Design and Evaluation of a Team Mutual Awareness Toolkit for Digital Interfaces of Nuclear Power Plant Context

References

• Adams, M. J., Tenney, Y. J., & Pew, R. W. (1995). Situation awareness and the cognitive management of complex systems. Human Factors: the Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37 (1), 85–104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baecker, R. M., Glass, G., Mitchell, A., & Posner, I. (1994, April). SASSE: The collaborative editor. Presented at Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Billings, C. E. (1997). Aviation automation: The search for a human-centered approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Birnholtz, J., Bi, N., & Fussell, S. (2012, May). Do you see that I see?: Effects of perceived visibility on awareness checking behavior. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Austin, TX.
   Google Scholar
• Dabbish, L., & Kraut, R. (2008). Research note-awareness displays and social motivation for coordinating communication. Information Systems Research, 19 (2), 221–238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dourish, P., & Bellotti, V. (1992, December). Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces. In Proceedings of the 1992 ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Endsley, M. R. (1988). Situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT). Presented at Aerospace and Electronics Conference, 1988. NAECON 1988, Proceedings of the IEEE 1988 National, Dayton, OH.
   Google Scholar
• Endsley, M. R. (1990, October). Predictive utility of an objective measure of situation awareness. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL.
   Google Scholar
• Endsley, M. R. (1993). A survey of situation awareness requirements in air-to-air combat fighters. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3 (2), 157–168.
   Google Scholar
• Endsley, M. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors: the Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37 (1), 32–64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Endsley, M. R. (1996). Situation awareness measurement in test and evaluation. In T. G. O’Brien & S. G. Charlton (Eds.), Handbook of Human Factors Testing and Evaluation (pp., 159–180 ). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Endsley, M. R., & Bolstad, C. A. (1994). Individual differences in pilot situation awareness. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 4 (3), 241–264.
   Google Scholar
• Endsley, M. R., Bolte, B., & Jones, D. G. (2003). Designing for situation awareness: An approach to user-centered design. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press
   Google Scholar
• Endsley, M. R., & Jones, W. M. (2001). A model of inter-and intra-team situational awareness: Implications for design, training and measurement. In M. McNeese, E. Salas, M. Endsley, (Eds.) New trends in cooperative activities: Understanding system dynamics in complex environments (pp. 46-48). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
   Google Scholar
• Entin, E. E., & Serfaty, D. (1999). Adaptive team coordination. Human factors. The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 41 (2), 312–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Espinosa, A., Cadiz, J., Rico-Gutierrez, L., Kraut, R., Scherlis, W., & Lautenbacher, G. (2000, April). Coming to the wrong decision quickly: Why awareness tools must be matched with appropriate tasks. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Hague, Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Gao, Q., Wang, Y., Song, F., Li, Z., & Dong, X. (2013). Mental workload measurement for emergency operating procedures in digital nuclear power plants. Ergonomics, 56 (7), 1070–1085.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gao, Q., Yu, W., Jiang, X., Song, F., Pan, J., & Li, Z. (2015). An integrated computer-based procedure for teamwork in digital nuclear power plants. Ergonomics, 58 (8), 1303–1313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garbis, C., & Artman, H. (2004). Team situation awareness as communicative practices. In S. Banbury & S. Tremblay (Eds.), A Cognitive Approach to Situation Awareness: Theory and Application (pp. 275–296). Aldershot, Hampshire, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Greenberg, S., & Bohnet, R. (1990, June). Group sketch: A multi-user sketchpad for geographically distributed small groups. In Proceedings of Graphics Interface ‘91, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Greenberg, S., Gutwin, C., & Cockburn, A. (1996). Awareness through fisheye views in relaxed-WYSIWIS groupware. Graphics Interface, 96, 28–38.
   Google Scholar
• Gutwin, C., & Greenberg, S. (1999). The effects of workspace awareness support on the usability of real-time distributed groupware. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 6 (3), 243–281.
   Google Scholar
• Gutwin, C., & Greenberg, S. (2001). The importance of awareness for team cognition in distributed collaboration. In E. Salas & S. M. Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance (pp. 177–201). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Gutwin, C., & Greenberg, S. (2002). A descriptive framework of workspace awareness for real-time groupware. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 11 (3–4), 411–446.
   Google Scholar
• Gutwin, C., Greenberg, S., & Roseman, M. (1996a, April). Workspace awareness in real-time distributed groupware: Framework, widgets, and evaluation. In Proceedings of the 1996 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Gutwin, C., Greenberg, S., & Roseman, M. (1996b). Workspace awareness support with radar views. In Conference companion on human factors in computing systems (pp. 210–211), Vancouver, BC, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Gutwin, C., Roseman, M., & Greenberg, S. (1996, November). A usability study of awareness widgets in a shared workspace groupware system. In Proceedings of the 1996 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Boston, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Ha, J. S., Seong, P. H., Lee, M. S., & Hong, J. H. (2007). Development of human performance measures for human factors validation in the advanced MCR of APR-1400. IEEE Transactions on Nuclear Science, 54 (6), 2687–2700.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in Psychology, 52, 139–183.
   Google Scholar
• Härtel, C. E. J., Smith, K. A., & Prince, C. (1989). Defining aircrew coordination: Searching mishaps for meaning. Presented at Fifth International symposium on aviation psychology, Columbus, OH.
   Google Scholar
• Hayne, S., Pendergast, M., & Greenberg, S. (1993). Implementing gesturing with cursors in group support systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10 (3), 43–61.
   Google Scholar
• Isaacs, E., Walendowski, A., & Ranganthan, D. (2002, April). Hubbub: A sound-enhanced mobile instant messenger that supports awareness and opportunistic interactions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Minneapolis, MN.
   Google Scholar
• Itoh, M., & Inagaki, T. (2004). A microworld approach to identifying issues of human-automation systems design for supporting operator’s situation awareness. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 17 (1), 3–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jang, C. Y., Steinfield, C., & Pfaff, B. (2002). Virtual team awareness and groupware support: An evaluation of the TeamSCOPE system. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56 (1), 109–126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin, C. J., Hsieh, T. L., Yang, C. W., & Huang, R. J. (2016). The impact of computer-based procedures on team performance, communication, and situation awareness. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 51, 21–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacMillan, J., Entin, E. E., & Serfaty, D. (2004). Communication overhead: The hidden cost of team cognition. In E. Salas & S. M. Fiore (Eds.), Team cognition: Process and performance at the interand intra-individual level. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Moracho, M. J. (1998). Plant Performance Assessment System (PPAS) for crew performance evaluation. Lessons learned from an alarm system study conducted in HAMMLAB (No. HWR–504). Halden, Norway: Institute for energiteknikk.
   Google Scholar
• Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. New York, NY: Basic books.
   Google Scholar
• Nova, N., Wehrle, T., Goslin, J., Bourquin, Y., & Dillenbourg, P. (2007). Collaboration in a multi-user game: Impacts of an awareness tool on mutual modeling. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 32 (2), 161–183.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’hara, J., Stubler, W., Higgins, J., & Brown, W. (1997). Integrated system validation: Methodology and review criteria. United States Regulatory Commission report NUREG/CR-6393. Washington, DC: US NRC.
   Google Scholar
• Pauchet, A., Coldefy, F., Lefebvre, L., Picard, S. L. D., Bouguet, A., Perron, L., … Collobert, M. (2007, September). Mutual awareness in collocated and distant collaborative tasks using shared interfaces. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
   Google Scholar
• Promann, M., Wei, S., Qian, Z. C., & Chen, Y. V. (2016). The role of aesthetics and perception in raising situation awareness: Lessons from springrain. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 32 (4), 308–324.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roth, E. M., Mumaw, R. J., & Lewis, P. M. (1994). An empirical investigation of operator performance in cognitively demanding simulated emergencies (No. NUREG/CR–6208). Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC (United States). Div. of Systems Research; Westinghouse Electric Corp., Pittsburgh, PA: Science and Technology Center.
   Google Scholar
• Salas, E., Prince, C., Baker, D. P., & Shrestha, L. (1995). Situation awareness in team performance: Implications for measurement and training. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37 (1), 123–136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salmon, P. M., Stanton, N. A., Walker, G. H., Baber, C., Jenkins, D. P., McMaster, R., & Young, M. S. (2008). What really is going on? Review of situation awareness models for individuals and teams. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 9 (4), 297–323.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, K. (1998). Some notes on mutual awareness. COTCOS, CTI, DTU, Copenhagen, Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, S. D., Sasangohar, F., & Cummings, M. L. (2009). Investigating supervisory-level activity awareness displays for command and control operations. Presented at Human Systems Integration Symposium, Annapolis, MD.
   Google Scholar
• Shu, Y., & Furuta, K. (2005). An inference method of team situation awareness based on mutual awareness. Cognition, Technology & Work, 7 (4), 272–287.
   Google Scholar
• Sohlenkamp, M., & Chwelos, G. (1994, October). Integrating communication, cooperation, and awareness: The DIVA virtual office environment. In Proceedings of the 1994 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Chapel Hill, NC.
   Google Scholar
• Speier, C., & Morris, M. G. (2003). The influence of query interface design on decision-making performance. Mis Quarterly, 397–423.Stanton, N. A., & Young, M. S. (2000). A proposed psychological model of driving automation. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 1 (4), 315–331.
   Google Scholar
• Stanton, N. A., & Young, M. S. (2000). A proposed psychological model of driving automation. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 1 (4), 315–331.
   Google Scholar
• Steelman, K. S., McCarley, J. S., & Wickens, C. D. (2016). Theory-based models of attention in visual workspaces. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 33, 1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stefik, M., Bobrow, D. G., Foster, G., Lanning, S., & Tatar, D. (1987). WYSIWIS revised: Early experiences with multiuser interfaces. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 5 (2), 147–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone, D., Jarrett, C., Woodroffe, M., & Minocha, S. (2005). User interface design and evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
   Google Scholar
• Wickens, C. D., Hollands, J. G., Banbury, S., & Parasuraman, R. (2015). Engineering psychology & human performance. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wirstad, J. (1988). On knowledge structures for process operators (pp. 50–69). London, UK: Taylor & Francis, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Won, M., & Pipek, V. (2003). Sharing knowledge on knowledge - The eXact peripheral expertise awareness system. Journal UCS, 9 (12), 1388–1397.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woods, D. D., Roth, E. M., Stubler, W. F., & Mumaw, R. J. (1990). Navigating through large display networks in dynamic control applications. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, X., Yuan, X., Li, Z., Song, F., & Sang, W. (2016). Validation of “alarm bar” alternative interface for digital control panel design: A preliminary experimental study. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 51, 43–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuan, X., She, M., Li, Z., Zhang, Y., & Wu, X. (2016). Mutual awareness: Enhanced by interface design and improving team performance in incident diagnosis under computerized working environment. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 54, 65–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuan, X. H. (2013). Effects of mutual awareness on team performance in accident diagnosis under computerized working environment. ( Master thesis). Beijing, China: Tsinghua University (In Chinese).
   Google Scholar
• Zhang, T., & Adams, J. A. (2012). Evaluation of a geospatial annotation tool for unmanned vehicle specialist interface. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 28 (6), 361–372.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar