The accomplishment model of average mental workload - a formal axiomatic measurement theory - was used as a basis for developing and testing secondary task indices of mental workload (H. A. Colle & G. B. Reid, 1997). Its cancellation axiom implies global sensitivity, which is an important theoretical and practical criterion for mental workload indices. Performance levels of different secondary tasks were empirically equated in mental workload and then used to test the cancellation axiom. Cognitive processing similarity - including orthographic, phonemic, and semantic processing of pairs of operator and secondary tasks - was manipulated in three experiments. Equivalencies between secondary tasks were independent of secondary-operator task similarity, consistent with the cancellation axiom and the global sensitivity of these secondary tasks. The results suggest that standardized secondary task techniques can be developed for the practical measurement of mental workload. Actual or potential applications of this research include the development of functionally useful and realistic secondary task measures of mental workload.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559.
2.
Battig, W. F., & Montague, W. E. (1969). Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut category norms. Journal of Experimental Psychology Monographs, 80 (3–2).
3.
Broadbent, D. E. (1971). Decision and stress.New York: Academic.
4.
Checkosky, S. F. (1971). Speeded classification of multidimensional stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 87, 383–388.
5.
Colle, H. A., Amell, J. R., Ewry, M. E., & Jenkins, M. L. (1988). Capacity equivalence curves: A double trade-off curve method for equating task performance. Human Factors, 30, 645–656.
6.
Colle, H. A., & Reid, G. B. (1997). A framework for mental workload research and applications using formal measurement theory. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 1, 303–313.
7.
Friedman, A., & Polson, M. C. (1981). The hemispheres of an independent resource-system: Limited capacity processing and cerebral organization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 1031–1058.
8.
Gopher, D., & Donchin, E. (1986). Workload - An examination of the concept. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas(Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance: Vol. 2. Cognitive processes and performance (pp. 41/1–41/49). New York: Wiley.
9.
Hancock, P. A., & Caird, J. K. (1993). Experimental evaluation of a model of mental workload. Human Factors, 35, 413–429.
10.
Hendy, K. C., Liao, J., & Milgram, P. (1997). Combining time and intensity effects in assessing operator information-processing load. Human Factors, 39, 30–47.
11.
Knowles, W. B. (1963). Operator loading tasks. Human Factors, 5, 155–161.
12.
Krantz, D. H., Luce, R. D., Suppes, P., & Tversky, A. (1971). Foundations of measurement (Vol. 1). New York: Academic.
13.
Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 227–234.
14.
Norman, D. A., & Bobrow, D. J. (1975). On data limited and resources limited processes. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 44–64.
15.
O'Donnell, R. D., & Eggemeier, F. T. (1986). Workload assessment methodology. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas(Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance: Vol. 2. Cognitive processes and performance (pp. 42/1–42/49). New York: Wiley.
16.
Pavur, E. J., Jr., & Kausler, D. H. (1974). Rated graphics distinctiveness of consonants. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 5, 23–26.
17.
Polson, M. C., Wickens, C. D., Klapp, S. T., & Colle, H. A. (1989). Human interactive informational processes. In P. A. Hancock & M. H. Chignell(Eds.), Intelligent interfaces: Theory, research and design (pp. 129–164). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
18.
Posner, M. I. (1969). Abstraction and the process of recognition. In G. B. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation III (pp. 43–100). New York: Academic.
19.
Pugh, K. R., Shaywitz, B. A., Shaywitz, S. E., Constable, R. T., Skudlarski, P., Fulbright, R. K., Bronen, R. A., Shankweiler, D. P., Katz, L., Fletcher, J. M., & Gore, J. C. (1996). Cerebral organization of component processes in reading. Brain, 119, 1221–1238.
20.
Reid, G. B., & Nygren, T. E. (1988). The Subjective Workload Assessment Techniques: A scaling procedure for measuring mental workload. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati(Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 185–218). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
21.
Schweichert, R., & Boggs, G. J. (1984). Models of central capacity and concurrency. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 28, 223–281.
22.
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.
23.
Shingledecker, C. A. (1984). A task battery for applied human performance assessment research (Tech. Report AFAMRL-TR-84-071). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory.
24.
Thorndike, E. L., & Lorge, I. (1944). The teacher's word book of 30,000 words.New York: Columbia University, Teachers College, Bureau of Publication.
25.
Timm, N. H. (1975). Multivariate analysis with application in education and psychology.Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
26.
Townsend, J. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1978). Methods of modeling capacity in simple processing systems. In J. Castellan & F. Restle(Eds.), Cognitive theory (Vol. 3, pp. 199–239). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27.
Verwey, W. B., & Veltman, H. A. (1996). Detecting short periods of elevated workload: A comparison of nine workload assessment techniques. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2, 270–285.
28.
Wickens, C. D. (1980). The structure of attentional resources. In R. Nickerson & R. Pew(Eds.), Attention and performance VIII (pp. 239–257). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29.
Wierwille, W. W., & Eggemeier, F. T. (1993). Recommendations for mental workload measurement in a test and evaluation environment. Human Factors, 35, 263–281.
