Similar articles

Abstract: This study explored the possibility of developing a technique combining multiple measures of mental workload. Dual task technique was applied. Twenty subjects were asked to perform computer-simulated monitoring tasks with three different levels of difficulties. A reaction time performance with digital stimuli was added as subsidiary task. The four indexes, accurate reaction time of primary task, variation rate of accurate reaction time of subsidiary task, weighted subjective workload rating and variation rate of heart rate variance, were used and tested. The correlation matrix of the four indexes was examined with principal component analysis technique, and two mathematical models of comprehensive mental workload indexes (CMWIA, CMWIB) were then advanced. It is verified that these two comprehensive indexes were far more sensitive for monitoring mental workload as compared with any one of the preceding four indexes. It was concluded that it was useful to construct some comprehensive mental workload indexes for practical industrial purposes.

[1]Casali, J.G., Wierwille, W.W., 1983. A comparison of rating scale, secondary-task, physiological, and primary-task workload estimation techniques in a simulated flight task emphasizing communications load. Human Factors, 25(6): 623-642.

[2]Hart, S.G., Staveland, L.E., 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Human Mental Workload, P.A. Hancock, N. Meshkati (Eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, p. 139-183.

[3]Myrtek, M., 1994. Physical, mental, emotional, and subjective workload components in train drivers. Ergonomics, 37(7): 1195-1203.

[4]Nachreiner, F., 1995. Standards for ergonomics principles relating to the design of work systems and to mental workload. Applied Ergonomics, 26(4): 259-263.

[5]Reid, G.B., Nygren, T.E., 1988. The subjective workload assessment technique: A scaling procedure for measuring mental workload. In: Human Mental Workload, P.A. Hancock, N. Meshkati (Eds.), North-Holland, Amsterdam, p. 185-218.

[6]Rouse, W.B., Edwards, S.L., Hammer, J.M., 1993. Modeling the dynamics of mental workload and human performance in complex systems. IEEE Transactions on System, Man, and Cybernetics, 23(6): 1662-1671.

[7]Sloan, S.J., Copper, C.L., 1986. The measurement of self-reported pilot performance. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 57(5): 466-471.

[8]Svensson, E., Angelborg-Thanderz, M., Sjoberg, L., et al., 1997. Information complexity-mental workload and performance in combat aircraft. Ergonomics, 40(3): 362-380.

[9]Tattersali, A.J., Foord, P.S., 1996. An experimental evaluation of instantaneous self-assessment as a measure of workload. Ergonomics, 39(5): 740-748.

[10]Tsang, P.S., Velazquez, V. L., 1996. Diagnosticity and multidimensional subjective workload ratings. Ergonomics, 39(3): 358-381.

[11]Tsang, P.S., Wilson, G.F., 1997. Mental Workload. In:Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, G. Salvendy (Ed.), John Wiley and Sons, New York, p. 417-449.

[12]Vidulich, M.A., Ward, G.F., Schueren, J., 1991. Using the subjective workload dominance (SWORD) technique for projective workload assessment. Human Factors, 33(6): 677-692.

[13]Zhang, Z.J., Zhu, Z.X., 1994. A review on research of mental workload assessment methods. Chinese Journal of Applied psychology, 9(4): 18-22 (in Chinese, with English abstract).

[14]Zhang, Z.J., Zhu, Z.X., 1995. Experimental study on multidimensional subjective assessment for mental workload. Chinese Ergonomics, 1(2): 4-7 (in Chinese, with English abstract).