and physicians use graspers to manipulate the tissue - has benefits for patients in terms of reduced blood loss, infection, and pain. However, physicians' informal reports indicate that this type of surgery is challenging to perform. These challenges arise from the need to view the target tissue on a monitor, resulting in reduced depth information as well as a disruption of the normal hand-eye mapping. This study represents the initial experimental effort to assess the workload demands experienced in an endoscopic surgery simulator using the NASA-Task Load Index (TLX), a well validated workload measure, and the Multiple Resource Questionnaire (MRQ), a newly developed workload scale. The TLX revealed that the workload experienced in the simulator was indeed high. Additionally, the MRQ revealed different workload profiles associated with different levels of handeye mapping disruption.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Boles

D. B.

Adair

L. P.

(2001a). The Multiple Resource Questionnaire (MRQ). Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting, 1790–1794.

Boles

D. B.

Adair

L. P.

(2001b). Validity of the Multiple Resource Questionnaire (MRQ). Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting, 1795–1799.

Cuschieri

(1995). Whither minimal access surgery: Tribulations and expectations The American Journal of Surgery, 169, 9–18.

Gibson

J. J.

(1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Hart

S. G.

Staveland

L. E.

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

P. A

Meshkati

(Eds.). Human mental workload (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam: North Holland.

Holden

J. G.

Flach

J. M.

Donchin

(1998). Perceptual-motor coordination in an endoscopic surgery simulation Surgical Endoscopy, 13, 127–132.

Hyltander

Liljegren

Rhodin

P. H.

Lönroth

(2002). The transfer of basic skills learned in a laparoscopic simulator to the operating room Surgical Endoscopy, 16, 1324–1328.

Kondraske

G. V.

Hamilton

E. C.

Scott

D. J.

Fischer

C. A.

Tesfay

S. T.

Taneja

Brown

R. J.

Jones

D. B.

(2002). Surgeon workload and motion efficiency with robot and human laparoscopic camera control Surgical Endoscopy, 16, 1523–1527.

Oldfield

R.C.

(1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.

10.

Rattner

D. W.

(1999). New technologies: Future directions in innovative minimally invasive surgery Lancet, 353, 12–15.

11.

Warm

J.S.

Dember

W.N.

Hancock

P.A.

(1996). Vigilance and workload in automated systems In Parasuraman

Mouloua,

(Eds.). Automation and human performance (pp. 183–200). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

12.

Wickens

C. D.

(1984a). Engineering psychology and human performance Columbus, OH: Merrill.

13.

Wickens

C. D.

(1984b). Processing resources in attention In Parasuraman

Davis

D. R.

(Eds.). Varieties of attention (pp. 63–102). New York: Academic Press.

14.

Wickens

C.D.

Hollands

J.G.

(2000). Engineering psychology and human performance (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Perceived Mental Workload in an Endocopic Surgery Simulator

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References