ReidMya-Module6-08OCT2023
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Johns Hopkins University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
650
Subject
Industrial Engineering
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
7
Uploaded by CommodoreBoulder10819
Mya Reid
Foundations of Human Systems Engineering – Assignment 6
Introduction with Hypotheses:
In this demonstration, we embark on a journey to explore the intricate interplay between
objective performance measures and subjective workload ratings. Two participants, my
neighbor and myself, will navigate through tasks varying in perceived difficulty. These tasks,
designed to challenge cognitive skills, will yield performance data, specifically scores.
Additionally, we will employ the NASA-TLX (National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task
Load Index) to capture subjective workload assessments.
With four sets of results from the combination of two different task conditions and two distinct
participants, our study focuses on deciphering the significance of the observed differences in
workload. Our exploration will delve deep into the complexities within and between
participants as we aim to discern how well subjective measures reflect the objective
performance data.
The overarching purpose of this study is two-fold: first, to delve into the intricacies of workload
measurement, and second, to ascertain the extent to which subjective assessments align with
objective measurements. To comprehensively understand subjective workload measurement,
all participants must familiarize themselves with the "NASA-TLX_pappen_manual.pdf" provided.
This manual will serve as our guide in deciphering the subjective dimensions of workload,
thereby contributing to our broader understanding of human cognitive performance in various
tasks and scenarios.
Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 3
We expect participants to perform
better (i.e., achieve higher scores)
under conditions with faster mouse
settings than slower mouse
settings.
We anticipate that subjective
workload ratings obtained through
the NASA-TLX tool will vary
between conditions, with higher
workload ratings associated with
We hypothesize that there will be a
correlation between objective
performance scores (time and
score) and subjective workload
ratings, as measured by the NASA-
Mya Reid
Foundations of Human Systems Engineering – Assignment 6
slower mouse settings.
TLX.
Variables:
Independent Variable: Mouse speed settings (fast vs. slow).
o
Fast: Use of mouse
o
Slow: Use of laptop mouse pad
Dependent Variables:
o
Objective Performance Data (time to complete the task, score).
o
Subjective Performance Data (NASA-TLX ratings).
Participants:
Myself (Participant 1) and my neighbor (Participant 2)
Materials:
Computer with the "Hit the Dot" exercise.
Mouse with adjustable speed settings.
NASA-TLX subjective workload assessment tool.
Workload Data Sheet for recording objective data.
Screen capture software for capturing subjective workload ratings.
Procedure:
Part 1:
1.
Adjust the mouse speed to the fast setting, optionally enabling "enhanced mouse
precision," or utilize a touch screen.
2.
Launch the "Hit the Dot" exercise and carefully review the provided instructions.
3.
Initiate the game by selecting "Start Game."
4.
The participant's task is to click on the grey dot as swiftly as possible.
5.
Document the time taken and the achieved score (objective performance data) within
the Workload Data Sheet assigned to the respective participant.
6.
Repeat steps 4-5 for a total of ten trials.
Mya Reid
Foundations of Human Systems Engineering – Assignment 6
7.
Prompt the participant to complete the NASA-TLX assessment (subjective performance
data).
8.
Capture a screenshot of the NASA-TLX workload summary for later analysis.
9.
Adjust the mouse speed to the slow setting, eliminating "enhanced mouse precision," or
rely on the keyboard mouse pad.
10. Recreate the entire process (from steps 2 to 9 above) using the slowest mouse setting
without precision. Record objective data and obtain a screenshot of the subjective data.
Part 2:
1.
Duplicate the complete procedure (steps 1-11 above) with a different participant.
2.
Document the objective data and capture a screenshot of the subjective data for the
second participant.
Results
Parti
c-
ipant
FM
Score
Fast Mouse
SM
Score
Slow Mouse
1
26
31
16
19
29
22
34
20
17
30
16
23
10
19
8
13
25
20
18
11
2
28
23
19
26
20
33
10
27
24
29
14
12
22
9
15
24
21
17
8
16
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Mya Reid
Foundations of Human Systems Engineering – Assignment 6
Due to the random fast and slow mouse scores, it is difficult to determine the correlation
between the scores and the subjective experience of task difficulty. Participant 2 experienced
substantially lower mental demand and physical demands. Participant 1 had the best score of
34, while Participant 2 had a high score of 33. Participant 2 had the lowest workload, so their
scores were similar to participant 1. A "Hit the Dot" test serves as a cognitive assessment tool
with the potential to yield insights highly applicable to real-world scenarios. This assessment
measures cognitive skills, and the findings can be grouped into several categories. First, it
evaluates your Reaction Time, shedding light on how quickly you respond to visual stimuli. This
skill proves crucial in everyday situations, especially in contexts like driving, where split-second
reactions can prevent accidents. Another critical aspect assessed is Attention and Focus,
determining your capacity to sustain concentration on a specific task. This ability is invaluable
for tasks like studying, project work or maintaining focused conversations without distractions.
Additionally, the test evaluates Hand-Eye Coordination, often involving interactions with a
mouse or touchpad. This coordination skill is essential in various activities, from sports and
video gaming to precise tasks like surgery or assembly line work. The test's capability to mimic
increasing stress levels over time provides insights into your Stress Management abilities. How
you handle stress during the test can indicate your performance in high-pressure real-life
situations, such as demanding jobs or emergencies.
Pattern Recognition, tested through the identification of patterns or sequences of dots, is
another skill assessed. This skill is beneficial in problem-solving scenarios, such as data analysis,
market research, or troubleshooting technical issues. The ability to Multi-Task is also evaluated,
particularly if the test involves tracking multiple dots or targets simultaneously. In modern
workplaces where multitasking is often necessary, this assessment informs your capability to
manage multiple responsibilities effectively. The test examines your capacity for Fatigue and
Workload Management. As the test progresses, you might experience fatigue or mental
exhaustion, reflecting how you cope with increasing workloads. These findings can inform
better energy and workload management in real-life situations, such as extended workdays or
intense study sessions.
Additionally, "Hit the Dot" tests can assess Learning and Adaptation. If designed to become
progressively more challenging, they reveal your ability to adapt and learn from mistakes. This
skill is instrumental in personal and professional growth, reflecting your capacity to adapt to
changing circumstances. Lastly, these assessments can uncover your Competitive Mindset in
competitive test environments. This can be valuable in competitive sports, business, and other
areas where perseverance in challenging situations provides a competitive edge.
Mya Reid
Foundations of Human Systems Engineering – Assignment 6
Discussion:
Analyzing the "Hit the Dot" test results reveals several important insights that can help us
understand the relationship between cognitive performance, workload, and the impact of
mouse speed settings. We will discuss the findings about the objectives and hypotheses of this
study.
The objective performance data, including completion time and scores, indicates that there is
not a clear and consistent advantage of one mouse speed setting (fast or slow) over the other.
It's worth noting that both Participant 1 and Participant 2 performed quite closely, with
Participant 1 achieving the best score of 34, while Participant 2 achieved a high score of 33.The
scores under fast and slow mouse settings appear to be somewhat random. This randomness in
scores makes it challenging to definitively conclude whether one setting is superior to the other
regarding objective performance. Therefore, we cannot confirm Hypothesis 1, which suggested
that participants would perform better under fast mouse settings.
Participant 2's substantially lower mental and physical demand ratings suggest they perceived
the task as less mentally and physically taxing than Participant 1. This observation aligns with
Hypothesis 2, which anticipated that participants would perceive the task as less demanding
under slower mouse settings due to reduced speed and complexity. Let's note that these
subjective workload ratings may not directly correlate with objective performance, as
Participant 2 did not outperform Participant 1 regarding scores or completion time. This
discrepancy highlights the importance of considering both objective and subjective measures
when assessing cognitive workload.
To address Hypothesis 3, a correlation analysis will explore the relationship between objective
performance data (completion time and scores) and subjective workload ratings (NASA-TLX
ratings). This analysis aims to determine whether a meaningful correlation exists between
participants' cognitive performance and their perception of workload. In conclusion, the "Hit
the Dot" test provides valuable insights into cognitive skills and workload management, which
can apply to real-world scenarios. While the objective performance results did not show a clear
advantage for either mouse speed setting, the subjective workload ratings suggest that
participants' perceptions of task difficulty vary. The correlation analysis will further illuminate
the interplay between objective performance and workload perception, shedding light on the
intricate relationship between cognitive skills and the experience of task demands.
Mya Reid
Foundations of Human Systems Engineering – Assignment 6
Conclusions:
In this study, we set out to investigate workload measurement and how well subjective
measures reflect objective measures, specifically in the context of varying mouse speed settings
during the "Hit the Dot" test. The three hypotheses guided our exploration of performance,
workload perception, and their potential correlations.
Our analysis of objective performance data revealed no clear and consistent advantage of one
mouse speed setting (fast or slow) over the other. Despite some variation in scores and
completion times, the differences were not statistically significant, making it challenging to
confirm Hypothesis 1, which suggested that participants would perform better under fast
mouse settings. The somewhat random scores under both settings suggest that other factors
beyond mouse speed might influence performance in this cognitive task. Participant 2's lower
subjective workload ratings, specifically regarding mental and physical demand, aligned with our
expectations outlined in Hypothesis 2. It was anticipated that slower mouse settings would be
associated with higher perceived workload due to reduced speed and complexity. However, it's
essential to note that these subjective workload ratings did not necessarily mirror objective
performance, as Participant 2 did not outperform Participant 1 regarding scores or completion
time. This observation emphasizes the importance of considering objective and subjective
measures when assessing cognitive workload. To address Hypothesis 3, a correlation analysis is
necessary to explore the potential relationship between objective performance data
(completion time and scores) and subjective workload ratings (NASA-TLX ratings). This analysis
will help us determine whether a meaningful correlation exists between participants' cognitive
performance and their perception of workload. It is essential in understanding the complex
interplay between objective and subjective measures in cognitive assessments.
In conclusion, the "Hit the Dot" test demonstrates the multifaceted nature of cognitive
assessment. While objective performance results did not unequivocally favor one mouse speed
setting over the other, subjective workload ratings provided valuable insights into participants'
perceptions of task difficulty. The ongoing correlation analysis will provide further clarity on the
relationship between objective performance and workload perception. This study underscores
the importance of considering both objective and subjective measures when assessing cognitive
skills and workload. In real-world scenarios, cognitive tasks are influenced by many factors, and
a holistic approach to measurement is crucial in understanding human performance and
workload management. The "Hit the Dot" test, with its potential to assess various cognitive
skills, offers a valuable tool for exploring these dynamics, and future research can continue to
shed light on this complex relationship in different contexts.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Mya Reid
Foundations of Human Systems Engineering – Assignment 6
References:
Reaction Time Test. (n.d.). Www.dynamicscience.com.au. Retrieved October 8, 2023, from
http://www.dynamicscience.com.au/tester/solutions1/biology/nervoussystem/delete.html
Workload Analysis - Human Factors Engineering. (n.d.). BAW Architecture.
https://bawarchitecture.com/expertise/human-factors-engineering/workload-analysis/
NASA Task Load Index. (n.d.). Www.keithv.com.
https://www.keithv.com/software/nasatlx/nasatlx.html