How does maritime situation awareness depend on navigation automation and mental workload? A sea simulator experiment

• Autorzy: Müller-Plath G. , Lehleitner J. , Maier J. , Silva-Löbling J. , Zhang H. , Zhang X. , Zhou S.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.12716/1001.17.04.23

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

A good situation awareness (SA) of the navigator is essential for the safety of the ship, especially in coastal areas. In this study, the Unity 3D engine was used to simulate the navigation of a coastal trading vessel along predefined routes in the Baltic Sea. The SA of the helmsman, who was either Chinese or European, was assessed several times with the SAGAT test (Endsley, 1995b, 20-21) and compared between low and high workload conditions and between manual and autopilot navigation. High workload and automated navigation both reduced SA significantly and in an additive manner. No difference was found between Chinese and European participants. In contrast to previous accident analyses of SA, we found that SA level 3 (projection of future states) was most strongly affected by both factors, while SA levels 1 (perception of relevant information) and 2 (comprehension of the current situation) suffered to a lesser extent. Further research is needed to establish specific relationships between types of automation on ships, types of workload, and SA problems in order to design countermeasures.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

mental workload; autopilot; situation awareness global assessment technique; situation awareness; simulation experiment; autoroute navigation; ironies of automation; maritime human factors

• Wydawca: Faculty of Navigation, Gdynia Maritime University
• Czasopismo: TransNav : International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation
• Rocznik: 2023
• Tom: Vol. 17 No. 4
• Strony: 963--969
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Müller-Plath G.

• Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, German

autor

Lehleitner J.

• Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, German

autor

Maier J.

• Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, German

autor

Silva-Löbling J.

• Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, German

autor

Zhang H.

• Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

autor

Zhang X.

• Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

autor

Zhou S.

• Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Bibliografia

• 1. Aylward, K., Weber, R., Lundh, M., MacKinnon, S.N., & Dahlman, J. 2022). Navigators’ views of a collision avoidance decision support system for maritime navigation. The Journal of Navigation, 1-14. - doi:10.1017/S0373463322000510.
• 2.Butler, G.L., Read, G.J., & Salmon, P.M. 2022. Understanding the systemic influences on maritime pilot decision-making. Applied Ergonomics, 104, 103827. - doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103827.
• 3. Burmeister, H.-C., Grundmann, R., Hochgeschurz, S., Hohnrath, P., Ujkani, A. 2021. Increasing Maritime Situational Awareness by Augmented Reality Solutions. Hamburg, Germany: Fraunhofer Center for Maritime Logistics and Services CML
• 4. Butt, N., Johnson, D., Pike, K., Pryce-Roberts, N., & Vigar, N. 2013. 15 Years of Shipping Accidents: A review for WWF. Southampton Solent University. http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/15_years_of_shipping_accidents_a_review_for_wwf_.pdf. Last access 08 April 2023.
• 5. Clemente, S., Loia, V., & Veniero, M. 2014. Applying cognitive situation awareness to collision avoidance for harbour last-mile area safety. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 5, 741-745. - doi:10.1007/s12652-013-0187-6.
• 6. European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) 2022. Annual Overview of Marine Casualties and Incidents 2021. https://www.emsa.europa.eu/we-do/safety/accident-investigation/download/6955/4266/23.html. Last access 08 April 2023.
• 7. Endsley, M.R.. 1995a. Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors 37(1): 32-64. - doi:10.1518/001872095779049543.
• 8. Endsley, M.R. 1995b. Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors 37(1): 65-84. - doi:10.1518/001872095779049499.
• 9. Endsley, M.R. 2021. A systematic review and meta-analysis of direct objective measures of situation awareness: A comparison of SAGAT and SPAM. Human Factors, 63(1), 124-150. - doi:10.1177/0018720819875376.
• 10. Endsley, M.R. & Jones, D.G. 2011: SA Demons: The Enemies of Situation Awareness. In: Designing for Situation Awareness: An Approach to User-Centered Design, ch. 3, pp. 31–41. Boca Raton: CRC Press. - doi:10.1201/b11371-3.
• 11. Endsley, M.R. & Kaber, D.B. 1999. Level of automation effects on performance, situational awareness and workload in a dynamic control task’, Ergonomics, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 462-492. - doi:10.1080/001401399185595.
• 12. Endsley, M.R. & Kiris, E.O. 1995. The Out-of-the-Loop Performance Problem and Level of Control in Automation. Human Factors, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 381–394. - doi:10.1518/001872095779064555.
• 13. Fan, S., Blanco-Davis, E., Fairclough, S., Zhang, J., Yan, X., Wang, J., & Yang, Z. 2023. Incorporation of seafarer psychological factors into maritime safety assessment. Ocean & Coastal Management, 237, 106515. - doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.106515.
• 14. Grech, M. & Horberry, T. 2002. Human error in maritime operations: Situation awareness and accident reports. Paper presented at the 5th International Workshop on Human Error, Safety and Systems Development, Newcastle, Australia.
• 15. Grech, M. R., Horberry, T. J., & Koester, T. 2008. Human factors in the maritime domain. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
• 16. Kartoglu, C., Senol, Y.E., & Kum, S. 2022. Situational awareness of navigators in high-speed craft bridge navigation operations. Australian Journal of Maritime & Ocean Affairs, 1-15. - doi:10.1080/18366503.2022.2080371.
• 17. Kizilay, F.E., Arslan, O., Akyuz, E., & Kececi, T. 2023. Prediction of human error probabilitiy for officers during watchkeeping process under SLIM approach. Australian Journal of Maritime & Ocean Affairs, 1-18. - doi:10.1080/18366503.2023.216835718.
• 18. Müller-Plath, G., Jung, D. & Müller, M. 2018. Research-based design and usability guidelines for electronic charting systems (ECS) in yachting and boating. International Journal of e-Navigation and Maritime Economy, 10, 32-48.
• 19. Müller-Plath G.: How Does Digital Navigation on Sailboats Affect Spatial Abilities at Sea?. TransNav, the International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, Vol. 13, No. 2, doi:10.12716/1001.13.02.05, pp. 299-310, 2019.
• 20. Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T.B., & Wickens, C.D. 2008. Situation awareness, mental workload, and trust in automation: Viable, empirically supported cognitive engineering constructs. Journal of cognitive engineering and decision making, 2(2), 140-160. - doi:10.1518/155534308X284417.
• 21. Posten, H. O. (1984). Robustness of the two-sample t-test. In: D. Rasch & M.L. Tiku (eds.). Robustness of statistical methods and nonparametric statistics: 92-99. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer Academic Publishers Group. - doi:10.1007/978-94-009-6528-7_23.
• 22. Reason, J. (2000). Human error: models and management. BMJ, 320, 768-770. - doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768.
• 23. Stratmann, T. C. & Boll, S. 2016. Demon Hunt-The Role of Endsley’s Demons of Situation Awareness in Maritime Accidents. In 6th International Conference on Human-Centred Software Engineering (HCSE)/8th International Conference on Human Error, Safety, and System Development (HESSD) (pp. 203-212). Springer International Publishing. - doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44902-9_13.
• 24. Wickens, C. D. (2002). Situation awareness and workload in aviation. Current directions in psychological science, 11(4), 128-133. - doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00184.
• 25. William, H. H. 1959. Industrial accident prevention: A scientific approach. Boston: McGraw-Hill Book Company..