Multimodal Alert Design
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Kritina Holden↗
Engineering topics
Ryan Lange
Publications and source records attributed to Ryan Lange.
Speech-Enhanced and Context Dependent Alerts: Future Implications for Spacecraft Design Abstract
In the future, NASA missions will involve many different space vehicles, habitats, and surface assets working together to provide safe and productive living and working environments for crew. Because these systems will be provided by multiple commercial companies working with NASA, it will be very different from missions of the past, bringing new challenges. One of the challenges is related to whether NASA should move beyond simple tone annunciation alerting systems, to more advanced systems that include speech. The other is related to determining the level of consistency required of safety-critical alert systems across spacecraft. Two studies were completed to address these important issues. The first study investigated the advantages and disadvantages of a tone+speech alert relative to the traditional tone-only alert. Results indicate that speech-enhanced alerts initially take longer to silence (the default action to which NASA personnel are trained), due to the need to listen to the entire message, but ultimately provided for faster understanding of the alert situation. Speech-enhanced alerts were also preferred by a large majority of crew-like study participants. An unexpected finding from this first study was that participants took longer to respond to tone-only alerts when they were mixed with speech- enhanced alerts. Participants waited to hear the speech message even for alerts they were trained to know did not contain speech components. This performance error is believed to be due to negative transfer of training. A second study focused on task and alert performance using a common set of tones across two contexts (“vehicles”) versus performance with a different set of tones for each context (“vehicle”). Participants were able to manage two different alert sets successfully; results indicate that discriminability of the two alert sets played a major role in their success. Implications for the design of spacecraft alerts are discussed and future areas of research are identified.
alerts↗
Interface Consistency: Phase I Results & Phase II Status
Future exploration missions will rely on designing and developing vehicles and complex systems from within NASA and through multiple external commercial partners to meet mission goals. Despite existing consistency-related agency requirements, NASA’s approach to commercial spaceflight development encourages providers’ flexibility and innovation. This strategy is resulting in significant design diversity across Artemis vehicles. Design best practices and guidelines champion interface consistency to promote mental model development and knowledge transfer. However, research investigating the benefits of consistency is mixed, and little is known about its role in complex systems. Determining the level of risk that system diversity presents is difficult, as there is no established method for quantifying the degree of consistency within and across interfaces, nor is there information about the differential impacts of different types of inconsistency. Phase I of this project (Characterization and Measurement) served as a starting point to better understand the construct of consistency, its application, and the range of studies and methods for measuring it. The project team created a taxonomy of consistency to apply to interfaces as a framework to guide the development of tools to assess intersystem consistency. Checklist and cognitive walkthrough methods were developed for use by human factors (HF) and human-computer interaction (HCI) experts. The Intersystem Consistency Scale (ICS) was developed for interface evaluations with crew. A pilot study evaluated the methods’ ability to distinguish differences between Artemis-like prototype pairs exhibiting either high or low design consistency. In addition, click errors and time on task were collected within the ICS (crew-like) group. Results from our exploratory analysis and lessons learned from the pilot study will be discussed. The project team will also present the status of Phase II (Risk Assessment, Standards and Guidelines). This includes incorporating feedback to redesign the assessment tools, and inputs from displays and training Subject Matter Experts to update tasks and prototype designs. The team will present the risk assessment study design to identify the types and levels of inconsistency that pose the greatest risk to performance. Plans to apply these results toward agency standards and guideline recommendations will also be discussed.
Human-Computer Interaction↗
An Analysis of Extended Reality Mockups for Use in Verification: Phase 2
NASA commercial providers are increasing their use of Virtual Reality (VR) and Hybrid Reality (HR) technologies in their system development process. The use of these technologies, collectively referred to as Extended Reality (XR) technologies, has been limited to the development phase, but there have been requests to integrate VR and HR mockups into verifications. Verifications require, at minimum, a high-fidelity mockup for activities involving human participation (tests, demonstrations, inspections). HR technology shares many of the strengths but may not share some of the critical shortcomings of VR. Specifically, HR allows for integrating physical objects, such as a suit, which may be critical to evaluating a system. Adopting HR technology still has many of the same challenges as VR. Namely, there is little to no data about the validity of evaluations conducted with HR mockups, an established process, or criteria for evaluating the appropriateness of HR mockups. Because verifications are final and only need to happen once, HR mockups must be adequately vetted before being approved for use in verifications. Further hindering the adoption of these technologies is the lack of consensus on what constitutes a high-fidelity XR mockup. Even for physical mockups, there are guidelines and common criteria, but nothing has been formalized. Discussion about when an XR mockup can be used would be greatly helped by clearly defining what a high-fidelity XR mockup is and how it might be measured. The team will engage with relevant stakeholders to learn more about the benefits and challenges of adopting hybrid reality mockups for verification. The team will build upon work from Phase 1 by maturing a framework to guide decisions for evaluating XR mockups for use in verifications. The team will also conduct experimental studies to evaluate advantages and tradeoffs of hybrid/mixed reality relative to physical and virtual reality mockups. Finally, data from Phase 1 and Phase 2 will be synthesized into a set of best practices for developing and validating XR mockups for verification. We will highlight the work conducted to date in Phase 2. We will present the status of the XR for Verification Framework, a summary of best practices identified thus far, and give a synopsis of future work.
verification testing↗