为什么控制员会选择他们所做的冲突解决策略?

IF 1 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED International Journal of Aerospace Psychology Pub Date : 2021-05-19 DOI:10.1080/24721840.2021.1925119
F. Trapsilawati, C. Wickens, M. K. Herliansyah, Mifta Priani Fatika Sari, Gharsina Tissamodie
{"title":"为什么控制员会选择他们所做的冲突解决策略?","authors":"F. Trapsilawati, C. Wickens, M. K. Herliansyah, Mifta Priani Fatika Sari, Gharsina Tissamodie","doi":"10.1080/24721840.2021.1925119","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Objective This study aimed to reveal the causal reasons for maneuver preferences on the basis of the objective measures. Background Although the effects of conflict geometry have been well documented in previous literature, empirical evidence on the influence of conflict geometry on the operator’s workload, maneuver choice, and success is still lacking. Methods hirteen undergraduate students with air traffic control (ATC) knowledge were requested to complete ATC tasks and resolve six different conflicts that were generated by manipulating two geometric features, namely, lateral (i.e., crossing, converging, and overtaking) and vertical (i.e., level and nonlevel) conflicts. Results Crossing (p < .01) and converging (p = .05) conflicts resulted in higher workload than overtaking conflicts because of the higher geometric dimensions involved. Workload (p < .01) and performance (p < .03) were worse during nonlevel conflicts than during level conflicts. Notably, vertical maneuver led to a higher workload than other maneuver choices despite the higher preference for this maneuver. These findings were associated with visualization load. Conclusion We failed to confirm that the resolution maneuver was chosen because of its good performance and low workload. Instead, predetermined rules (i.e., altitude, speed, and heading) were used, regardless of the workload, and the safety of the chosen maneuver for a particular conflict geometry was verified.","PeriodicalId":41693,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Aerospace Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/24721840.2021.1925119","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why do Controllers Choose the Conflict Resolution Maneuvers that They Do?\",\"authors\":\"F. Trapsilawati, C. Wickens, M. K. Herliansyah, Mifta Priani Fatika Sari, Gharsina Tissamodie\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/24721840.2021.1925119\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Objective This study aimed to reveal the causal reasons for maneuver preferences on the basis of the objective measures. Background Although the effects of conflict geometry have been well documented in previous literature, empirical evidence on the influence of conflict geometry on the operator’s workload, maneuver choice, and success is still lacking. Methods hirteen undergraduate students with air traffic control (ATC) knowledge were requested to complete ATC tasks and resolve six different conflicts that were generated by manipulating two geometric features, namely, lateral (i.e., crossing, converging, and overtaking) and vertical (i.e., level and nonlevel) conflicts. Results Crossing (p < .01) and converging (p = .05) conflicts resulted in higher workload than overtaking conflicts because of the higher geometric dimensions involved. Workload (p < .01) and performance (p < .03) were worse during nonlevel conflicts than during level conflicts. Notably, vertical maneuver led to a higher workload than other maneuver choices despite the higher preference for this maneuver. These findings were associated with visualization load. Conclusion We failed to confirm that the resolution maneuver was chosen because of its good performance and low workload. Instead, predetermined rules (i.e., altitude, speed, and heading) were used, regardless of the workload, and the safety of the chosen maneuver for a particular conflict geometry was verified.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41693,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Aerospace Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/24721840.2021.1925119\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Aerospace Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/24721840.2021.1925119\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Aerospace Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24721840.2021.1925119","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

【摘要】目的在客观测量的基础上,揭示机动偏好的因果原因。背景虽然冲突几何的影响已经在以前的文献中得到了很好的记录,但关于冲突几何对操作员工作量、机动选择和成功的影响的经验证据仍然缺乏。方法要求13名具有空中交通管制知识的大学生完成空中交通管制任务,并通过操纵两个几何特征,即横向冲突(即交叉、收敛和超车)和垂直冲突(即水平和非水平),解决6种不同的冲突。结果交叉冲突(p < 0.01)和收敛冲突(p = 0.05)由于涉及的几何维度更高,导致的工作量高于超车冲突。非水平冲突时的工作负荷(p < 0.01)和工作表现(p < 0.01)比水平冲突时差。值得注意的是,垂直机动比其他机动选择导致更高的工作量,尽管这种机动更受青睐。这些发现与可视化负荷有关。结论分辨力机动性能好,工作量小,不宜选用分辨力机动。相反,使用预先确定的规则(即高度、速度和航向),而不考虑工作量,并验证所选机动对特定冲突几何形状的安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Why do Controllers Choose the Conflict Resolution Maneuvers that They Do?
ABSTRACT Objective This study aimed to reveal the causal reasons for maneuver preferences on the basis of the objective measures. Background Although the effects of conflict geometry have been well documented in previous literature, empirical evidence on the influence of conflict geometry on the operator’s workload, maneuver choice, and success is still lacking. Methods hirteen undergraduate students with air traffic control (ATC) knowledge were requested to complete ATC tasks and resolve six different conflicts that were generated by manipulating two geometric features, namely, lateral (i.e., crossing, converging, and overtaking) and vertical (i.e., level and nonlevel) conflicts. Results Crossing (p < .01) and converging (p = .05) conflicts resulted in higher workload than overtaking conflicts because of the higher geometric dimensions involved. Workload (p < .01) and performance (p < .03) were worse during nonlevel conflicts than during level conflicts. Notably, vertical maneuver led to a higher workload than other maneuver choices despite the higher preference for this maneuver. These findings were associated with visualization load. Conclusion We failed to confirm that the resolution maneuver was chosen because of its good performance and low workload. Instead, predetermined rules (i.e., altitude, speed, and heading) were used, regardless of the workload, and the safety of the chosen maneuver for a particular conflict geometry was verified.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
7.70%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Qualitative Analysis of General Aviation Pilots’ Aviation Safety Reporting System Incident Narratives Using the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System Effective Monitoring for Early Detection of Hypoxia in Fighter Pilots The Effects of Aeronautical Decision-Making Models on Student Pilots’ Situational Awareness and Cognitive Workload in Simulated Non-Normal Flight Deck Environment The Relationship between Preparation, Impression Management, and Interview Performance in High-Stakes Personnel Selection: A Field Study of Airline Pilot Applicants It Was This Wing Wasn’t It? Identifying the Importance of Verbal Communication in Aviation Maintenance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1