The term situation awareness (SA) is used to denote one’s comprehension or understanding of the environment in which one is working. Theoretical work on SA began more than a decade ago and continues to this day. In this issue’s Research Digest, I discuss recent advancements on the topic.
Is SA a viable construct?
Yes, it is. For example, Parasuraman, Sheridan, and Wickens (2008) described SA as a “continuous diagnosis of the state of the dynamic world” (p. 144) that can be assessed using objective, physiological, and subjective measures and that has a strong empirical foundation. They differentiate SA from human performance and discuss the relevance of the construct in the design of automated systems and operator training.
Does one model of SA fit all?
Lau, Jamieson, and Skraaning (2013) argued that the characteristics of the domain should play a significant role in applying or developing SA models. That is, rather than force-fitting an abstract model of SA that originated in one domain (e.g., aviation) to another domain (e.g., process control), the SA model should be derived from the domain properties and operator demands.
What affects SA?
Individual differences in cognitive abilities play an important role in predicting SA. For example, Gutzwiller and Clegg (2013) found that working memory is related to Level 3 SA (i.e., projection) and unrelated to Level 1 SA (perception). They also found that the relationship between working memory and higher-order SA persisted even with increased experience on the task.
How can we measure SA?
There exists a variety of techniques to measure SA. For example, objective measures use accuracy and response time to queries to infer operator SA, whereas subjective measures rely on feedback from an expert or on self-ratings. Implicit performance measures are also used to assess SA and involve embedding events into scenarios that would require operators to exhibit specific behaviors. More recently, Durso, Geldbach, and Corballis (2012) showed that facial electromyography is an effective technique that can be employed to detect loss of SA, even in individuals who are unaware of their loss of SA. The authors found that the facial muscle near the eyebrows (i.e., the corrugator supercilii) was the most effective in detecting loss of SA.
Can SA be regained?
In dynamic, multitask environments, in which operators have to allocate their attention to multiple objects, it is only natural that they will be interrupted or distracted. Following the distraction, operators tend to regain their SA by increased scanning and refixating on objects in the environment that were already viewed, to activate and strengthen previously formed goals and plans; this process is referred to as situation awareness recovery (Gartenberg, Breslow, McCurry, & Trafton, 2013). Failure to engage in SA recovery following an interruption can result in errors; therefore, invoking adaptive automation or cuing operators to look at previously viewed objects following an interruption can be effective strategies to help operators recover from interruptions.
