In aircraft ground handling, ramp agents manage the teams on the airport apron who prepare aircraft for the next takeoff. We examined the impact of using auditory and visual notification cues (NC) in an information system for supporting ramp agents, measuring the users’ situation awareness (SA), task performance, and perceived ease of use. Eighty-eight participants took part in a laboratory experiment and performed a realistic dispatching task of a ramp agent. Results showed that auditory cues facilitate superior SA compared with the application of visual cues or their absence. Our findings may serve as a foundation for future work aiming to design more effective notification systems to support SA.
AddasS.PinsonneaultA. (2015). The many faces of information technology interruptions: A taxonomy and preliminary investigation of their performance effects. Information Systems Journal, 25, 231–273.
2.
AkamatsuM.MacKenzieI. S.HasbroucqT. (1995). A comparison of tactile, auditory, and visual feedback in a pointing task using a mouse-type device. Ergonomics, 38, 816–827.
3.
BaileyB. P.KonstanJ. A. (2006). On the need for attention-aware systems: Measuring effects of interruption on task performance, error rate, and affective state. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 685–708.
4.
BlissJ. P.LiebmanR.BrillJ. C. (2010). Alert modality and behavioral compliance during virtual combat. In Human Factors Society: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting (pp. 2373–2377).
5.
BoltonG. E.OckenfelsA.ThonemannU. W. (2012). Managers and students as newsvendors. Management Science, 58, 2225–2233.
6.
BrewsterS. A. (1998). Using non-speech sounds to provide navigation cues. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 5, 224–259.
7.
BrewsterS. A.WrightP. C.EdwardsA. D. N. (1994). The design and evaluation of an auditory-enhanced scrollbar. In AdelsonB.DumaisS.OlsenJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 173–179). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
8.
CalvoM. G. (2001). Working memory and inferences: Evidence from eye fixations during reading. Memory, 9, 365–381.
9.
ColquittJ. A. (2008). From the editors: Publishing laboratory research in AMJ—A question of when, not if. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 616–620.
10.
CutrellE.CzerwinskiM.HorvitzE. (2001). Notification, disruption and memory: Effects of messaging interruptions on memory and performance. In HiroseM. (Ed.), Proceedings of Interact 2001: IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 263–269). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
11.
DavisF. D.BagozziR. P.WarshawP. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 982–1003.
12.
EdworthyJ.LoxleyS. (1990). Auditory warning design: The ergonomics of perceived urgency. In LoveseyE. J. (Ed.), Contemporary ergonomics 1990 (pp. 384–388). London, England: Taylor & Francis.
13.
EndsleyM. R. (1988). Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique (SAGAT). In Proceedings of the National Aerospace and Electronics Conference (pp. 789–795). New York, NY: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
14.
EndsleyM. R. (1995a). Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37, 65–84.
15.
EndsleyM. R. (1995b). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37, 32–64.
16.
EndsleyM. R. (2000). Direct measurement of situation awareness: Validity and use of SAGAT development of queries. In EndsleyM. R.GarlandD. J. (Eds.), Situation awareness analysis and measurement (pp. 147–173). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
EndsleyM. R.ConnorsE. S. (2008). Situation awareness: State of the art. In Power and energy society general meeting—Conversion and delivery of electrical energy in the 21st century (pp. 1–4). New York, NY: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
18.
EndsleyM. R.JonesD. G. (2012). Designing for situation awareness: An approach to user-centered design (2nd ed.). London, England: Taylor & Francis.
19.
GoldbergJ.HelfmanJ. (2011). Eye tracking for visualization evaluation: Reading values on linear versus radial graphs. Information Visualization, 10, 182–195.
HartelC. E. J.SmithK.PrinceC. (1991, April). Defining aircrew coordination: Searching mishaps for meaning. Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, OH.
23.
HoC.-Y.NikolicM. I.WatersM. J.SarterN. B. (2004). Not now! Supporting interruption management by indicating the modality and urgency of pending tasks. Human Factors, 46, 399–409.
24.
HoggR. V.McKeanJ. W.CraigA. T. (2005). Introduction to mathematical statistics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
25.
IqbalS. T.HorvitzE. (2010). Notifications and awareness: A field study of alert usage and preferences. In InkpenK.GutwinC.TangJ.(Chairs), Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 27–30). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
26.
JacobR. J. K.KarnK. S. (2003). Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: Ready to deliver the promises. In HyonaJ.RadachR.DeubelH. (Eds.), The mind’s eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 573–605). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Science.
27.
JonesD. G.EndsleyM. R. (1996). Sources of situation awareness errors in aviation. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 67, 507–512.
28.
JonidesJ. (1981). Voluntary versus automatic control over the mind’s eye’s movement. In LongJ. B.BaddeleyA. D. (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 187–203). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29.
KatokE. (2011). Using laboratory experiments to build better operations management models. Technology, Information and Operations Management, 5, 1–86.
30.
KirkR. E. (2012). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
31.
KoschT.KettnerR.FunkM.SchmidtA. (2016). Comparing tactile, auditory, and visual assembly error-feedback for workers with cognitive impairments. In FengJ. H.HuenerfauthM(Chairs)Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (pp. 53–60). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
32.
LatorellaK. A. (1998). Effects of modality on interrupted flight deck performance: Implications for data link. In Human Factors Society:Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 87–91). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
33.
LimbourgS.SchynsM.LaporteG. (2012). Automatic aircraft cargo load planning. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 63, 1271–1283.
34.
McFarlaneD. (2002). Comparison of four primary methods for coordinating the interruption of people in human-computer interaction. Human-Computer Interaction, 17, 63–139.
35.
MeservyT. O.JensenM. L.FadelK. J. (2014). Evaluation of competing candidate solutions in electronic networks of practice. Information Systems Research, 25, 15–34.
36.
MooreK.GugertyL. (2010). Development of a novel measure of situation awareness: The case for eye movement analysis. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting, 54 (19), 1650–1654. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/154193121005401961
37.
MorrellP. S. (2011). Moving boxes by the air: The economics of international air cargo. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
38.
MorrisR. W.MontanoS. R. (1996). Response times to visual and auditory alarms during anaesthesia. Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, 24, 682–684.
39.
SalmonP.StantonN.LadvaD. P.JenkinsD. P.WalkerG.RaffertyL. (2007). Measuring situation awareness during command and control activity: Comparison of measures study. In Human factors integration defence technology centre (pp. 1–66).
40.
SalmonP.StantonN.WalkerG.GreenD. (2006). Situation awareness measurement: A review of applicability for C4i environments. Applied Ergonomics, 37, 225–238.
41.
SalmonP.StantonN.WalkerG.JenkinsD. P.LadvaD.RaffertyL.YoungM. (2009). Measuring situation awareness in complex systems: Comparison of measures study. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 39, 490–500.
42.
ScottJ. J.GrayR. (2008). A comparison of tactile, visual, and auditory warnings for rear-end collision prevention in simulated driving. Human Factors, 50, 264–275.
43.
SpeierC.ValacichJ. S.VesseyI. (1999). Information overload through interruptions: An empirical examination of decision making. Decision Sciences, 30, 337–360.
44.
StorchN. A. (1992). Does the user interface make interruptions disruptive? A study of interface style and form of interruption. Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
45.
StreefkerkJ. W.McCrickardD. S.van Esch-BussemakersM. P.NeerincxM. A. (2012). Balancing awareness and interruption in mobile patrol using context-aware notification. International Journal of Mobile Human Computer Interaction, 4(3), 1–27.
46.
TaylorS.ToddP. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6, 144–176.
47.
VenkateshV. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information Systems Research, 11, 342–365.
48.
VitenseH. S.JackoJ.EmeryV. K. (2003). Multimodal feedback: An assessment of performance and mental workload. Ergonomics, 46(1–3), 68–87.
49.
WickensC. D. (2008). Situation awareness: Review of Mica Endsley’s 1995 articles on SA theory and measurement. Human Factors, 50, 397–403.
50.
WickensC. D.HollandsJ. G. (1999). Engineering psychology and human performance (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
51.
WixomB. H.ToddP. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research, 16, 85–102.
52.
WoodsD. D. (1995). The alarm problem and directed attention in dynamic fault management. Ergonomics, 38, 2371–2393.
53.
WrightM. C.TaekmanJ. M.EndsleyM. R. (2004). Objective measures of situation awareness in a simulated medical environment. Quality & Safety in Health Care, 13(Suppl. 1), i65–i71.
