The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Modeling and Predicting Mental Workload in En Route Air Traffic Control: Critical Review and Broader Implications
Abstract
Objective: We perform a critical review of research on mental workload in en route air traffic control (ATC). We present a model of operator strategic behavior and workload management through which workload can be predicted within ATC and other complex work systems. Background: Air traffic volume is increasing worldwide. If air traffic management organizations are to meet future demand safely, better models of controller workload are needed. Method: We present the theoretical model and then review investigations of how effectively traffic factors, airspace factors, and operational constraints predict controller workload. Results: Although task demand has a strong relationship with workload, evidence suggests that the relationship depends on the capacity of the controllers to select priorities, manage their cognitive resources, and regulate their own performance. We review research on strategies employed by controllers to minimize the control activity and information-processing requirements of control tasks. Conclusion: Controller workload will not be effectively modeled until controllers' strategies for regulating the cognitive impact of task demand have been modeled. Application: Actual and potential applications of our conclusions include a reorientation of workload modeling in complex work systems to capture the dynamic and adaptive nature of the operator's work. Models based around workload regulation may be more useful in helping management organizations adapt to future control regimens in complex work systems.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research
(1988) · Advances in Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(08)62386-9 · Cited by 15,003
Cited by
State of science: mental workload in ergonomics
Young, M. S., Brookhuis, K. A., Wickens, C. D., & Hancock, P. A. (2015) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2014.956151 · Cited by 948
Said, S., Gozdzik, M., Roche, T. R., Braun, J., Rössler, J., Kaserer, A., Spahn, D. R., Nöthiger, C. B., & Tscholl, D. W. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/19472 · Cited by 173
Ironies of Generative AI: Understanding and Mitigating Productivity Loss in Human-AI Interaction
Simkute, A., Tankelevitch, L., Kewenig, V., Scott, A. E., Sellen, A., & Rintel, S. (2024) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2405782 · Cited by 89
“During the monitoring stages, receiving continuous feed-back is crucial for the operator to remain in the loop and recognize moments when interruption and input are needed (Lee & Seppelt, 2009; Loft et al., 2007).”
Prospective memory in an air traffic control simulation: External aids that signal when to act.
Loft, S., Smith, R. E., & Bhaskara, A. (2011) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied · doi:10.1037/a0022845 · Cited by 40
Self-citationLai, H.-Y., Chen, C.-H., Khoo, L.-P., & Zheng, P. (2019) · Reliability Engineering & System Safety · doi:10.1016/j.ress.2019.01.009 · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- Loft, S., Sanderson, P., Neal, A., & Mooij, M.
- Venue
- Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2007-06
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 376-399
- ISSN
- 0018-7208 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-8181
- OpenAlex
- W2143953455
- Cited by
- 317
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 14.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.