Muutke küpsiste eelistusi

Distributed Cognition and Reality: How Pilots and Crews Make Decisions [Pehme köide]

(University of Southhampton, United Kingdom), (University of Southampton, UK)
  • Formaat: Paperback / softback, 250 pages, kõrgus x laius: 234x156 mm, kaal: 453 g
  • Ilmumisaeg: 12-Dec-2019
  • Kirjastus: CRC Press
  • ISBN-10: 0367882078
  • ISBN-13: 9780367882075
Teised raamatud teemal:
Distributed Cognition and Reality: How Pilots and Crews Make DecisionsSuurem pilt
  • Formaat: Paperback / softback, 250 pages, kõrgus x laius: 234x156 mm, kaal: 453 g
  • Ilmumisaeg: 12-Dec-2019
  • Kirjastus: CRC Press
  • ISBN-10: 0367882078
  • ISBN-13: 9780367882075
Teised raamatud teemal:
Püsilink: https://www.kriso.ee/db/9780367882075.html
Märksõnad:

Distributed Cognition and Reality puts theory into practice, as the first book to show how to apply the Perceptual Cycle Model in aviation decision making. Based on case studies, critical incident interviews and live observations in cockpits, the authors develop a new way to understand how pilots and crews make decisions. This book will be useful for practitioners involved in accident and incident investigations and decision-making training, researchers and students within the disciplines of Aviation, Human Factors, Ergonomics, Engineering, Computer Science, and Psychology.





Dr Katherine L Plant is a New Frontiers Fellow in Human Factors Engineering at the University of Southampton in the UK. In 2014 she was awarded the Honourable Company of Air Pilots Prize for Aviation Safety Research.





Professor Neville A Stanton

holds the Chair in Human Factors Engineering at the University of Southampton in the UK. In 2007 The Royal Aeronautical Society awarded him the Hodgson Medal for his work on flight-deck safety.

Arvustused

The perceptual-cycle model (PCM) is one of the few approaches that truly integrates humans, systems, and environments. Plant and Stanton's thorough and detailed explanation of PCM, along with its application to understanding pilot decision making in critical situations, is a tremendously valuable resource for researchers and practitioners in this field. This book will be indispensable for all of us in the field of aviation human factors.Professor Steven Landry, Purdue University, USA

Plant and Stanton have produced a remarkable piece of work in the field of aeronautical decision making. As an expert in the field, I find the Perceptual Cycle Model is extremely interesting. This book will be a valuable reference for accident analysis in practice as well as offering new research directions in the field. Prof Guy André Boy, Florida Institute of Technology, USA

This book challenges existing cognitive explanations of decision making to look beyond individual models and consider the dynamic collaborations between crew members.This book provides an analytic framework for improving our understanding of the precursors to critical events.A key contribution is to demonstrate the practical utility of tools that have a strong theoretical foundation. Professor Chris Johnson, University of Glasgow, UK

This book deserves a large audience and the theory is applicable to much wider domains for investigating incidents in other safety-critical systems. It moves significantly beyond the state-of-the-art accounts of learning from (human) error and contains many stimulating ideas for future research and practice in cognitive systems. I can highly recommend this book to engineers, practitioners, and academics who work on improving the safety of complex socio-technical systems, both through their design and in training the human operators. Professor Max Mulder, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

List of Figures
xv
List of Tables
xvii
Preface xix
Acknowledgements xxi
Authors xxiii
List of Abbreviations
xxv
Chapter 1 Introduction
1(6)
1.1 Background
1(1)
1.2 Distributed Cognition Approach
2(1)
1.3 Aims and Objectives
3(1)
1.4 Structure of the Book
4(3)
Chapter 2 Schema Theory: Past, Present and Future
7(20)
2.1 Introduction
7(4)
2.1.1 What Is a Schema?
7(2)
2.1.2 Pioneers of Schema Theory
9(2)
2.1.3 Summary
11(1)
2.2 Criticisms of Schema Theory
11(3)
2.2.1 Lack of Consensus with Definitions
12(1)
2.2.2 Lack of a Unified Theory
12(1)
2.2.3 Methods of Measurement and Representation
13(1)
2.3 Answering the Critics: The Role of Schema Theory in Ergonomics
14(8)
2.3.1 Usable Definitions
14(1)
2.3.2 Testable Theory
15(1)
2.3.3 Studying Behaviour and Inferring/Representing Schemata
16(2)
2.3.4 Practical Applications of Schema Theory in Ergonomics Research
18(1)
2.3.4.1 Situation Awareness
18(1)
2.3.4.2 Naturalistic Decision-Making
19(1)
2.3.4.3 Human Error
20(2)
2.3.5 Summary
22(1)
2.4 Future Directions
22(3)
2.4.1 As a Unifying Theory in Ergonomics
22(1)
2.4.2 As a Foundation for Studying Distributed Cognition
23(1)
2.4.3 As an Avenue for Exploring the Cognition of Machines
24(1)
2.5 Conclusions
25(2)
Chapter 3 Case Study of the Kegworth Plane Crash: Understanding Local Rationality with the Perceptual Cycle Model
27(20)
3.1 Introduction
27(6)
3.1.1 Decision-Making and Error in Aviation
27(1)
3.1.2 Perceptual Cycle Model
28(3)
3.1.3 Schema Theory and Error
31(2)
3.2 Kegworth Disaster
33(2)
3.2.1 Synopsis
33(1)
3.2.2 Method of Analysis
34(1)
3.3 Thematic Analysis of the Kegworth Crash
35(8)
3.3.1 Fundamental Error: Shut Down the Wrong Engine due to Inappropriate Diagnosis of Smoke Origin
35(1)
3.3.2 Contributory Factor 1: The Situation Was Outside of the Crew's Training and Experience
36(1)
3.3.3 Contributory Factor 2: Premature Reaction to the Problem
37(2)
3.3.4 Contributory Factor 3: Lack of Equipment Monitoring and Assimilation of Instrument Indications
39(2)
3.3.5 Contributory Factor 4: Cessation of Smoke, Noise and Vibration When the Engine Was Throttled Back
41(2)
3.3.6 Contributory Factor 5: Lack of Communication from the Cabin Crew
43(1)
3.4 Discussion
43(3)
3.4.1 Practical Applications
45(1)
3.5 Conclusions
46(1)
Chapter 4 A Pilot Study: Using the Perceptual Cycle Model and Critical Decision Method to Understand Decision-Making Processes in the Cockpit
47(26)
4.1 Introduction
47(6)
4.1.1 Aeronautical Decision-Making
47(1)
4.1.2 Perceptual Cycle Model
48(1)
4.1.3 Schema Theory and NDM
48(1)
4.1.4 Critical Decision Method
49(1)
4.1.4.1 Description
49(1)
4.1.4.2 Procedure
50(1)
4.1.4.3 Evaluation
51(2)
4.2 Method
53(2)
4.2.1 Methodological Perspective
53(1)
4.2.2 Study Participant and Procedure
53(2)
4.2.3 Methodological Questions to Answer
55(1)
4.3 Incident Analysis
55(4)
4.3.1 Incident Synopsis
55(1)
4.3.2 Thematic Analysis of Critical Incident
56(2)
4.3.3 Incident Summary
58(1)
4.4 Tests of Reliability
59(8)
4.4.1 Reliability of the CDM
59(1)
4.4.1.1 Procedure
59(1)
4.4.1.2 Results
60(1)
4.4.1.3 Preliminary Discussion
60(5)
4.4.2 Reliability of the PCM Coding Scheme
65(1)
4.4.2.1 Participants
65(1)
4.4.2.2 Materials
66(1)
4.4.2.3 Procedure
66(1)
4.4.2.4 Results
66(1)
4.4.2.5 Preliminary Discussion
67(1)
4.5 General Discussion
67(3)
4.5.1 Summary
67(1)
4.5.2 Applicability
68(2)
4.5.3 Avenues of Future Work
70(1)
4.6 Conclusions
70(3)
Chapter 5 Examining the Validity of Neisser's Perceptual Cycle Model with Accounts from Critical Decision-Making in the Cockpit
73(20)
5.1 Introduction
73(3)
5.1.1 The PCM and Its Application in Ergonomics
73(2)
5.1.2 Theoretical Validity
75(1)
5.1.3 Aeronautical Decision-Making: A Case Study for the Validity of the PCM
76(1)
5.2 Method
76(4)
5.2.1 Critical Decision Method
76(1)
5.2.2 Participants
77(1)
5.2.3 Procedure
77(1)
5.2.4 Data Analysis
77(2)
5.2.5 Reliability of the Coding Scheme
79(1)
5.3 Composite Account of Aeronautical Decision-Making
80(6)
5.3.1 Whole Incident
80(1)
5.3.2 Incident Phases
81(1)
5.3.2.1 Phase 1: Pre-Incident
81(1)
5.3.2.2 Phase 2: Onset of Problem
81(2)
5.3.2.3 Phase 3: Immediate Actions
83(1)
5.3.2.4 Phase 4: Decision-Making
84(1)
5.3.2.5 Subsequent Actions
85(1)
5.3.2.6 Incident Containment
86(1)
5.4 Discussion
86(6)
5.4.1 Validating the PCM
87(1)
5.4.2 Counter-Cycle and Levels of Behaviour
88(2)
5.4.3 Practical Applications
90(1)
5.4.4 Evaluation of Methodology and Future Research Endeavours
91(1)
5.5 Conclusion
92(1)
Chapter 6 Development of a Perceptual Cycle Classification Scheme
93(22)
6.1 Introduction
93(2)
6.1.1 Role and Utility of Taxonomies in Ergonomics Research
93(1)
6.1.2 PCM as a Process-Oriented Approach to Aeronautical Decision-Making
94(1)
6.2 Method: Taxonomy Development
95(3)
6.2.1 Data Collection
95(1)
6.2.2 Data Analysis
95(1)
6.2.2.1 Data Treatment
95(1)
6.2.2.2 Deductive Thematic Analysis
95(1)
6.2.2.3 Inductive Thematic Analysis
96(1)
6.2.2.4 Relationship and Frequency Analysis
96(1)
6.2.3 Reliability Assessment
97(1)
6.3 Results
98(10)
6.3.1 SAW Taxonomy
98(1)
6.3.1.1 Schema Categories
98(1)
6.3.1.2 Action Categories
98(4)
6.3.1.3 World Categories
102(1)
6.3.2 Perceptual Cycle Analysis of ACDM
102(6)
6.4 Discussion
108(6)
6.4.1 SAW Taxonomy
108(1)
6.4.2 Gaining Perceptual Cycle Insights into ACDM
109(1)
6.4.3 Evaluation
109(4)
6.4.4 Future Applications and Research
113(1)
6.5 Conclusions
114(1)
Chapter 7 Schema World Action Research Method for Understanding Perceptual Cycle Processes
115(18)
7.1 Introduction
115(2)
7.1.1 Perceptual Cycle as an Explanatory Framework
115(1)
7.1.2 Eliciting and Representing Perceptual Cycle Processes
116(1)
7.2 Method I: SWARM Development
117(2)
7.2.1 Data Collection
117(1)
7.2.2 Data Analysis
117(1)
7.2.3 SWARM Development
118(1)
7.2.4 Procedural Guidance
119(1)
7.3 Method II: SWARM Test Case
119(3)
7.3.1 Participant
119(2)
7.3.2 Data Collection
121(1)
7.3.3 Data Analysis
121(1)
7.4 Results
122(5)
7.4.1 Incident Synopsis
122(1)
7.4.2 Theoretical Validity of SWARM
122(1)
7.4.2.1 Pre-Incident Phase
123(1)
7.4.2.2 Onset of Problem
123(1)
7.4.2.3 Immediate Actions
123(1)
7.4.2.4 Decision-Making
124(1)
7.4.2.5 Subsequent Actions
125(1)
7.4.2.6 Incident Containment
125(1)
7.4.3 Tcst-Retcst Reliability of SWARM
125(2)
7.5 Discussion
127(4)
7.5.1 Validity and Reliability of SWARM
127(1)
7.5.2 Theoretical and Practical Applications
128(2)
7.5.3 Future Research
130(1)
7.6 Conclusion
131(2)
Chapter 8 Team Perceptual Cycle Processes
133(22)
8.1 Introduction
133(3)
8.1.1 PCM, Decision-Making and Teams
133(2)
8.1.2 Networks and the Analysis of Distributed Cognition
135(1)
8.2 Method
136(1)
8.2.1 Critical Decision Method
136(1)
8.2.2 SAR Environment
136(1)
8.2.3 Participants
136(1)
8.2.4 Procedure
137(1)
8.2.5 Data Analysis
137(1)
8.3 Data Interpretation
137(10)
8.3.1 Incident Synopsis
137(2)
8.3.2 Perceptual Cycle Representation
139(1)
8.3.2.1 Live Run Phase
139(1)
8.3.2.2 Critical Incident Phase
140(1)
8.3.3 Network Representation
141(6)
8.4 Discussion
147(6)
8.4.1 Perceptual Cycle versus Network Representation
147(1)
8.4.2 Modelling Distributed Cognition
148(1)
8.4.3 Types of Information Processing
149(2)
8.4.4 Applications, Limitations and Avenues for Future Research
151(2)
8.5 Conclusions
153(2)
Chapter 9 Exploring Distributed Cognition in Search and Rescue Teams
155(48)
9.1 Introduction
155(7)
9.1.1 PCM, Teams and Distributed Cognition
155(2)
9.1.2 Using EAST to Analyse Distributed Cognition
157(1)
9.1.3 Teamwork and Communication in Cockpit Crews
158(4)
9.2 Method
162(4)
9.2.1 SAR Environment and Crew Roles
162(1)
9.2.2 Participants
163(1)
9.2.3 Data Collection and Data Treatment
163(1)
9.2.4 Data Analysis
164(1)
9.2.5 Reliability Assessment
164(2)
9.3 Case Study Synopsis
166(2)
9.4 Results
168(23)
9.4.1 Task Network Analysis
168(2)
9.4.2 Social Network Analysis
170(1)
9.4.3 Information Network Analysis
171(2)
9.4.3.1 Thematic Analysis with the SAW Taxonomy
173(2)
9.4.3.2 Perceptual Cycle Interactions: High Level
175(4)
9.4.3.3 Perceptual Cycle Interactions: SAW Taxonomy
179(8)
9.4.4 Communication Analysis
187(4)
9.5 Discussion
191(9)
9.5.1 Network Interpretations
191(1)
9.5.1.1 Task Network
191(1)
9.5.1.2 Social Networks
191(1)
9.5.1.3 Information Networks
192(2)
9.5.2 Gaining Insights into Distributed Cognition in the SAR Crew
194(2)
9.5.3 Evaluation of Crew Teamwork
196(3)
9.5.4 Implications and Avenues for Future Research
199(1)
9.6 Conclusions
200(3)
Chapter 10 Conclusions
203(14)
10.1 Research Summary
203(3)
10.1.1 Objective 1: Understand the Role of the Perception-Decision-Action Cycle in ACDM
203(1)
10.1.2 Objective 2: The Development of Elicitation and Analysis Methodologies
204(1)
10.1.3 Objective 3: Investigate How Teams Interact in the Perception-Decision-Action Cycle
205(1)
10.2 Future Research
206(8)
10.2.1 Theoretical Implications
206(1)
10.2.1.1 Diverse Domains and Demographic Groups
206(1)
10.2.1.2 Predictive Utility
207(1)
10.2.1.3 Perceptual Cycle Processes of Non-Human Agents
208(1)
10.2.2 Methodological Implications
208(1)
10.2.2.1 Validate SWARM
208(1)
10.2.2.2 Determine Best Practice for the Elicitation of Schemata
209(1)
10.2.2.3 Explore the Utility of Communication Network Analysis with the EAST Methodology
210(1)
10.2.3 Practical Implications
210(1)
10.2.3.1 Decision Aids
211(1)
10.2.3.2 Training for Critical Decision-Making
212(1)
10.2.3.3 Adaptive Interface Design
213(1)
10.3 Closing Remarks
214(3)
Appendix: SWARM Prompts and Procedure 217(8)
References 225(14)
Author Index 239(4)
Subject Index 243
Dr Katherine Plant has been working as a human factors researcher at the University of Southampton since 2009. During this time she has worked on a variety of European Union funded projects in the field of aviation human factors. This work has primarily focused on applying human factors methods in the development and evaluation of future cockpit concepts. Katherine has published a number of papers in peer-reviewed journals. In June 2015 Katherine was awarded a PhD in Human Factors from the University of Southampton, UK. The Honourable Company of Air Pilots awarded this work their Saul Prize for aviation safety research in May 2014. Professor Neville A Stanton, PhD, is both a Chartered Psychologist and a Chartered Engineer and holds the Chair in Human Factors in the Faculty of Engineering and the Environment at the University of Southampton. He has degrees in Psychology, Applied Psychology and Human Factors and has worked at the Universities of Aston, Brunel, Cornell and MIT. His research interests include modelling, predicting and analysing human performance in transport systems as well as designing the interfaces between humans and technology. Professor Stanton has worked on cockpit design in automobiles and aircraft over the past 25 years, working on a variety of automation projects. He has published 30 books and over 200 journal papers on Ergonomics and Human Factors, and is currently an editor of the peer-reviewed journal Ergonomics. The Institute of Ergonomics and Human Factors awarded him The Otto Edholm Medal in 2001, The Presidents Medal in 2008 and The Sir Frederic Bartlett Medal in 2012 for his contribution to basic and applied ergonomics research. The Royal Aeronautical Society awarded him and his colleagues the Hodgson Prize and Bronze Medal in 2006 for research on design-induced flight-deck error published in The Aeronautical Journal. The University of Southampton awarded him a DSc in 2014 for his sustained contribution to the development and valid