Crew Performance Monitoring: Putting some Feeling into it
- Paper number
IAC-07-A1.1.05
- Author
Dr. Nathalie Pattyn, University of Brussels, Belgium
- Coauthor
José Morais, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium
- Coauthor
Eric Soetens, Belgium
- Coauthor
Raymond Cluydts, Belgium
- Coauthor
Régine Kolinsky, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium
- Coauthor
Dr. Pierre-François Migeotte, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium
- Year
2007
- Abstract
Introduction Considering the potential cost of human error in operational settings, it is undisputable that measuring cognitive performance is a relevant challenge. The need for a robust remote assessment method for cognitive performance has been specifically ranked as a research priority (pp. D-31, D-32, BPCR, NASA 2004) for the preparation of exploration missions. As reviewed by Casler and Cook (1999), the experimental evidence from cognitive performance during spaceflight reveals a lack of investigation on executive functions. Furthermore, two hypotheses have been invoked so far to explain performance decrements in space: the microgravity hypothesis, and the multiple stressors hypothesis (e.g. Manzey, 2000).
Method We targeted cognitive control through Stroop-like interference paradigms. Since real-life performance is never free of emotional and/or motivational appraisal, emotional material was included to improve the ecological validity. In addition, autonomic responses to the presentation of cognitive tasks were assessed through cardio-respiratory measurements. The method was validated by investigating the psychophysiological effects of operational stress in military student pilots (baseline recordings vs recording before a major evaluation flight). The same protocol was applied to a group of jet fighter pilots, and a single-case study during a short-duration spaceflight (11 days).
Results Results of student pilots show several psychophysiological indicators of stress, and the main finding was a weaker cognitive control, as indexed by a significant increase in error rates, but specifically for emotional material. This impaired cognitive control was paired with a decreased physiological reactivity. Results of the space mission show a weaker cognitive control during the flight, partly present on the last measurement before launch (L-9), which allows to discard microgravity as being the sole causal agent. Furthermore, the highest increase in errors was seen for emotional material, and was paired with decreased physiological variability, similarly to the “stress” condition in student pilots.
Discussion These results thus allow to conclude that i) performance testing including an emotional dimension seems more sensitive to operational stress ii) heart rate reactivity was decreased in operational, and that this decrease was paired with impaired cognitive control iii) microgravity is not the sole causal factor of potential performance decrements in space, which are more likely due to the combination of multiple stressors.
References BPCR: Bioastronautics Critical Path Roadmap (2004). National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Casler J.G. & Cook J.R. (1999). Intl J. Cog. Ergonomics, 3, 351 Manzey, D. (2000). Avn Space Env Med, 71, A69
Authors: N. Pattyn1,2,3, P.-F. Migeotte4, J. Morais,3, E. Soetens1, R. Cluydts1, R. Kolinsky,3 1Dept Cognitive & Biological Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel ; 2Dept Behavioral Sciences, Royal Military Academy, Brussels; 3Unité de Recherches en Neurosciences Cognitives, Université Libre de Bruxelles (U.L.B.); 4Lab de Physique Biomédicale, U.L.B.
- Abstract document
- Manuscript document
IAC-07-A1.1.05.pdf (🔒 authorized access only).
To get the manuscript, please contact IAF Secretariat.