A full scope simulator study with licensed Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) operators was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of ecological displays in supporting operators with different types of tasks. The results suggest that ecological displays have a advantage in supporting operator performance during monitoring for unanticipated events as compared to mimic-based displays. Furthermore, ecological displays seem to achieve this performance advantage without imposing workload increases. This study provides supporting evidence that EID is effective at a scale and level of complexity representative of NPP operations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BraarudP. ø. (2000). Subjective task complexity in the control room (No. HWR-621). Halden, Norway: OECD Halden Reactor Project.
2.
BraarudP. ø.SkraaningG.jr. (2006). Insights from a Benchmark Integrated System Validation of a Modernized NPP Control Room: Performance Measurement and the Comparison to the Benchmark System. Paper presented at the 5th International Topical Meeting on Nuclear Instrumentation, Controls, and Human Machine Interface Technology, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
3.
BurnsC. M. (2000a). Navigation strategies with ecological displays. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 52(1), 111–129.
4.
BurnsC. M. (2000b). Putting It All Together: Improving Display Integration in Ecological Displays. Human Factors, 42, 226–241.
5.
BurnsC. M. (2006). Towards proactive monitoring in the petrochemical industry. Safety Science, 44(1), 27–36.
BurnsC. M.JamiesonG. A.SkraaningG.jr.LauN.KwokJ. (2007). Supporting situation awareness through ecological interface design. Proc. of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 205–209.
8.
BurnsC. M.SkraaningG.JrJamiesonG. A.LauN.KwokJ.WelchR. (in review). Evaluation of ecological interface design for nuclear process control: Situation awareness effects. Human Factors.
9.
CosineauD. (2007). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson's method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1(1), 42–45.
10.
HamD. H.YoonW. C. (2001a). Design of Information Content and Layout for Process Control Based on Goal-Means Domain Analysis. Cognition, Technology & Work, 3(4), 205–223.
11.
HamD. H.YoonW. C. (2001b). The effects of presenting functionally abstracted information in fault diagnosis tasks. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 73(2), 103–119.
12.
JamiesonG. A. (2007). Ecological Interface Design for Petrochemical Process Control: An Empirical Assessment. IEEE Trans. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 37(6), 906–920.
13.
JamiesonG. A.MillerC. A.HoW. H.VicenteK. J. (2007). Integrating Task- and Work Domain-based Work Analyses in Ecological Interface Design: A Process Control Case Study. IEEE Trans. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 37(6), 887–905.
14.
KarlssonT.JokstadH.MeyerB. D.NilhlwingC.NorrmanS.PuskaE. K. (2001). OECD Halden Reactor Project: The HAMBO BWR Simulator of HAMMLAB (No. Tech. Rep. HWR-663). Halden, Norway: Institutt for Energiteknikk.
15.
KennedyD. (2007). New nuclear power generation in the UK: Cost benefit analysis. Energy Policy, 35(7), 3701–3716.
16.
LauN.Velandø.KwokJ.JamiesonG. A.BurnsC. M.WelchR. (in review). Ecological Interface Design in the Nuclear Domain: Design and Verification of Displays for the Secondary Subsystems of a Boiling Water Reactor Simulator. IEEE Trans. Nuclear Science.
17.
LiX.SandersonP. M.MemisevicR.WongW. (2007). Adapting Situational Awareness Measures for Hydropower Display Evaluations. Proc. of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 210–214.
18.
MumawR. J.RothE. M.VicenteK. J.BurnsC. M. (2000). There Is More to Monitoring a Nuclear Power Plant than Meets the Eye. Human Factors, 42(1), 36–55.
19.
øwreF.KvalemJ.KarlssonT.NihlwingC. (2002). A New Integrated BWR Supervision and Control System. Paper presented at the Proc. of IEEE 7th Conference on Human Factors and Power Plants.
20.
RasmussenJ. (1969). Man-machine communication in the light of accident records (No. S-1–69). Roskilde, Denmark: Danish Atomic Energy Commission, Research Establishment Risø.
21.
ReasonJ. (1990). Human Error. Cambridge, England Cambridge University Press.
22.
SkraaningG.jr. (2003). Experimental Control versus Realism: Methodological Solutions for Simulator Studies in Complex Operating Environments. (No. HPR-361). Halden, Norway: OECD Halden Reactor Project.
23.
SkraaningG.JrLauN.WelchR.NihlwingC.AndresenG.BrevigL. H. (2007). The Ecological Interface Design Experiment (2005) (No. HWR-847). Halden, Norway: OECD Halden Reactor Project.
24.
TothF. L.RognerH. (2006). Oil and nuclear power: Past, present, and future. Energy Economics, 28, 1–12.
25.
VicenteK. J. (1999). Cognitive work analysis: Toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
26.
VicenteK. J. (2002). Ecological interface design: Progress and challenges. Human Factors, 44(1), 62–78.
27.
VicenteK. J.RasmussenJ. (1992). Ecological interface design: Theoretical foundations. IEEE Trans. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 22(4), 589–606.
28.
WatfordG. (2005). Extended Power Uprates—Plant Modifications Assisting the Global Energy Demand. Paper presented at the World Nuclear Association Annual Symposium 2005. from Available: http://world-nuclear.org/sym/2005/watford.htm.
29.
WoodsD. D.WiseJ. A.HanesL. F. (1981). An evaluation of nuclear plower plant safety paratmeter display systems. Proc. of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 110–114.
30.
World Nuclear Assoc. (2005). WNA Report: The New Economics of Nuclear Power. London, UK.: World Nuclear Assoc.
