Mental Workload Assessment

We all feel nid utilize out and strained when we have diddle to do. non only that, we experience situations like this even if we argon unspoilt studying. More often, we feel pressured just by thinking the amount of exams to be prepargond for, or for that next project that is necessary for a darling promotion in the company.Mental work freight is the right term for the stress and strain we experience, especially with regards to studying and working. The Hanover College defines intellectual workload as the whole t unity of moral exertion or the level of use of the human hustlers restrict resources (n.d.). In short, intellectual workload is a demand placed upon gentlemans gentleman (Xiaoli, n.d.).When there is too a lot intellectual workload, it might lead to errors. Preventing this makes mental workload important to be understood. However, callable to the many positionors that mustiness be considered in discussing mental workload, defining it becomes difficult.Menta l workload is important in driving and aviation and design. In fact, most of the studies conducted about mental workload were about driving and aviation and task demands. This is perhaps due to the fact that a number one wood is required to do non just one but many tasks. Moreover, even though a driver is experienced, accidents mum occur.De Waard (1996) conducted a study on mental workload among drivers. He give tongue to that driving a car looks like a pretty unproblematic task for everyone. Driving schools provide comprehensive lessons and manuals on how to drive safely. provided no matter how good a driver foot be, accidents cannot be avoided. Moreover, these accidents are attributed to human failure. Human failure is still amplifyd due to several factors. starting time is the increasing number of vehicles on the road. There is a demand on the human development processing system, and also incr palliate in the likelihood of vehicles colliding.Second, people drive well in to old age. However, older people tend to suffer from problems in terms of divided circumspection writ of execution. It all started with the car radio, and then car phones and other technological devices. The driver must divide his attention to all these systems besides controlling the vehicle. Lastly, those drivers in a diminished state may endanger him. Most of the time, drivers enclothe out at night for the longer journeys to avoid traffic. Driving at night can cause him sleepiness and fatigue. Aside from this, the driver can also be intoxicated (de Waard, 1996).Xiaoli (n.d.) presented the factors which affect driver workload, including the following fatigue, monotony, tranquillizing drugs and alcohol. Environmental factors also affect drivers, such as traffic demands, automation and road environment demands.There are different techniques in assessing mental workload, including the following performance measures, physiological measures, and congenital task measures (or se lf-report measures) (Luximon & Goonetilleke, 2001). Primary and second-string task measures comprise the performance, or system output measures. An overview of each legal opinion technique will be discussed in the context of traffic research (driving or aviation).Performance MeasuresIn Xiaolis (n.d.) slide presentation, he utter that the measures usually belonging to this category are speed of performance, number of errors make and reaction time measures. Outside the laboratory, these become task-specific. De Waard (1996) say that most of primary-task measures let in speed or accuracy measures.Aside from this, De Waard (1996) explained that primary-task performance establishes the efficiency of man-machine interaction. not just the primary-task performance but also other workload measures must work together so that valid conclusions can be worn-out about man-machine interaction.There are several snugglees in the measurement of performance measures. First is the analytical wo o (Meshkati, Hancock, Rahimi and Dawes, 1995). According to Welford (1978, cited in Meshkati, Hancock, Rahimi and Dawes, 1995), the analytical approach considers the detail at the actual performance of the task that will be assessed. Not only the overall achievement is examined but also the sort in which it is achieved. Another assessment technique is the synthetic methods.These start with a task analysis of the system. Task analytic procedures are then used to identify the specific performance demands placed on the promoter. The third approach is the multiple measurement of primary task performance. This approach is very utile when individual measures of primary task performance do not ground enough sensitivity to operator workload.On the other hand, Xiaoli (n.d.) indicated that secondary-task performance are about factors such as time estimation or time-interval return and memory-search tasks. The assumption associated with secondary task measure says that an upper limit exis ts on the ability of a human operator to gather and process knowledge (Meshkati, Hancock, Rahimi & Dawes, 1995).The way to measure secondary-task performance is through another task include to the primary one. De Waard (1996) mentioned about the multiple-resource theory. The theory says that the largest sensitivity in secondary-task measures can be achieved if the overlap in resources is high (De Waard, 1996).According to Hancock, Vercruyssen and Rodenburg (1992), a someone must have the ability to synchronize their actions with the dynamics of differing environmental demands so that he can survive and prosper in uncertain conditions. This means that the person must have some degree of autonomy with respect to property and time.However, secondary-task measures have disadvantages to consider. According to De Waard (1996), time sharing is not very efficient if the same resources are utilized. Moreover, additional instrumentation is required in secondary-task measures. Not only tha t, but there is lack of operator acceptance. There are also possible compromises to system safety.Subjective Task MeasuresThere is much talk about the self-report measures, which is also called subjective measures. In fact, for De Waard (1996), self-report measures are positive because they can better show the real meaning of mental workload.These measures subjectivity is what makes self-report measures strong. Muckler and Seven (1992, as cited in De Waard, 1996) explained that self-report measures are strong because the awareness of the operator about the increasing effort used must give subjective measures an important role to play. Moreover, performance and effort are incorporated in self-report measures. Additionally, individual differences, operator state and attitude are also considered.Xiaoli (n.d.) said that the primary advantages of subjective task measures are high face validity, ease of application and low costs. However, there are also limitations in these measures. Fi rst is that there might be confusion of mental and physical load in rating. There might also be an exhibition of the operators inability to differentiate between external demands and actual effort or workload experienced. Second, limitations can be seen in the operators ability to introspect and rate expenditure correctly. Hancock, Brill, Mouloua and Gilson (2002) added that another disadvantage of self-report measures is that they cannot be used for online workload assessment.Physiological MeasuresAccording to De Waard (1996), physiological measures showed sensitivity to globular arousal or activation level and in some stages in information processing. One advantage of this is that physiological responses do not gather up an obvious response by the operator. Additionally, most cognitive tasks do not need overt behavior. Moreover, some of the measures can be collected continuously.Kramer (1991, cited in De Waard, 1996) showed some of the disadvantages of these measures. First is t hat there must be specialized equipment and adept expertise to be able to utilize these measures. Second is the presence of signal-to-noise ratios. Kramer furthered that in operator-system performance, the operators physiology is not directly involved, unlike in primary-task performance.Other physiological measures involved in driving are student diameter, endogenous eye blinks, blood pressure, respiration, electrodermal activity, hormone levels, event related potentials, and electromyogram.De Waard (1996) furthered that not all measures are sensitive to workload when it comes to performance. There are instances when dissociation between these measures of different categories was reported. He said that dissociation occurs between measures when they do not correspond to changes in the workload, or if there is an increase in one measure and a decrease in another.Performance is and then affected by the amount of resources invested and the demands on working memory.Hancock, Brill, Mouloua and Gilson (2002) said that although physiological measures present world(prenominal) assessments of workload, they do little to balance the demands of tasks on receptive systems. In addition, physiological measures provide little or no information about what sensory systems are most taxed.To measure mental workload, ii conferences must be considered (Gopher & Donchin, 1986, cited in De Waard, 1996). Self-report measures, physiological measures and performance measures are include in the first group. This group supposes that it is probable to achieve a global measure of mental workload. The second group includes secondary-task measures and some of the physiological measures. This group is concerned about those diagnostic procedures and has something to do with the theories of multiple resources.ReferencesDe Waard, Dick. (1996). The measurement of drivers mental workload. The Netherlands The Traffic Research Center VSC.Hancock, P.A., Brill, J.C., Mouloua, M., & Gilson, R.D . (2002). M-SWAP On-line workload assessment in aviation. Paper presented at the 12th International Symposium on Aviation psychological science. Dayton, OH.Hancock, P.A., Vercruyssen, M., & Rodenburg, G.J. (1992). The opinion of gender and time-of-day on time perception and mental workload. Current Psychology Research and Review,. 11, 203-225.Hanover College. (n.d.). Mental Workload. Retrieved October 27, 2007 from http//psych.hanover.edu/classes/hfnotes3/tsld022.htmlLuximon, A. & Goonetilleke, R. (2001). Simplified subjective workload assessment technique. Ergonometrics, 44, 229-243.Meshkati, N., Hancock, P.A., Rahimi, M., & Dawes, S.M. (1995). Techniques of mental workload assessment. In J. Wilson and E.N. Corlett, (Eds.). Evaluation of human work A pragmatical ergonomics methodology. (Second Edition), London Taylor and Francis.Xiaoli, Yi. (n.d.). Measurements of mental workload. Slide presentation. Available on http//www.slideshare.net/ESS/measurement-of-mental-workload/