Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “human performance”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 415 records · Page 23
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2004

Perceptual learning through optimization of attentional weighting: human versus optimal Bayesian learner

Human performance in visual detection, discrimination, identification, and search tasks typically improves with practice. Psychophysical studies suggest that perceptual learning is mediated by an enhancement in the coding of the signal, and physiological studies suggest that it might be related to the plasticity in the weighting or selection of sensory units coding task relevant information (learning through attention optimization). We propose an experimental paradigm (optimal perceptual learning paradigm) to systematically study the dynamics of perceptual learning in humans by allowing comparisons to that of an optimal Bayesian algorithm and a number of suboptimal learning models. We measured improvement in human localization (eight-alternative forced-choice with feedback) performance of a target randomly sampled from four elongated Gaussian targets with different orientations and polarities and kept as a target for a block of four trials. The results suggest that the human perceptual learning can occur within a lapse of four trials (<1 min) but that human learning is slower and incomplete with respect to the optimal algorithm (23.3% reduction in human efficiency from the 1st-to-4th learning trials). The greatest improvement in human performance, occurring from the 1st-to-2nd learning trial, was also present in the optimal observer, and, thus reflects a property inherent to the visual task and not a property particular to the human perceptual learning mechanism. One notable source of human inefficiency is that, unlike the ideal observer, human learning relies more heavily on previous decisions than on the provided feedback, resulting in no human learning on trials following a previous incorrect localization decision. Finally, the proposed theory and paradigm provide a flexible framework for future studies to evaluate the optimality of human learning of other visual cues and/or sensory modalities.

Non-NASA Center↗
NASA NTRS1962

BIOASTRONAUTICS

Bioastronautics - space environment, human performance

PHYSIOLOGY↗
NASA NTRS2008

International Space Station Human Behavior and Performance Competency Model: Volume I

This document defines Human Behavior and Performance (HBP) competencies that are recommended to be included as requirements to participate in international long duration missions. They were developed in response to the Multilateral Crew Operations Panel (MMOP) request to develop HBP training requirements for the International Space Station (ISS). The competency model presented here was developed by the ITCB HBPT WG and forms the basis for determining the HBP training curriculum for long duration crewmembers. This document lists specific HBP competencies and behaviors required of astronauts/cosmonauts who participate in ISS expedition and other international longduration missions. Please note that this model does not encompass all competencies required. For example, outside the scope of this document are cognitive skills and abilities, including but not limited to concentration, memorization, perception, imagination, and thinking. It is assumed that these skills, which are crucial in terms of human behavior and performance, are considered during selection phase since such professionally significant qualities of the operator should be taken into consideration in order to ensure sufficient baseline levels that can be further improved during general astronaut training. Also, technical competencies, even though critical for crewmembers, are beyond the scope of this document. It should also be noted that the competencies in this model (and subsequent objectives) are not intended to limit the internal activities or training programs of any international partner.

Schmidt, Lacey↗
NASA NTRS2022

Evidence Report: Risk of Injury and Compromised Performance due to EVA Operations

During future missions to the Moon and Mars, each crewmember will most likely perform up to 24 hours a week of extravehicular activity (EVA) in support of exploration, science, construction, and maintenance tasks. Achieving mission objectives will require EVA systems and operations concepts that maximize human performance and efficiency while minimizing health and safety risks for crewmembers. Currently, over 450 EVAs have been performed in microgravity using the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU). The EMU space suit has enabled the successful assembly and maintenance of the International Space Station (ISS) for over 20 years, as well as deployment of payload experiments, solar arrays, satellite launches and repairs. This EVA work was accomplished at a slower cadence than is expected for Moon and Mars, with ISS crewmembers performing no more than 7 EVAs during a single mission and without any back-to-back EVAs. Despite their success, ISS EVAs have resulted in more injury to EVA crewmembers than may be acceptable for long-duration exploration missions. The Apollo astronauts completed EVA tasks in suits that were designed for their short-duration lunar missions, although suit mobility problems were evident. The more frequent EVAs and more varied EVA tasks that are anticipated during the future longer-duration exploration missions will require EVA suits and systems that are better oriented to human health and performance than those used during the Apollo Program. Many of the problems that were encountered with the Apollo EVA suits (e.g., limited mobility and dexterity, high and aft center of gravity, and other features requiring significant crew compensation) will need to be corrected or mitigated to optimize EVA objectives of exploration missions. It is critical that we understand how EVA system design variables such as suit pressure, weight/mass, center-of-gravity location, joint ranges of motion, and biomedical monitoring, affects the ability of astronauts to perform safe, efficient, and effective EVAs. To achieve this understanding, EVA researchers will need to develop and execute an integrated human testing program across multiple environments. The research will provide objective data that will enable informed design decisions and crewmember standards, thereby ensuring EVA systems that optimize crewmember health, safety, efficiency, and performance. This report describes the risks to crew health, safety, performance, and efficiency caused by EVA operations, and it provides the evidence base to substantiate the importance of the risk.

EVA↗
NASA NTRS2000

Circadian rhythms of performance: new trends

This brief review is concerned with how human performance efficiency changes as a function of time of day. It presents an overview of some of the research paradigms and conceptual models that have been used to investigate circadian performance rhythms. The influence of homeostatic and circadian processes on performance regulation is discussed. The review also briefly presents recent mathematical models of alertness that have been used to predict cognitive performance. Related topics such as interindividual differences and the postlunch dip are presented.

Review, Tutorial↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Comparison of Physical Workload Across Eva-Simulation Analog Environments: Hybrid Space Suit Simulator and Pressurized Suit Testing

NASA conducts research, testing, and training across a variety of analog environments to support characterization of human performance during Extravehicular Activities (EVAs). Time utilizing pressurized suits in an offloaded environment is both limited and expensive, making it challenging to carry out extensive research with these suits. The Human Physiology, Performance, Protection, and Operations (H-3PO) Laboratory at NASA Johnson Space Center designed a Hybrid Space Suit Simulator (HS3) as a low-cost, workload approximator and easy access research tool to provide relevant physical and cognitive workloads during simulated EVAs. A pilot study was conducted in a 1g analog environment where six healthy subjects (3 male, 3 female) underwent simulated 5-hour EVAs in the HS3. This study used a COSMED K5 portable metabolic analyzer and a Polar H10 heart rate monitor to evaluate physical workload during the EVAs. For direct comparison, EVA tasks and timelines were modeled after a similar study conducted in pressurized suits (Mark-III spacesuit, n=3 male; small xPGS spacesuit, n=3 female) at NASA’s Active Response Gravity Offload System (ARGOS) offloaded to Lunar gravity (1/6 g). The 1g HS3 data demonstrated increased metabolic rate when compared to pressurized, Lunar-offloaded suited simulated EVAs for certain tasks including the kneeling scoop (HS3: 1194±199 BTU/hr, ARGOS: 860±170 BTU/hr, p < 0.05) and 20 lb object relocation (HS3: 1651±136 BTU/hr, ARGOS: 1048±252.8 BTU/hr, p < 0.05), but it did not demonstrate any significant differences in heart rate (p > 0.05). Other simulated EVA tasks, such as a 500 m traverse (HS3: 1431±177 BTU/hr, ARGOS: 1212±294 BTU/hr, p > 0.05), showed similar workload profiles with no significant workload differences between HS3 and ARGOS. The HS3 is a useful research tool for increasing workloads in EVA research without pressurized suits, though it may overestimate workload during certain EVA tasks when used in 1g environments.

Zachary Wusk↗
NASA NTRS1998

Memory monitoring by animals and humans

The authors asked whether animals and humans would use similarly an uncertain response to escape indeterminate memories. Monkeys and humans performed serial probe recognition tasks that produced differential memory difficulty across serial positions (e.g., primacy and recency effects). Participants were given an escape option that let them avoid any trials they wished and receive a hint to the trial's answer. Across species, across tasks, and even across conspecifics with sharper or duller memories, monkeys and humans used the escape option selectively when more indeterminate memory traces were probed. Their pattern of escaping always mirrored the pattern of their primary memory performance across serial positions. Signal-detection analyses confirm the similarity of the animals' and humans' performances. Optimality analyses assess their efficiency. Several aspects of monkeys' performance suggest the cognitive sophistication of their decisions to escape.

NASA Discipline Space Human Factors↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Unintended Consequences of Focusing on Human Error (And How You Can Help)

The literature on human performance is rich with findings of cognitive failures and methods to identify, label, and measure them. In many real-world contexts, however, outcomes are driven far more by successful than failed cognition. Designers of systems intended for human use, in an effort to be “data driven,” rely upon findings from the cognitive performance literature to inform their system designs. When most available data are about human error, data-driven designs focus on the human primarily as a source of failure. Designs intended to support or replace humans often fail to acknowledge or understand the capabilities that humans routinely contribute to successful performance. Consequently, designs intended to “protect” the system from “error-prone” humans can design-out the capability for the human to effectively intervene or adapt. The development of paradigms to study successful human performance represents a significant and largely untapped opportunity for research in cognition.

Jon Holbrook↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring multiple capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for future exploration architectures is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap is approachable with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is challenging. Additionally, KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are very important and still evolving. This paper provides the approach of the Environmental Control and Life Support – Crew Health and Performance (ECLSS-CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) has used to define gaps and KPPs in support of the NASA’s Capabilities Integration Team data call objectives. The nine ECLSS-CHP capability areas are decomposed to capabilities with ~76 gaps and supported with KPPs. Rather than defining very detailed gaps, ECLSS-CHP defines high-level gaps to be technology agnostic. Within a gap, detailed KPPs are defined to both compare technologies and measure progress within a technology over time. Ideally, KPPs are clearly defined, widely communicated both internally and externally, and provide a common nomenclature to describe the state of the art and the degree of improvement required for exploration missions. KPPs help define when the gap is closed, and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Further technology improvements to enhance the capability, as measured by improved KPPs, must then be weighed against investments in open capability gaps that prevent NASA from achieving its exploration missions. It is uncommon that a technology maturation to improve all the relevant KPPs simultaneously but using KPPs is a critical technology investment decision making component. In addition to traditional technology selections, KPPs are informing how investments in ground testing prior to and in parallel with ISS technology demonstrations are required to improve reliability KPPs. The collection of all major technology activities within a capability area are captured on technology roadmaps to communicate how diverse program activities are coordinated to close gaps and infuse into exploration mission needs. A selection of ECLSS-CHP gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRS1993

Effects of illumination on human nocturnal serum melatonin levels and performance

In humans, exposure to bright light at night suppresses the normal nocturnal elevation in circulating melatonin. Oral administration of pharmacological doses of melatonin during the day, when melatonin levels are normally minimal, induces fatigue. To examine the relationship between illumination, human pineal function, and behavior, we monitored the overnight serum melatonin profiles and behavioral performance of 24 healthy male subjects. On each of three separate occasions subjects participated in 13.5 h (1630-0800 h) testing sessions. Each subject was assigned to an individually illuminated workstation that was maintained throughout the night at an illumination level of approximately 300, 1500, or 3000 lux. Melatonin levels were significantly diminished by light treatment, F(2, 36) = 12.77, p < 0.001, in a dose-dependent manner. Performance on vigilance, reaction time, and other tasks deteriorated throughout the night, consistent with known circadian variations in these parameters, but independent of ambient light intensity and circulating melatonin levels.

NASA Program Space Physiology and Countermeasures↗
NASA NTRS2013

The Insertion of Human Factors Concerns into NextGen Programmatic Decisions

Since the costs of proposed improvements in air traffic management exceed available funding, FAA decision makers must select and prioritize what actually gets implemented. We discuss a set of methods to help forecast operational and human performance issues and benefits before new automation is introduced. This strategy could minimize the impact of politics, assist decision makers in selecting and prioritizing potential improvements, make the process more transparent and strengthen the link between the engineering and human factors domains.

air traffic control↗
DOE OSTI2017

Implementing Computer-Based Procedures: Thinking Outside the Paper Margins

In the past year there has been increased interest from the nuclear industry in adopting the use of electronic work packages and computer-based procedures (CBPs) in the field. The goal is to incorporate the use of technology in order to meet the Nuclear Promise requirements of reducing costs and improve efficiency and decrease human error rates of plant operations. Researchers, together with the nuclear industry, have been investigating the benefits an electronic work package system and specifically CBPs would have over current paper-based procedure practices. There are several classifications of CBPs ranging from a straight copy of the paper-based procedure in PDF format to a more intelligent dynamic CBP. A CBP system offers a vast variety of improvements, such as context driven job aids, integrated human performance tools (e.g., placekeeping and correct component verification), and dynamic step presentation. The latter means that the CBP system could only display relevant steps based on operating mode, plant status, and the task at hand. The improvements can lead to reduction of the worker’s workload and human error by allowing the work to focus on the task at hand more. A team of human factors researchers at the Idaho National Laboratory studied and developed design concepts for CBPs for field workers between 2012 and 2016. The focus of the research was to present information in a procedure in a manner that leveraged the dynamic and computational capabilities of a handheld device allowing the worker to focus more on the task at hand than on the administrative processes currently applied when conducting work in the plant. As a part of the research the team identified type of work, instructions, and scenarios where the transition to a dynamic CBP system might not be as beneficial as it would for other types of work in the plant. In most cases the decision to use a dynamic CBP system and utilize the dynamic capabilities gained will be beneficial to the worker. However, tasks that are reliant on the skill of the craft or have a short set of instructions may not provide a way or even need to utilize all the advanced capabilities in a dynamic CBP system. Therefore, a hybrid CBP system that could handle all the classifications of a CBP would be the best solution to take advantage of all that a CBP system offers. The implementation of a CBP system does not automatically improve the quality of procedures. Utilities should look into why each procedure is written the way it currently is on paper. Utilities should take the time before implementation to review, standardize format and update current procedures. Implementation of a CBP system can be a time to break out of traditional procedure writing processes and create new processes and procedures that take advantage of the capabilities a CBP system. This paper will summarize the research on CBPs and provide suggestions to take into consideration when implementing a CBP system.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗