Objective: The primary contribution of this work is the development of an abstract framework to which a variety of multitasking scenarios can be mapped. The metaphor of a juggler spinning plates was introduced to represent an operator performing multiple concurrent tasks. Background: This allowed seeking a quantitative model for management of multiple continuous tasks instead of a model for completing multiple discrete tasks, which was considered in previous studies. Methods: The multitasking performance of 10 participants in five scenarios was measured in a low-fidelity simulator (named Tardast), which was developed based on the concept of the juggler metaphor. This performance was then compared with a normative model, which was a near-optimal solution to a mathematical programming problem found by tabu search heuristics. Results: Tabu outperformed the participants overall, although the best individual performance nearly equaled that of tabu. It was also observed that participants initially tended to manage numerous tasks poorly but that they gradually learned to handle fewer tasks and excel in them. Conclusion: This suggests that they initially overreacted to the penalization associated with poor performance in the software. Participants' strategic task management (e.g., what tasks to handle) was more significant in obtaining a good score than their tactical task management (e.g., how often to switch between two tasks). Application: Potential applications include better design of equipment, procedures, and training of operators of complex systems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Air Force Office of Scientific Research. ( 2007). AFOSR Research Interest Brochure and Broad Agency Announcement 2007-1. Retrieved January 15, 2007, from http://www.afosr.af.mil/pdfs/afosr_baa_2007_1.pdf
2.
Carbonell, J.R., Ward, J.L., & Senders, J.W. (1968). A queuing model of visual sampling: Experimental validation. IEEE Transactions on Man-Machine Systems, 9(3), 82-87.
3.
Chou, C., Madhavan, D., & Funk, K. (1996). Studies of cockpit task management errors. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 6, 307-320.
4.
Chu, Y.-Y., & Rouse, W.B. (1979). Adaptive allocation of decision making responsibility between human and computer in multitask situations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 9, 769-777.
5.
Dessouky, M.I., Moray, N., & Kijowski, B. (1995). Taxonomy of scheduling systems as a basis for the study of strategic behavior. Human Factors, 37, 443-472.
6.
Glover, F. (1990). Tabu search: A tutorial. Interfaces , 20, 74-94.
7.
Gray, W.D., & Fu, W.-T. (2004). Soft constraints in interactive behavior: The case of ignoring perfect knowledge in-the-world for imperfect knowledge in-the-head . Cognitive Science, 28, 359-382.
8.
Greenstein, J.S., & Rouse, W.B. (1982). A model of human decision making in multiple process monitoring situations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 12, 182-193.
9.
Hillier, S.H., & Lieberman, G.J. (2005). Introduction to operations research (8th ed.). New York : McGraw-Hill.
10.
Kleinman, D.L., Baron, S., & Levision, W.H. (1970). Optimal control model of human response: Part I. Theory and validation. Automatica , 6, 357-369.
11.
McRuer, D. (1980). Human dynamics in man-machine systems. Automatica, 16, 237-253.
12.
Moray, N., Dessouky, M.I., Kijowski, B.A., & Adapathya, R. (1991). Strategic behavior, workload, and performance in task scheduling. Human Factors, 33, 607-629.
13.
National Research Council. (1998). Attention and Multitasking. In R. W. Pew & A. S. Mavor (Eds.), Modeling human and organizational behavior: Applications to military simulations (pp. 112-128). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
14.
Pattipati, K.R., & Kleinman, D.L. (1991). A review of the engineering models of information-processing and decision-making in multi-task supervisory control. In D. L. Damos (Ed.), Multiple task performance (pp. 35-68). London: Taylor & Francis.
15.
Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R., & Johnson, E.J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. New York: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Rouse, W.B. (1980). Systems engineering models of human-machine interaction . New York: Elsevier/North Holland .
17.
Shakeri, S. (2003). A mathematical modeling framework for scheduling and managing multiple concurrent tasks. Unpublished doctoral dissertation , Oregon State University, Corvallis .
18.
Shakeri, S., & Funk, K. (2003). A comparison between humans and mathematical search-based solutions in managing multiple concurrent tasks. In 2003 IIE Annual Conference Proceedings [CD-ROM]. Norcross, GA: Institute of Industrial Engineers.
19.
Shakeri, S., & Logendran, R. (2007). A mathematical programming-based scheduling framework for multitasking environments. European Journal of Operational Research, 176, 193-209.
20.
Tulga, M.K., & Sheridan, T.B. (1980). Dynamic decisions and workload in multitask supervisory control. IEEE Transaction on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 10, 217-232.
21.
Walden, R.S., & Rouse, W.B. (1978). A queuing model of pilot decision making in a multitask flight management situation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 8, 867-874.
22.
Wickens, C.D., Lee, J., Liu, Y.D., & Gordon-Becker, S.E. (2004). An introduction to human factors engineering (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/ Prentice Hall.
