External and internal attentional environments I. The utilization of cardiac deceleratory and acceleratory response data for evaluating differences in mental workload between machine-paced and self-paced work ∗

Salvendy, Gavriel; Deisenroth, Michael P.

doi:10.1080/00140138208924931

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this respect the present findings are consistent with other experimental work that has failed to demonstrate strong main effects of pacing on a variety of outcome measures (e.g., Coury and Drury, 1986;Cox, Mackay, and Page, 1982;Damos, 1985;Johansson, 1981;Salvendy, 1981;Sharit, Salvendy, and Deisenroth, 1982). However, equivocal overall results do not necessarily imply that nonsignificant findings apply to all subjects under all circumstances; as Beith (1981) suggests, weak main effects of pacing may indicate that individual differences and system factors act as moderator variables.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…However, Sharit et al (1982) tested the hypothesis that mental load (as indicated by changes in cardiac response) would be greater under Sop conditions (because of the need for operators to regulate their own work pace) than under equivalent M-P conditions. The results did not support this hypothesis; instead, it appeared that M-P conditions gave rise to a greater requirement for cognitive processing.…”

Section: Congruence Incongruence and Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Work Preferences as Moderators of the Effects of Paced and Unpaced Work on Mood and Cognitive Performance: A Laboratory Simulation of Mechanized Letter Sorting

1990

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article describes a laboratory study of work preferences (ideal job demand and discretion levels) as moderators of the effects of paced and unpaced work on cognitive and affective responses. Posttest measures of cognitive performance and self-reported stress and arousal were used as outcome measures with covariance control for the corresponding pretest values. The experimental design allowed within-subjects contrasts of fast versus slow pacing and of machine-paced versus self-paced conditions. Self-paced performance compared favorably with machine-paced performance; however, individual differences in ideal demand influenced the relative speed of work under the two conditions. Work preferences also moderated relationships between pacing and outcome measures; ideal discretion moderated machine-pacing versus self-pacing effects in relation to cognitive performance and stress, and ideal demand moderated fast versus slow pacing effects in relation to arousal. These findings are discussed in relation to existing literature on pacing and on person-environment fit.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Congruence Incongruence and Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Work Preferences as Moderators of the Effects of Paced and Unpaced Work on Mood and Cognitive Performance: A Laboratory Simulation of Mechanized Letter Sorting

1990

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rather than a single static value, mental workload could vary from moment to moment in the process of events (Audley, Rouse, Senders, & Sheridan, 1979;Madni & Lyman, 1983;Rouse, 1979;Rouse, Edward, & Hammer, 1993). Most of the physiological measures are instantaneous values of workload, as reported in and Sharit, Salvendy, and Deisenroth (1982). Other workload assessment techniques, such as subjective measures and performance measure, can also be used to assess the instantaneous workload, or, at least, the short-period workload (Antin & Wierwille, 1984;Verwey & Veltman, 1996;Wierwille, 1981).…”

Section: Mental Workload Predictionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Prediction of Mental Workload in Single and Multiple Tasks Environments

Xie¹,

Salvendy²

2000

International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics

Self Cite

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research aimed to develop and validate a practical framework for predicting mental workload in both single-and multitask environments with particular consideration of individual factors. To describe mental workload more precisely and completely, a framework for mental workload measures, containing instantaneous workload, average workload, accumulated workload, peak workload, and overall workload was proposed. To model individual factors, 2 new variables (effective workload and ineffective workload) were introduced to conceptually model task-and individual-generated workloads. Under the conceptual model, the operational models for predicting human mental workload for human-computer interaction tasks were developed. The model used a multidimensional approach and allowed the quantification of different aspects of load. Two experimental studies were conducted to validate the proposed model. The results revealed that (a) the framework, which consisted of average workload, accumulated workload, and instantaneous workload could describe workload more precisely than a single overall workload; (b) the proposed mental workload model, which explained 42% of the variance associated with NASA-Task Load index subjective mental workload ratings and explained 78% of the variance associated with performance time, was supported and could be used to predict mental workload; (c) the relationships between the effective/ineffective workload and the 4 independent variables were partially validated. The results showed that both task-related factors and individual-related factors could significantly affect mental workload; (d) mental workload was significantly affected by time pressure. The workload in a self-paced multitask environment was 29% lower than the workload in a system-paced multitask environment in the experiment. The workload in a self-paced, multitask environment was 19% lower than the workload in a system-paced, single-task environment.

show abstract

“…En la figura 3.28 la curva representa la carga instantánea a través del tiempo. La mayoría de las medidas fisiológicas representan valores de carga instantánea Sharit, Salvendy y Deisenroth, 1982). Otras técnicas de evaluación, como las medidas subjetivas y de rendimiento, pueden ser utilizadas como medidas de carga instantánea o por lo menos como medidas de carga durante un periodo corto de tiempo (Wierwille, 1981;Antin y Wierwille, 1984;Verwey y Veltman, 1996).…”

Section: Atributos De La Carga Mentalunclassified

Evaluación de la carga mental en tareas de control: técnicas subjetivas y medidas de exigencia

Dalmau Pons

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

En la tesis, planteada desde la perspectiva de la prevención de riesgos laborales, se analizan las ventajas e inconvenientes de diversos métodos vigentes para la evaluación de la carga mental en puestos de trabajo cuyo objetivo preferente son tareas de supervisión y control. Se comparan técnicas subjetivas (FPSICO, ISTAS21, NASATLX) y medidas de exigencia (LEST, RNUR, EWA, PYMES), y se propone un nuevo método (CM6) para la evaluación de las consecuencias de un nivel inadecuado de carga mental. En los primeros capítulos se realiza una revisión de la evolución del concepto de carga mental. A partir de los años cincuenta del siglo XX, las investigaciones sobre carga mental se centraron en generar modelos. Des de la visión estructural de filtro único (Broadbent, 1958; Treisman, 1964), de canal (Welford, 1959) o de recurso (Kahneman, 1973; Norman y Bobrow, 1975), a una visión más compleja y multidimensional del proceso, planteando recursos múltiples (Navon y Gopher, 1979; Sanders, 1983; Wickens, 1984) en el que se propone un perfil de carga que agrupa las distintas variables identificadas hasta el momento como componentes de la carga mental. El concepto de carga mental es intuitivo y fácil de comprender pero, a su vez, difícil de concretar, lo que ha dificultado la definición de su metodología de evaluación. Aún así existe un gran acuerdo entre los expertos en que la forma más adecuada para medirla dependerá del propósito de dicha evaluación. Para la mayoría de situaciones se recomienda la combinación de diversos tipos de medida como el procedimiento más preciso y completo. Las metodologías de evaluación de la carga mental han sido clasificadas en cinco grupos en función de la naturaleza de los datos recogidos: medidas de rendimiento, técnicas psicofisiológicas, métodos analíticos, medidas de exigencia y técnicas subjetivas. En la tesis se analizan los resultados obtenidos al evaluar la carga mental y los factores psicosociales en un hospital y en una empresa farmacéutica con técnicas subjetivas y medidas de exigencia. Los resultados obtenidos, pueden resumirse en: - Los métodos FPSICO e ISTAS21 no pueden ser considerados equivalentes. En general, en los factores relacionados con la carga mental se obtuvieron perfiles sensiblemente distintos y elevados, aunque las respuestas a los ítems correspondientes a carga mental no resultaron ser muy distintas. Los niveles de carga mental con el método NASA-TLX también fueron elevados. - Entre las medidas de exigencia (LEST, RNUR, EWA y PYMES) existen bastantes semejanzas sobre el contenido que se pretende evaluar como carga mental, aunque difieren en su grado precisión. Al administrar estos métodos se observan diferencias importantes en los resultados obtenidos: en general el nivel de gravedad asociado al puesto es distinto según el método aplicado. - El método CM6 recoge las aportaciones -sobre todo las referentes al procesamiento cognitivo- de métodos previos (las medidas de exigencia, y el método EPT-PSICOVAR y EPPFA descritos en el capítulo cinco), y propone una reorganización conceptual de lo facstores de carga mental. Se compone de 6 factores: Atención, Decisión, Respuesta, Error, Entorno organizativo y Entorno físico. Cuatro de estos recogen la carga de tarea mental (incluida la exigencia temporal) uno recoge las condiciones organizativas (factores psicosociales), y el último las condiciones físicas (condiciones ambientales y de exigencia física). Los resultados obtenidos permiten apuntar que se trata de un método que presenta una importante sensibilidad en la medida y un elevado poder diagnóstico y validez, características especialmente importantes para evaluar la carga mental y orientar la definición de propuestas de acción preventiva específica. In this Phd, aimed at preventing occupational risks, we analyze the advantages and drawbacks of several methods used for assessing mental workload in workplaces with control and supervision tasks. We compare subjective techniques (FPSICO, ISTAS 21, NASA-TLX) and measures of demand (LEST, RNUR, EWA, PYMES). Furthermore, we propose a new method -the CM6-, to assess the consequences of an inappropriate level of mental workload. In the first chapters of the study we review the evolution of the litterature on mental workload. Since the 1950's, research tried to define models of this phenomenon. The 'single filter' models of Broadbent (1958) and Treisman (1964), the 'canal' model of Welford (1959), and the 'resource' models of Kahneman (1973) and Norman & Bobrow (1975) tended to compare mental workload to a structure. More recent models give a more complex, multidimensional vision of mental workload, in which 'multiple resources' generate a 'load profile' made of several variables that compose mental workload. Among these models we can state the ones from Navon and Gopher (1979), Sanders (1983), and Wickens (1984). As far as assessment methods are concerned, they have proved difficult to design, as mental workload -while being an easy-to-understand idea- is difficult to define with the appropriate level of precision. Nevertheless, there is widespread agreement about the fact that the most appropriate way to measure mental workload depends on the aim of such assessment. For most situations, experts recommend to combine several kinds of measurements as the best way to get a complete vision of mental workload. These measurements have been classified into five groups according to the typology of the obtained data: we have thus performance measurements, psychophysiological techniques, analytical methods, measures of demand, and subjective techniques. The following chapters of the PhD present an assessment of mental workload and psychosocial factors made with subjective techniques in a hospital and in a pharmaceutical factory. Results can be summarized as follows: -The FPSICO and ISTAS21 methods cannot be considered as equivalent: the profiles of the elements that, in these methods, relate to mental workload proved to be sensibly different (even though the answers to the items more explicitly related to mental workload proved not to be very different). Both methods showed both a high level of mental workload in the analyzed workplaces, this last point being also confirmed when applying of the NASA-TLX method. -While the LEST, RNUR, EWA and PYMES methods which assess demand- take into account more or less the same elements as being related to mental workload, they measure them with different levels of precision. When applied to the hospital and the pharmaceutical factory, these methods showed very different results: the 'danger level' of a given workplace changed significantly according to the method employed. Finally, the last chapters of the PhD present a new method that we propose to assess mental workload, the CM6, and analyze the results of applying it in the hospital and the pharmaceutical factory together with the previously mentioned methods. CM6 takes into account the most recent findings of litterature, especially those on cognitive processing, and draws up particularly on the findings of the EPT PSICOVAR and EPPFA methods. CM6 proposes a new arrangement of the elements related to mental workload: Attention, Decision, Response, Error, Organizational environment, and Physical environment. The first four elements are meant to explicitly assess mental workload, and include time demands; the fifth element evaluates organizational conditions (psychosocial factors); and the sixth component assesses both physical conditions and physical demands. When applied to the hospital and the pharmaceutical factory, CM6 showed a significant sensibility of measurement, a high diagnosis power and a high level of validity. These are key elements for assessing mental workload and knowing which preventive actions should be taken at workplaces to face this phenomenon.

show abstract

External and internal attentional environments I. The utilization of cardiac deceleratory and acceleratory response data for evaluating differences in mental workload between machine-paced and self-paced work ∗

Cited by 8 publications

References 11 publications

Work Preferences as Moderators of the Effects of Paced and Unpaced Work on Mood and Cognitive Performance: A Laboratory Simulation of Mechanized Letter Sorting

Work Preferences as Moderators of the Effects of Paced and Unpaced Work on Mood and Cognitive Performance: A Laboratory Simulation of Mechanized Letter Sorting

Prediction of Mental Workload in Single and Multiple Tasks Environments

Evaluación de la carga mental en tareas de control: técnicas subjetivas y medidas de exigencia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About