Study on multidimensional quantification of individual workload of controllers

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2024.06.1562

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to enhance the efficacious operation of the air traffic control system, a quantitative model was established by focusing on the individual load of controllers. Tests were designed to collect pre-service and post-service data on various indicators from 16 area controllers in the front line. Sensitive variables were selected to describe individual loads based on changes in test data. A comprehensive assessment index system was established that included three dimensions: psychological perception load, physiological reaction load, and mental workload. The controller individual load index model was developed. The optimal weights of the individual load index were determined by the the entropy-critic combination weighting method. The quantitative model of the controller's individual workload was finally derived. Further K-Means clustering analysis was performed based on the controller's individual load composite index. There were evident discrepancies in the workload changes of the controllers due to different individual postures. The results indicate that the post-post individual workload changes of the controllers could be classified into three distinct groups. The first group, comprising 50% of the total number of controllers, exhibited the smallest post-post individual workload growth. The second group, accounting for 43.75% of the total number of controllers, exhibited a moderate post-post individual workload growth. The third group, comprising 6.25% of the total number of controllers, exhibited the largest post-post individual workload increase. These findings align with the instructor's ratings of controller competence.

Key words: air traffic controller, individual workload, paired-sample T-test, entropy-critic combination weighting method, K-Means cluster analysis

CLC Number:

X949

WANG Lili, GU Qiuli. Study on multidimensional quantification of individual workload of controllers[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2024, 34(6): 1-9.

Figures/Tables 14

Fig.1

Fig.2

Table 1

Table 2

Fig.3

Table 3

Fig.4

Table 4

Pre-post paired samples t-test for brain workload indicators

认知负荷指标	配对差值					t	自由度	Sig.双尾
	平均值	标准偏差	标准误差平均值	差值 95%置信区间
	平均值	标准偏差	标准误差平均值	下限	上限
$F f ¯$	-38.017 19	28.742 92	7.185 73	-53.333 20	-22.701 17	-5.291	15	0.000
$T f ¯$	-40.115 06	63.004 32	15.751 08	-73.687 69	-6.542 42	-2.547	15	0.022
$S f ¯$	-8.097 09	8.938 15	2.234 54	-12.859 89	-3.334 29	-3.624	15	0.003

Table 4

Table 5

Entropy weighting, critic weight method and combination method indicator weight values

算法	$Δ L' P S S$	$Δ L' T L X$	$Δ β'$	$Δ K' S C L$	$Δ P' d$	$Δ F' f$	$Δ T' f$	$Δ S' f$
熵权法	0.104 8	0.073 7	0.088 8	0.112 4	0.072 7	0.153 3	0.238 8	0.155 5
CRITIC	0.126 2	0.124 6	0.139 0	0.113 4	0.100 7	0.139 5	0.120 5	0.136 1
组合算法	0.104 9	0.074 0	0.089 1	0.112 4	0.072 9	0.153 2	0.238 1	0.155 4

Table 5

Table 6

Fig.5

Fig.6

Table 7

Fig.7

References 22

[1]	每日经济新闻. 2023年上半年国内航班量已超2019年同期水平[EB/OL].(2023-07-10). https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1771017336610393586&wfr=spider&for=pc.
[2]	PANT R, TAUKARI A, SHARMA K. Cognitive workload of air traffic controllers in area control center of mumbai enroute airspace[J]. Journal of Psychosocial Research, 2012, 7(2):279-284.
[3]	朱聃, 徐晨, 刘继新. 基于语音识别的管制员工作负荷评估[J]. 计算机应用研究, 2020, 37(增1):24-26,33.
	ZHU Dan, XU Chen, LIU Jixin. Evaluation of air traffic controller workload based on automatic speech recognition[J]. Application Research of Computers, 2020, 37(S1):24-26,33.
[4]	袁霄, 杨家忠, 吴丹. 基于扇区动态复杂性因素的航空管制员工作负荷计算[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2015, 15(2):108-111.
	YUAN Xiao, YANG Jiazhong, WU Dan. Renovated accounting method for the air traffic controller workload based on the sector division of the dynamic complex factors[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2015, 15(2):108-111.
[5]	王莉莉, 许凌鹏. 基于眼动数据的管制员注意力特征评价[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2023, 33(2):217-224. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.02.2785
	WANG Lili, XU Lingpeng. Evaluation of air traffic controller's attention characteristics based on eye movement data[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(2):217-224. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.02.2785
[6]	ORDEN V F K, JUNG T, MAKEIG S. Combined eye activity measures accurately estimate changes in sustained visual task performance[J]. Biological Psychology, 2000, 52(3):221-240. pmid: 10725565
[7]	WANG Yanjun, WANG Liwei, LIN Siyuan, et al. Effect of working experience on air traffic controller eye movement[J]. Engineering, 2021, 7:488-494.
[8]	AHLSTROM U, FRIEDMAN-BERG F J. Using eye movement activity as a correlate of cognitive workload[J]. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 2006, 36(7):623-636.
[9]	WEEH J, LYES W, PINHEIRO J P. Real time eye tracking interface for visual monitoring of radar controllers[C]. AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, 2017: DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-1317.
[10]	PAGNOTTA M, JACOBS DM, DE FRUTOS PL, et al. Task difficulty and physiological measures of mental workload in air traffic control: a scoping review[J]. Ergonomics, 2022, 65(8):1095-1118.
[11]	PIETRO A, GIANLUCA B, GIANLUCA F D, et al. Reliability over time of EEG-based mental workload evaluation during air traffic management (ATM) tasks[C]. Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2015:7242-7245.
[12]	陈彦峰. 睡意对脑电信号的影响[D]. 兰州: 兰州理工大学, 2013.
	CHEN Yanfeng. The effect of drowsiness on Electroencephalogram[D]. Lanzhou: Lanzhou University of Technology, 2013.
[13]	陈凤兰. 基于多导生理信号的管制员疲劳分析方法研究[D]. 天津: 中国民航大学, 2018.
	CHEN Fenglan. Research on controller fatigue analysis method based on multi-conductor physiological signals[D]. Tianjin: Civil Aviation University of China, 2018.
[14]	LEE E H, CHUNG B Y, SUH C H, et al. Korean versions of the perceived stress scale (PSS-14, 10 and 4): psychometric evaluation in patients with chronic disease[J]. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 2015, 29(1):183-192.
[15]	DUNCAN C C, BARRY R J, CONNOLLY J F, et al. Event-related potentials in clinical research:guidelines or eliciting,recording,and quantifying mismatch negativity,P300,and N400[J]. Clinical Neurophysiology, 2009, 120(11):1883-1908.
[16]	钟铭恩, 吴平东, 彭军强, 等. 基于脑电信号的驾驶员情绪状态识别研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2011, 21(9):64-69.
	ZHONG Ming'en, WU Pingdong, PENG Junqiang, et al. Study on an emotional state recognition technology based on drivers' EEGs[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2011, 21(9):64-69.
[17]	傅根跃, 陈昌凯, 缪伟, 等. 测谎问题中的“情绪成分”对皮肤电反应的影响[J]. 中国临床心理学杂志, 2005, 13(3):321-323.
	FU Genyue, CHEN Changkai, MIAO Wei, et al. The effect of emotionality in lie-detection questions on skin conductance response[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 2005, 13(3):321-323.
[18]	中国民用航空局. 雷达管制基础模拟机培训大纲[Z]. 2012.
[19]	SHIM B J, JOO H S, SHIM S H. The direction and level of dominant eye according to the tests[J]. Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society, 2015, 20(3):363-368.
[20]	韩礼博, 门宝辉. 基于组合博弈论法的海河流域水资源承载力评价[J]. 水电能源科学, 2021, 39(11):61-64.
	HAN Libo, MEN Baohui. Evaluation of water resources carrying capacity in haihe riverbasin based on combinatorial game theory[J]. Water Resources and Power, 2021, 39(11):61-64.
[21]	李敬强, 王蓓, 赵宁, 等. 基于K-Means聚类的管制员注意品质特征研究[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2017, 27(6):13-18. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.06.003
	LI Jingqiang, WANG Bei, ZHAO Ning, et al. On characteristics of attention quality of controller based on K-Means clustering[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2017, 27(6):13-18. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2017.06.003
[22]	杨越, 马博凯, 曹宇轩. 国外空管不安全事件中的人误风险分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32 (12):38-45. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.12.2739
	YANG Yue, MA Bokai, CAO Yuxuan. Human error risk analysis base on foreign unsafe events in air traffic management[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(12):38-45. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.12.2739

主观量表	岗前岗后配对检验					t	自由度	Sig.双尾
	平均值	标准偏差	标准误差平均值	差值 95% 置信区间
	平均值	标准偏差	标准误差平均值	下限	上限
PSS	-2.875 00	4.814 91	1.203 73	-5.440 68	-0.309 32	-2.388	15	0.031
NASA-TLX	-14.875 00	8.196 54	2.049 14	-19.242 6	-10.507 3	-7.259	15	0.000

生理指标	配对差值					t	自由度	Sig.双尾
	平均值	标准偏差	标准误差平均值	差值 95%置信区间
	平均值	标准偏差	标准误差平均值	下限	上限
β波均值	1.896 76	2.655 50	0.663 87	0.481 75	3.311 78	2.857	15	0.012
皮肤导电均值	1.269 97	2.088 88	0.522 22	0.156 89	2.383 06	2.432	15	0.028
右眼瞳孔直径	-0.281 47	0.356 77	0.089 19	-0.471 58	-0.091 36	-3.156	15	0.007

编号	PPLI	PRIL	BWI	ILOI
01	0.074 4	0.192 7	0.203 9	0.471 0
02	0.105 4	0.163 9	0.243 1	0.512 4
03	0.138 1	0.149 6	0.089 3	0.377 0
04	0.077 3	0.144 0	0.217 4	0.438 7
05	0.044 2	0.126 7	0.252 4	0.423 2
06	0.127 5	0.186 4	0.083 0	0.396 9
07	0.108 0	0.137 0	0.227 4	0.472 4
08	0.117 7	0.086 2	0.267 1	0.471 0
09	0.115 6	0.109 0	0.128 5	0.353 1
10	0.099 5	0.146 2	0.319 8	0.565 4
11	0.096 5	0.172 3	0.233 5	0.502 3
12	0.066 3	0.124 5	0.198 5	0.389 3
13	0.062 9	0.113 2	0.238 2	0.414 4
14	0.159 8	0.174 6	0.088 4	0.422 8
15	0.107 1	0.154 3	0.468 7	0.730 2
16	0.108 0	0.130 2	0.248 7	0.486 9

编号	PPLI 占比/%	PRLI 占比/%	BWI 占比/%	ILOI	聚类种类
03	36.63	39.68	23.69	0.377 0	A
04	17.62	32.82	49.56	0.438 7	A
05	10.44	29.94	59.64	0.423 2	A
06	32.12	46.96	20.91	0.396 9	A
09	32.74	30.87	36.39	0.353 1	A
12	17.03	31.98	50.99	0.389 3	A
13	15.18	27.32	57.48	0.414 4	A
14	37.80	41.30	20.91	0.422 8	A
01	15.80	40.91	43.29	0.471 0	B
02	20.57	31.99	47.44	0.512 4	B
07	22.86	29.00	48.14	0.472 4	B
08	24.99	18.30	56.71	0.471 0	B
10	17.60	25.86	56.56	0.565 4	B
11	19.21	34.30	46.49	0.502 3	B
16	22.18	26.74	51.08	0.486 9	B
15	14.67	21.13	64.19	0.730 2	C