Twelve subjects performed a spatial short-term memory task under several levels of difficulty and rated the workload associated with each using the Subjective Workload Assessment Technique (SWAT). SWAT ratings proved sensitive to two of the three difficulty manipulations in the memory task, and demonstrated greater sensitivity in this respect than either of two primary task measures that were employed. The results extend the applicability of SWAT to the type of spatial memory task used and, therefore, provide further support for the general applicability of SWAT as a workload measurement technique.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ChilesW. D.AlluisiE. A.AdamsO. S. (1968). Work schedules and performance during confinement. Human Factors, 10, 143–196.
2.
CooperL. A.ShepardR. N. (1973). Chronometric studies of the rotation of mental images. In ChaseW. G. (Ed.), Visual Information Processing.New York: Academic Press.
3.
EggemeierF. T. (1984). Workload metrics for system evaluation. Proceedings of the Defense Research Group Panel VIII Workshop “Applications of System Ergonomics to Weapon System Development,” Shrivenham, England, C-5–C-20.
4.
EggemeierF. T.CrabtreeM. S.LaPointeP. A. (1983). The effect of delayed report on subjective ratings of mental workload. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 27th Annual Meeting, 139–143.
5.
EggemeierF. T.CrabtreeM. S.ZinggJ. J.ReidG. B.ShingledeckerC. A. (1982). Subjective workload assessment in a memory update task. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 26th Annual Meeting, 643–647.
6.
KrantzD. H.TverskyA. (1971). Conjoint measurement analysis of composition rules in psychology. Psychological Review, 78, 151–169.
7.
MorayN. (1982). Subjective mental workload. Human Factors, 24, 25–40.
8.
NotestineJ. (1983). Subjective workload assessment in a probability monitoring task and the effect of delayed ratings. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio.
9.
NygrenT. E. (1982). Conjoint measurement and conjoint scaling: A users guide. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio: Air Force Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Technical Report AFAMRL-TR-82–22.
10.
ReidG. B.EggemeierF. T.ShingledeckerC. A. (1984). Workload analysis for the AMRAAM operational test and evaluation. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio: Air Force Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory (in preparation).
11.
ReidG. B.ShingledeckerC. A.EggemeierF. T. (1981a). Application of conjoint measurements to workload scale development. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 25th Annual Meeting, 522–526.
12.
ReidG. B.ShingledeckerC. ANygrenT. E.EggemeierF. T. (1981b). Development of multidimensional subjective measures of workload. Proceedings of the 1981 IEEE International Conference on Cybernetics and Society, 403–406.
13.
ShingledeckerC. A. (1983). Behavioral and subjective workload metrics for operational environments. Proceedings of the AGARD (AMP) Symposium on Sustained Intensive Air Operations: Physiological and Performance Aspects, AGARD-CP-338, 6-1–6-10.
14.
SkellyJ. J.ReidG. B.WilsonG. R. (1983). B-52 full mission simulation: Subjective and physiological workload applications. Paper presented at the Second Aerospace Behavioral Engineering Technology Conference, Long Beach, California.
15.
WickensC. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In ParasuramanR.DaviesR. (Eds.), Varieties of Attention.New York: Academic Press.
16.
WierwilleW. W.CasaliJ. G. (1983). A validated rating scale for global mental workload measurement applications. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 27th Annual Meeting, 129–133.
17.
WilligesR. C.WierwilleW. W. (1979). Behavioral measures of aircrew mental workload. Human Factors, 21, 549–574.
