Objective: We determine whether an ecological interface display for nuclear power plant operations supports improved situation awareness over traditional and user-centered displays in a realistic environment. Background: Ecological interface design (EID) has not yet been fully evaluated with real operators facing realistic scenarios. Method: Ecological displays were evaluated alongside traditional and user-centered “advanced” displays in a full-scope nuclear power plant simulation. Licensed plant operators used the displays in realistic scenarios that either had procedural support or did not have procedural support. All three displays were evaluated for their ability to support operator situation awareness. Results: A significant three-way interaction effect was observed on two independent measures of situation awareness. For both measures, ecological displays improved situation awareness in scenarios that did not have procedural support, primarily in the detection phases of those scenarios. No other pronounced effects appeared across both measures. Conclusions: The observed improvement was sufficiently large to suggest that EID could improve situation awareness in situations where procedures are unavailable. However, the EID displays did not lead to improved situation awareness in the other conditions of the evaluation, and participants using these displays occasionally underperformed on single measures of situation awareness. This suggests that the approach requires further development, particularly in integrating EID with procedural support. Application: This research has important findings for the ongoing development of the EID approach, the design of industrial operator displays, and design to support situation awareness.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bennett, K.B., Nagy, A.L., & Flach, J.M. (2006). Visual displays. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 659-696). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
2.
Burns, C.M. (2000). Putting it all together: Improving display integration in ecological displays. Human Factors, 42, 226-241.
3.
Burns, C.M., Garrison, L., & Dinadis, N. (2003). WDA for the petrochemical industry. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 47th Annual Meeting (pp. 258-262). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Endsley, M.R. (1988). Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting (pp. 97-101). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
6.
Endsley, M.R. (1995a). Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37, 65-84.
7.
Endsley, M.R. (1995b). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37, 32-64.
Flach, J. (1995). Situation awareness: Proceed with caution. Human Factors, 37, 149-157.
10.
Flach, J., & Rasmussen, J. (2000). Cognitive engineering: Designing for situation awareness. In N. Sarter & R. Amalberti (Eds.), Cognitive engineering in the aviation domain (pp. 153-179). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11.
Garabet, A., & Burns, C.M. (2004). Collaboration with ecological interface design . In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting (pp. 543-546). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
12.
Hancock, P.A., & Smith, K. (1995). Situation awareness is adaptive, externally directed guidance. Human Factors, 37, 137-148.
13.
Hauss, Y., & Eyferth, K. (2003). Securing futureATM-concepts' safety by measuring situation awareness in ATC. Aerospace Science and Technology , 7, 417-427.
14.
Hogg, D.N., Follesø, K., Strand-Volden, F., & Torralba, B. (1995). Development of a situation awareness measure to evaluate advanced alarm systems in nuclear power plant control rooms. Ergonomics, 38, 2394-2413.
15.
Jamieson, G.A. (2007). Ecological interface design for petrochemical process control: An empirical assessment. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 37, 906-920.
16.
Jamieson, G.A., Ho, W.H., Miller, C.M., & Vicente, K.J. (2007). Integrating task- and work domain-based work analyses in ecological interface design: A process control case study. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 37, 887-905.
17.
Jones, D.G., & Endsley, M.R. (1996). Sources of situation awareness errors in aviation . Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 67, 507-512.
18.
Kirk, R.E. (1995). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: BrooksCole.
19.
Kwok, J. (2007). Ecological interface design for turbine secondary systems in a nuclear power plant: Effects on operator situation awareness . Unpublished master's thesis. Systems Design Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.
20.
Lang, A.W., Roth, E.M., Bladh, K., & Hine, R. (2002). Using a benchmark-referenced approach for validating a power plant control room: Results of the baseline study. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46th Annual Meeting (pp. 1878-1882). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society .
21.
Lau , N., Jamieson, G.A., Skraaning, G., Jr., & Burns, C.M. (in press). Providing operator support through monitoring for unanticipated events through ecological interface design. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Canadian Nuclear Society. Toronto, Canada: Canadian Nuclear Society / Société Nucléaire Canadienne. To be available from http://www.cns-snc.ca
22.
Lau, N., Veland, O., Kwok, J., Jamieson, G.A., Burns, C.M., Welch, R., et al. (in press). Ecological interface design for the secondary subsystems of a boiling water reactor. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science .
23.
Li, X., Sanderson, P., Memisevic, R., & Wong, W. (2007). Adapting situational awareness measures for hydropower display evaluations. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 51st Annual Meeting (pp. 210-214). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society .
24.
Momtahan, K.L., Burns, C.M., Sherrard, H., Mesana, T., & Labinaz, M. (2007). Using personal digital assistants and patient care algorithms to improve access to cardiac care best practices. Medinfo, 12(Pt. 1), 117-121.
25.
Neal, A., Griffin, M.A., Paterson, J., & Bordia, P. (2000). Development of measures of situation awareness, task performance, and contextual performance in air traffic control. In A. R. Lowe & B. J. Hayward (Eds.), Aviation resource management: Proceedings of the Fourth Australian Aviation Psychology Symposium (Vol. 2, pp. 305-314). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
26.
O'Brien, K.S., & O'Hare, D. (2007). Situational awareness ability and cognitive skills training in a complex real-world task. Ergonomics, 50, 1064-1091.
27.
Pawlak, W.S., & Vicente, K.J. (1996). Inducing effective operator control through ecological interface design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 44, 653-688.
28.
Pew, R.W. (1995). Experimental analysis and measurement of situation awareness. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Experimental Analysis and Measurement of Situation Awareness (pp. 7-15). Daytona Beach, FL: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Press.
29.
Pew, R.W. (2000). The state of situation awareness measurement: Heading toward the next century. In M. R. Endsley & D. J. Garland (Eds.), Situation awareness analysis and measurement (pp. 33-47). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30.
Rasmussen, J. (1983). Skills, rules, knowledge: Signals, signs, and symbols and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 13, 257-266.
31.
Rasmussen, J. (1985). The role of hierarchical knowledge representation in decision making and system management. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 15, 234-243.
32.
Reising, D.V.C., & Sanderson, P.M. (2002). Work domain analysis and sensors: II. Pasteurizer II case study. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56, 597-637.
33.
Roth, E.M., Lin, L., Kerch, S., Kenney, S., & Sugibayashi, N. (2001). Designing a first-of-a-kind group view display for team decision making: Acase study. In E. Salas & G. Klein (Eds.), Linking expertise and naturalistic decision making (pp. 113-135). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .
34.
Rousseau, R., Tremblay, S., & Breton, R. (2004). Defining and modeling situation awareness: A critical review. In S. Banbury & S. Tremblay (Eds.), A cognitive approach to situation awareness: Theory and application (pp. 3-21). Hampshire , UK: Ashgate.
35.
Sarter, N.B., & Woods, D.D. (1995). How in the world did we ever get into that mode? Mode error and awareness in supervisory control. Human Factors , 37, 5-19.
36.
Skraaning, G., Jr. (1998). The Operator Performance Assessment System (OPAS) (Halden Work Rep. 538). Halden, Norway: OECD Halden Reactor Project. (Available from Gyrd Skraaning, Jr., gyrds@hrp.no)
37.
Skraaning, G., Jr. (2003). Experimental control versus realism: Methodological solutions for simulator studies in complex operating environments (OECD Halden Reactor Project, HPR-361/doctoral dissertation, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway). Halden, Norway: OECD Halden Reactor Project.
38.
Skraaning, G., Jr., Lau, N., Welch , R., Nihlwing, C., Andresen, G., Brevig, L.H., et al. (2007 ). The ecological interface design experiment (2005) (Halden Work Rep. 833). Halden, Norway: OECD Halden Reactor Project. (Available from Gyrd Skraaning, Jr., gyrds@hrp.no)
39.
Skraaning, G., Jr., & Nihlwing, C. (2008). The impact of graphically enhanced mimic displays on operator task performance and situation awareness (Halden Work Rep. 871) . Halden, Norway: OECD Halden Reactor Project. (Available from Gyrd Skraaning, Jr., gyrds@hrp.no)
40.
Vicente, K.J. (2002). Ecological interface design: Progress and challenges . Human Factors, 44, 62-78.
41.
Vicente, K., & Rasmussen, J. (1992). Ecological interface design: Theoretical foundations . IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 22, 1-18.
