We present a conceptual foundation and empirical framework for modeling cognitive complexity in cyber range event operating environments. Definitions of key concepts, such as cognitive complexity, task difficulty, and Blue Team cognitive workload, are informed by the literature of human factor engineering. This is followed by an approach to assessing cognitive complexity as experienced by a Blue Team in a given cyber range event operating environment, and a validation of that assessment method.
DamodaranSKCouretasJM. Cyber modeling & simulation for cyber-range events. In: proceedings of summer computer simulation conference, Chicago, IL, 26–29 July 2015. San Diego, CA: Society for Computer Simulation International.
2.
WrightCVConnellyCBrajeT, et al. Generating client workloads and high-fidelity network traffic for controllable, repeatable experiments in computer security. In: proceedings of recent advances in intrusion detection, 2010, pp. 218–237.
3.
DamodaranSKSmithK.CRIS cyber range lexicon. Version 1.0 Report Number 59–0001, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, 2015.
4.
ChristensenLBJohnsonRBTurnerLA.Research methods, design, and analysis. London: Pearson, 2014.
5.
WickensCDHollandsJGBanburyS, et al. Engineering psychology and human performance. 4th ed.London: Pearson, 2013.
6.
ThomasJCRichardsJT.Achieving psychological simplicity: measures and methods to reduce cognitive complexity. In: Human–computer interaction handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2012.
7.
RasmussenJ.On the structure of knowledge - a morphology of mental models in a man-machine system context. Technical Report RISOE-M-2192, Risoe National Lab, Roskilde Denmark, 1979.
8.
WoodsDD. Coping with complexity: the psychology of human behaviour in complex systems. In: Tasks, errors, and mental models. London: Taylor & Francis, Inc., 1988.
9.
OrvisKA.HornDBBelanichJ.The roles of task difficulty and prior videogame experience on performance and motivation in instructional videogames. Comput Hum Behav2008; 24 (5): 2415–2433.
10.
ArtsteinRPoesioM.Inter-coder agreement for computational linguistics. Comput Linguist2008; 34 (4): 555–596.
11.
CooperGEHarperRP.The use of pilot ratings in the evaluation of aircraft handling qualities. Technical Report NASA TN-D-5153, NASA Ames, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, 1969.
12.
WierwilleWWCasaliJG. A validated rating scale for global mental workload measurement applications. In: proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, 1 January 1983, pp.129–133. London: Sage Publications.
13.
HartSGStavelandLE.Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Human mental workload. Amsterdam: North Holland Press, 1988, pp.239–250.
14.
HillSGIavecchiaHPByersJC, et al. Comparison of four subjective workload rating scales. Hum Factor1992; 34: 429–439.
