Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 1980, Vol. 6, No.

3, 564-577

Processing Resource Demands of Failure Detection in Dynamic Systems

Christopher D. Wickens and Colin Kessel University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
The information-processing channels, proprioceptive versus visual, that are used to detect changes in the response of dynamic systems are investigated using a loading-task methodology. Conditions are compared in which subjects either control the dynamic system (MA mode) or monitor an autopilot controlling the same system (AU mode). Failure detection in these two modes of participation is evaluated when subjects perform the task alone and concurrently with either a tracking loading task or a mental arithmetic-memory loading task. The former task disrupted MA detection but not AU detection, whereas the converse results were obtained with the mental-arithmetic task. The results, interpreted within the framework of a structure-specific resource theory of human attention, suggest that AU detection relies exclusively on processing resources associated with perceptual/central-processing stages. MA detection in contrast relies on separate-processing resources residing in a response-related reservoir.

Dynamic systems may be characterized as receiving command or disturbance inputs from environmental sources and generating outputsmathematically describable system statesthat are deterministically related to those inputs when filtered through a system transfer function. This description characterizes a wide variety of systems with which human operators interact, ranging from the extreme complexity of the modern nuclear power plant (Rasmussen, 1979) to the relative simplicity of the bicycle (VanLunteren, Note 1), or garden hose. Relatively sophisticated techniques are available for describing the dynamics of such systems in control theory (Toates, 1975) or state space (Rouse & Gopher, 1977) representation. Basic research, however, has not dealt extensively with the human operator's conception, understandThis research was sponsored in part by Air Force Office of Scientific Research Grant 77-3380 (Alfred Fregly was program manager) and in part by National Science Foundation Grant BNS 78-07860 (Joseph Young was program manager). A portion of this research represents a part of the PhD dissertation of Colin Kessel, currently employed by the Israeli Air Force. Requests for reprints should be sent to Christopher D. Wickens, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Champaign, Illinois 61820.

ing, or internal model of the dynamic system (Jagacinski, Burke, & Miller, 1977; Jagacinski & Miller, 1978; Pew, 1974; Sheridan, 1970; Smallwood, 1967.) The experimental evidence that does exist however suggests that the human operator's internal model of the system often represents an idealized abstraction, employing various heuristics, rather than a faithful representation of the system itself. An important property of real-world systems is the means by which supervising individuals maintain a level of system familiarity. In a monitoring (autopilot or AU) mode, control and regulation of the system is exerted by an automatic control mechanism, and the human operator's exclusive role is supervisory; a visual display of the system state is monitored, and this information is used to update an internal model of its characteristics. In this capacity the operator must of course be prepared to intervene manually with appropriate control actions in the face of any abnormality or discrete change in system response. In contrast to the AU mode, in a manual control (MA) mode, the human operator is actively engaged in regulation and control of the system through continuous manual interaction. The consequences of control inputs

Copyright 1980 by the American Psychological Association 0096-1523/80/0603-0564S00.75

564

PROCESSING RESOURCE DEMANDS

565

can be observed on status displays appropriately filtered by system dynamics, whereas the control inputs are perceived via proprioceptive channels. In this mode of course, an additional function is now required beyond the supervisory/monitoring of system status, this being the control and regulation of system output in response to imposed environmental criteria (e.g, maintaining aircraft position along a glide slope or process plant production at a specified output quality and rate). Systems naturally vary considerably in the extent to which AU versus MA participation is involved. Those of extreme complexity, such as the nuclear reactor, function primarily in the AU mode, whereas simpler dynamic systems such as the automobile or single-engine aircraft require primarily MA participation. Residing in an intermediate category are systems such as the modern jet air carrier in which alternate modes of pilot (MA) or autopilot (AU) control are available. It is this kind of system that the present research will address. Wickens and Kessel (1979) compared the ability of subjects to maintain currency with a dynamic system under supervision in the two participatory modes. The system was of weighted first- and second-order dynamics such that system output function of time, O(t), was related to the input, i(t), by the transfer function O(t) = a ] J i(t)dt + (1 a) / i(t)dt. The fidelity of the subjects' internal model was operationally defined by the latency and accuracy with which subjects could detect changes in the system dynamics. These changes were implemented by step increases in the value of a, increases that caused the system to behave1in a more sluggish, less responsive manner. It should be noted that this particular transition did not generate a discrete deterministic change in the system display (e.g., a step change in position) but rather a more subtle alteration of the relation between input and output. Two conditions were contrasted. In the MA mode, the operator controlled the system with a two-axis joystick to make its output track a slowly moving target on the two-dimensional display. In addition to this control input from the operator, the system

was also perturbed by a Gaussian noise input, analogous to the buffeting effects of wind gusts on an automobile or aircraft. The effect of this noise is to induce errors into the task that must continuously be nullified. In the AU mode, the human controller's function was replaced by an autopilot controller whose dynamic transfer function generating a control input to the system in response to the perceived error was of analogous mathematical form to that of the human operator (McRuer & Jex, 1967). In both conditions the operator observed the system response and the commanded input on a cathode-ray tube (CRT) display and attempted to detect the transitions when they occurred. A major conclusion of this investigation was that detection is superior (both more accurate and of shorter latency) in the MA as opposed to the AU participatory mode. A number of fine-grained analyses were performed on the data in an effort to identify the specific information channels utilized in updating the internal model and thereby in providing transition-related evidence. In the AU mode, naturally, the visual modality (error position, velocity, and acceleration) could provide the only sources of information. However, in the MA mode, proprioceptive information was also available concerning the control inputs immediately delivered to the system. Knowledge of these inputs could potentially supply useful information concerning system response to a given manual input or supply information indirectly in terms of the change in control characteristics required to track the modified dynamics. The availability of this additional channel, it was hypothesized, might have been responsible for the observed MA superiority. Information relevant to the cue utilization strategies employed was extracted from three kinds of analyses: (a) analysis of ensemble measures of display and control variables sampled continuously over time for hit and missed transitions, (b) linear multiple regression of response latency onto these variables at discrete time points following
1 This change might correspond to the sudden loss of stability augmentation in a modern jet aircraft.

566

CHRISTOPHER D. WICKENS AND COLIN KESSEL

the transition, and (c) analysis of cumulative response accuracy as a function of response latency. This latter analysis followed the latency operating characteristic or cumulative accuracy function (CAF) concept introduced by Lappin and Disch (1972) and Wicklegren (1977), which assumes an underlying variable criterion model for transition detection (Earing, 1977; Gai & Curry, 1976). This model postulates that evidence from information sources (visual and/or proprioceptive) concerning system state is integrated over time and compared with a steady-state model; if this new information is assessed to be sufficiently discrepant from the steady-state internal model (exceeds a criterion), then a detection decision is triggered. If the criterion is lax, the decision will be rapid but less accurate. Trial-to-trial variability of the criterion should thereby reflect the time course of growth of information concerning system state. In their analyses of the CAF, Wickens and Kessel (1979) observed a distinct discontinuity in the MA, as opposed to the AU detection functions, suggesting that the former were generated by two temporally distinct processes. Using convergent evidence from the other microanalyses, Wickens and Kessel postulated these two processes to be, respectively, the rapid accumulation of proprioceptive information immediately subsequent to the transition and the slower integration of perceptual (display) information thereafter. The second (visual) portion of the CAF appeared to be equivalent in both the MA and AU functions. The purpose of the present experiment is to provide confirming evidence for this distinction between the utilization of visual and proprioceptive information channels by applying a dual-task methodolgy. The aspect of this methodology exploited in the current approach is the multidimensionality or apparent structural specificity of human information-processing resources. A number of investigators have argued that processing resources or attention does not reside within a single undifferentiated reservoir but is better described by a number of structurespecific reservoirs (e.g., Isreal, Wickens, Chesney, & Donchin, 1980; Isreal, Wickens,

& Donchin, 1979; Kantowitz & Knight, 1976; Kinsbourne & Hicks, 1978; Navon & Gopher, 1979; Roediger, Knight, & Kantowitz, 1977; Sanders, 1979; Wickens, 1980). Tasks relying on common reservoirs will interfere to a greater extent than those using separate reservoirs. Evidence for the structural composition of these reservoirs has been summarized elsewhere, and structural dimensions have been described by processing modalities, cerebral hemispheres, and processing stages (Wickens, 1980). From the viewpoint of the present research, the structural dimension of resources of greatest importance is that defined by processing stages. Considerable evidence may be cited that suggests processes involved in response organization and execution, and those related to perceptual encoding and memory compete with each other (between categories) for resources to a degree that is less than the competition for resources of two processes within each category (e.g., Isreal, Chesney, Wickens, & Donchin, 1980; Isreal, Wickens, & Donchin, 1979; Kantowitz & Knight, 1976; Navon & Gopher, 1980; Wickens & Kessel, 1979). In the present experimental paradigm, transition detection in each mode is performed alone, and, concurrently with each of two loading tasks. One is designed to place greatest demands on perceptual/memorial processes and the other, on response functions. If detection in the two modes relies on structurally different information sources, then an interaction is predicted in which dualtask decrements in the MA mode, dependent on proprioceptive channels, should be greatest with the response-loading task, whereas decrements in the AU mode should be more attributable to memory loading. Method Apparatus
The basic experimental equipment included a 7.5 cm x 10 cm Hewlett Packard Model 1300 CRT display, a spring-centered, dual-axis tracking hand control (with an index-finger trigger) operated with the dominant hand and a spring-centeredfingercontrol operated with the other hand. A Raytheon 704 16-bit digital computer with 24,000 character positions of memory and analog to digital, digital to analog interface was used to generate input to the tracking display and to process

PROCESSING RESOURCE DEMANDS responses of the subjects. The subject was seated on a chair with two armrests, one for the tracking hand controller and one for the side-task finger controller. The subjects' eyes were approximately 112 cm from the CRT display. The overall display subtended 3 of visual angle.
SUBJECT CONTROL

567

TARGET

PATH

Tasks
Pursuit-tracking task. The primary pursuit-tracking task required the subject to match the position of a cursor with that of a target, which followed a semipredictable two-dimensional path across the display. The target's path was determined by the summation of two nonharmonically related sinusoids (.05 and .08 Hz) along each axis with a phase offset between the axes. This produced a target that moved along the path of a slowly rotating figure eight. The position of the following cursor was controlled jointly by the subject's control response and by a band-limited forcing function with a cutoff frequency of .32 Hz for both axes (see Figure 1). Thus, the two inputs to the system were well differentiated in terms of predictability, bandwidth, and locus of effect (target vs. cursor). The control dynamics of tracking task were of the form Oft) = K[(l a) j i(t)dt + a j j i(t)dt] for each axis, where a is the variable parameter used to introduce changes in the system dynamics, K is the gain of the stick, and i is the position of the subject's control input. The transitions, or simulated failures, were introduced by step changes in the acceleration constant a from a normal value of .3, a mixed velocity and acceleration system with a high weighting on the velocity component, to a = .9, a system that approximates pure second-order dynamics and requires the operator to perform considerable differentiation and prediction to maintain stable tracking performance (McRuer & Jex, 1967). In the MA condition, the subjects manipulated the control stick to minimize tracking error. In the AU condition, the subject's role in the control loop was replaced by an autopilot whose control dynamics simulated those of the human controller of the first-order plant: a pure gain, time delay, and remnant (low amplitude Gaussian noise added to the control output) (McRuer & Jex, 1967; Wickens, 1976). In a series of pretests, the parameters of the autopilot were adjusted so that the root mean square (RMS) error of autopilot tracking was equivalent to that produced by the human operator in the MA condition. In both the MA and AU modes, subjects were instructed to detect failures by depressing the trigger as rapidly as possible. If a failure was detected, the dynamics were immediately reset to the pretransition level. If the failure was not detected after 6 sec, the dynamics returned to the prefailure level of a by a smooth 4-sec ramp. A discrete step return to normal was avoided in this case to guard against the possibility that subjects might detect the return as a failure. Critical tracking loading task. In this task (Jex, 1967), subjects were required to manipulate a springloaded finger control in the left-right direction with their left hand to stabilize a system with unstable,

Figure 1. Subject display showing primary-task and critical-task tracking and schematic logic of these tasks.

positive feedback dynamics. System output was indicated by a cursor presented in the middle of the main tracking display, and the control was to be manipulated in such a way as to keep this cursor on a reference point in the center of the screen. The difficulty of the critical task was manipulated by setting the value of the instability constant X at values of .5 and 1.0. The higher value of X produces greater instability, requires more continuous control, and has been validated to demand greater amounts of the operator's limited processing resources (Gilson, Burke, & Jagacinski, 1978; Jex, 1967). Critical-task performance was asessed by an RMS error measure. Memory-loading task. Over stereo headphones subjects heard a sequence of prerecorded two-digit numbers occurring every 2 sec. At unpredictable intervals (on the average of every 15th number), a tone was presented and the subject was required to respond by subtracting the number seven from a preceding digit and verbally report the answer. In the easy condition, seven was to be subtracted from the digit just prior to the probe tone. In the difficult condition seven was subtracted from the Digit 2 positions prior to the probe. The two levels of the memory-loading task therefore had the following characteristics: Both required few responses but placed a continuous demand on memory. Performance was assessed as the accuracy (percent correct) of responses.

568

CHRISTOPHER D. WICKENS AND COLIN KESSEL

Procedure
In the experimental conditions, all trials were of 2 min duration. To avoid predictability, a given trial might contain four, five, or six failures, and these were presented at random intervals within each trial, subject to the following constraints: (a) No failure could occur within the first 15 sec (subjects were so informed), (b) A minimum 5-sec interval was imposed between the return to baseline (following either a detection or a miss) and a subsequent failure, (c) Task logic insured that changes would only be introduced when system error was below a criterion value. In the absence of this latter precaution, changes would sometimes introduce obvious jumps in cursor position. Both the critical task and the mental-arithmetic tasks were defined as loading tasks. That is, instructions presented to the subjects stressed that these tasks should be performed as well under dual-task conditions (concurrently with failure detection) as under the control conditions in which performance on the loading task alone was assessed. Furthermore, it was emphasized that subjects should perform as well on the difficult levels of these tasks as on the easy levels. A system of contingent bonuses, in which good failuredetection performance was rewarded only to the extent that these loading-task performance criteria were met, was imposed to reinforce the effect of the verbal instructions. This bonus system rewarded subjects for detected failures (hits) and penalized them for false alarms. Because the side task was designated a loading task, a 500 bonus was awarded if its performance was maintained at a constant level across all experimental conditions. The detection performance bonuses were also contingent on side-task performance constancy.

Subjects
Six right-handed male students at the University of Illinois were assigned to each of the four betweensubjects conditions. All subjects had normal vision and were paid at a base rate of $2.50/hr in addition to any performance bonuses that they might earn.

Results To estimate failure-detection accuracy, the probability of a hit, />(H), was computed as the proportion of the 50 failures experienced by each subject across the 2 days that were correctly detected within the 6-sec interval following the occurrence of the failures. Estimation of false alarm rate was more complex, given the undefined nature of the response interval. A variant of the method of free response (Watson & Nichols, 1976) was thereby employed in which the total time providing opportunities for false alarms (trial length minus the number of seconds of 6-sec hit intervals) was partitioned into 6sec false alarm epochs. The false alarm rate was thereby computed to be the number of false alarms divided by this number of false alarm epochs. The hit and false alarm measures were then combined to generate an overall measure of detection efficiency. Because of a reluctance to assume the parametric form of the underlying signal and noise distribution, the nonparametric measure of the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve [A(ROQ] was selected to index detection performance (Craig, 1979; Green & Swets, 1965). This measure is derivable from a single point in the ROC space by the formula: A(ROC) = - P(FA)]

Experimental Design
Three variables were factorially crossed in a mixed mode between and within-subject design. Participatory mode (AU vs. MA) and loading task (critical tracking vs. mental arithmetic) were between-subjects variables, and task load (detection only task vs. easy task vs. difficult-loading task) was varied within subjects. All subjects participated for 3 days. Day 1 was devoted exclusively to extensive practice on both the loading and detection tasks. Special emphasis was placed on familiarizing subjects with the detection task, allowing them to track (MA) or observe (AU) the dynamics in both the failed and unfailed mode and providing them with several identified examples of the precise nature of the failure. (See Wickens & Kessel, 1979; Kessel & Wickens, Note 2, for greater detail on the training methodology.) During each of the two subsequent (experimental) sessions, subjects received an initial sequence of 4 warmup trials (1 without and 3 with the loading task) followed by 15 experimental trials. These consisted of 5 replications each of the three within-subject loading conditions. Only the data from these latter sessions are reported below.

and is also tabulated in McNichol (1972), from which the present values were taken. Craig (1979) asserts that the A(ROC) measure meets two important criteria for a sensitivity measure: It preserves the order of performance about which categorical judgments of superiority can be made (Norman, 1964), and it remains independent of re-

PROCESSING RESOURCE DEMANDS

569

sponse bias.2 Values of A(ROC) and the mean response latency for each condition are shown in Table 1. From the results of prior research (Wickens & Kessel, 1979) and as confirmed in Table 1, it is apparent that experimental variables influence both the latency and accuracy of the response. To capture the joint effect of both of these variables in an overall estimate of detection efficiency, the latency and accuracy measures were linearly combined for each subject in a detection efficiency index of the form/5 = lOA(ROC) - Latency(sec), an index that generates higher values as latency is shorter or as accuracy increases. This efficiency index is justified by considering the failure-detection paradigm within the framework of statistical decision theory as Gai and Curry (1976) have done. It is assumed here that subjects aggregate evidence over time concerning the discrepancy between the sampled-system behavior and the internal model of a nonfailed system, until this evidence exceeds an internal decision criterion. Detection efficiency is reflected in the rate of aggregation of internal evidence, independent of the criterion setting. Efficient detection will be fast and accurate, and efficiency therefore should be reflected by an index with opposite weightings on latency and accuracy. The relative 10 to 1 weightings on the accuracy and latency measures are of course somewhat arbitrary. In the above index, they are determined by the relative variability of the two measures observed by Wickens and Kessel (1979) and replicated by Kessel and Wickens (Note 2). In this sense the two variables correspond roughly to standardized Z scores. Mean values of the detection-efficiency index and of primary-task RMS tracking error in the 12 experimental conditions are shown in Table 2. The table naturally does not include tracking error in the AU mode, since these values were computer determined and therefore unaffected by the loading tasks. However, it should be noted that the mean RMS error in all AU conditions was equal to . 11, a value equivalent to that in both singletask MA conditions.

Table 1 Mean Failure Detection Accuracy

and Latency Values Single task Loading task Task mode Dual task

MeasureDiffiment Easy cult .86 .82 .92 .81 .86 .83 .90 .81

Detection accuracy (A(ROC))a Critical MA mode .90 tracking task AU mode .84 Mental MA mode .92 arithmetic AU mode .85 Critical tracking task Mental arithmetic Detection latency (sec) MA mode 2.32 AU mode 3.61 MA mode 2.39 AU mode 3.12

2.71 2.78 3.53 3.60 2.30 2.29 3.40 3.13

Note. MA = manual. AU = autopilot. ROC = receiver operating characteristic. a 1.00 = perfect accuracy, .5 = chance.

Two separate one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAS) were performed on the primarytask tracking error data, one for each loading task. With the critical-loading task, a reliable main effect of task load was obtained, F(2, 20) = 46.0, p < .01. Tukey tests of the difference between single- and dual-task RMS error and between the easy and difficult levels of the critical task revealed both effects also to be statistically reliable (p < -01 and p < .05, respectively). The ANOVA performed on the tracking data for the mental-arithmetic group substantiated that the effect of this loading task on tracking performance was minimal and not statistically reliable (p > .10). Performance on the two loading tasks when performed concurrently with the detection task is shown in Table 3. Singletask loading task performance was measured only on the initial (practice) day and so is not included here. Analyses of variance
Even if the A(ROC) measure is affected by bias, there appears to be little likelihood that the differences in this measure across conditions might reflect bias rather than sensitivity shifts. Mean false alarm rate was relatively constant with a mean of .097 and standard deviation of only .028 across all conditions.
2

570

CHRISTOPHER D. WICKENS AND COLIN KESSEL

Table 2 Primary Task Failure Detection and Tracking Performance

Dual Loading task Mode Single Easy Difficult

Detection efficiency index (10 accuracy-latency) Critical MA 6.70 6.03 5.85 tracking task AU 4.71 4.68 4.72 Mental MA 6.81 6.82 6.73 arithmetic AU 5.45 4.82 4.93 Primary tracking RMS error (Proportion of scale) Critical tracking task MA .11 .16 .17 Mental arithmetic MA .12 .11 .11 Note. MA = manual. AU = autopilot. RMS = root mean square.

of the loading task data indicated reliable main effects of task difficulty for both tasks: critical task F(l, 10) = 32.18, p < .01; mental-arithmetic task, F(l, 10) = 19.36, p < .01. In neither ANOVA did the effects of mode or the Mode x Load interaction reach the .05 level of statistical reliability. The particular experimental hypothesis under investigation addressed the differential impact of the two loading tasks on detection in the two modalities. The assumption was made that the two tasks would place demands on structurally different resource pools, and examination of the manual tracking performance suggests initially that this was the case. Thus, the critical tracking loading task, which has been argued elsewhere to depend on response-related resources (Isreal, Chesney, Wickens, & Donchin, 1980; Navon & Gopher, 1980; Wickens & Kessel, 1979), disrupts primary tracking performance. The latter is not however affected by the memory-loading arithmetic task. Yet, the memory task is not without resource demands (e.g., it is not automated), as can be seen by its disruptive effect on AU detection (Table 2). This point will be addressed later. In assessing the impact of the loading tasks on detection performance, it is essential to consider separately the effects of the addition of the loading task (difference between

single- and dual-task performance) and of the manipulation of loading-task difficulty. Following a discussion of this distinction by Roediger et al., (1977), it must be emphasized that increasing loading-task difficulty can only be assumed to demand a greater quantity of processing resources (from either common or separate pools from the primary task) if loading-task performance is maintained at a constant level. If this condition is not met, as in the data of Table 3, then it is impossible to assess whether more resources were in fact allocated to the more difficult version of the loading task. Clearly if primary-task performance falls at the higher loading-task difficulty level, this assumption is safe. However, if primarytask performance remains constant, as is generally apparent in Table 2, then the effect of task difficulty remains ambiguous. Either separate resource pools are involved, or common resources are used, but resource allocation to both tasks remains unchanged, and only the performance on the manipulated task varies. Since this ambiguity is present in the current results, given the nonconstancy of loading-task performance, the effects of the difficulty manipulation will not be considered further. Fortunately, similar problems do not arise concerning the effect of the introduction of a loading task. Performance of this task at whatever level must, by definition, consume more resources than nonperformance.3
3 Roediger, Knight, and Kantowitz (1977) have cautioned against interpreting the decrement from single- to dual-task performance as a reflection of resource demands because of other qualitative differences between these conditions that may be confounded (e.g., changes in strategy, motivation, or structural interference). The position taken here is that strategy differences may in fact be in effect, but these should be constant across all loading tasks and therefore not influence a comparison of decrements that will form the basis of the current analysis. Motivational confounds should be just as prominent with increases in task difficulty as with concurrent task introduction and again can be assumed to be roughly equivalent across loading tasks. Finally, we argue that the distinction between structural interference and capacity interference is incorporated within the framework of structure-specific capacity theory (Wickens, 1980). It is just as meaningful to consider interference effects as tasks are introduced and to impose discrete

PROCESSING RESOURCE DEMANDS

571

Therefore, in the current results, data from the two dual-task conditions are pooled, and mean values of latency, A(ROC), and the detection-efficiency index were computed for each subject across the two dual-task conditions. These data were then subjected to three-way repeated measures ANOVAS with loading task, task load (single vs. dual), and participatory mode (AU vs. MA) serving as the variables of interest. The joint effects of the three independent variables on the detection-efficiency index are portrayed in Figure 2. The analyses of all three dependent variables yielded a qualitatively similar pattern of results, reinforcing the visual pattern evident in Figure 2. In each ANOVA, only three effects reached or approached statistical reliability. These were the main effects of participatory mode: latency, F(l, 20) = 26.17, p < .001; accuracy, F(l, 20) = 19.0, p < .001; and detection efficiency index, F(l, 20) = 52.69, p < .001. The main effects of single versus dual task load were latency, F(l, 20) = 2.55, p = .12; accuracy, F(l, 20) = 7.92,p = .01; and detection efficiency index,F(l, 20) = 6.47,p = .016. The threeway interaction of Load x Loading Task x Mode was latency,F(l, 20) = 7.28,/j = .013; accuracy,F( 1,20) = 4.04,p = .058; and detection efficiency index, F(l, 20) = 11.01, p < .01. The effect of mode, indicating superior detection in the manual mode was not surprising and replicated findings reported in earlier results (Kessel & Wickens, Note 2; Wickens & Kessel, 1979). The reliable effect of task load, manifest as a general decrease in detection performance resulting from the introduction of the loading tasks, is also expected. Presumably, the loading tasks demand processing structures and/or consume processing resources that are also utilized for failure detection. The requirement to share these resources leads to a deterioration in detection performance. Of particular interest is the form demonstrated by this dual-task detection decredemands on processing resource pools (structural interference) as when they are changed in difficulty and thereby change this demand between positive values.

Table 3 Loading Task Performance

Critical tracking task RMS error Mode
AU MA

Mental arithmetic percent correct Easy Difficult

Easy

Difficult

.038 .055

.059 .080

96.8 96.0

89.5 82.2

Note. RMS = root mean square. MA = manual. AU = autopilot.

ment, manifest in the reliable three-way interaction. AU detection is adversely affected by the mental-arithmetic task but not by the critical tracking task, whereas MA detection performance shows precisely the converse effects. This difference in loadingtask effects across the two modes is precisely that predicted by the structurespecific resources concept, assuming that qualitatively different information channels are utilized for detection in the two modes. Discussion Two important experimental effects were observed in both the latency and accuracy measures and were emphasized (increased F values) in the combined-performance measure of detection efficiency. These were the three-way interaction and the main effect of participatory mode. The interpretation of these two effects will be considered in turn.
111
Q X

AU

MA

z o
<J HI IUl

4.0 -

o
Single
Dud

Single LOAD

TASK

Figure 2. Failure-detection efficiency index as a function of participatory mode, loading-task, and task load.

572

CHRISTOPHER D. WICKENS AND COLIN KESSEL

Loading Task

Effects

The present results seemingly support the assertion that different information channels are employed in the two detection modalities and that these rely on functionally separate processing reservoirs. Competition by the loading task for resources in the appropriate reservoir will selectively interfere with detection performance, as suggested by Figure 2. Since the three-way interaction of Figure 2 is critical for this interpretation, and since this interaction is dependent on the constancy of performance in the AU mode with introduction of the critical-tracking task and in the MA mode with introduction of the mental-arithmetic task, it is essential to consider if other explanations, not related to resource pool separation, could be offered to explain these constancies. In particular, Roediger et al. (1977) have suggested two alternative explanations for equivalence of single- and dual-task performance. These are related to automation and resource allocation: Automation. If one or both tasks are automated or are in a data-limited region of performance, such that withdrawal of processing resources leaves them unchanged (Norman & Bobrow, 1975), then little interference can be expected with their concurrence even if common resources are involved. In the present data, neither explanation appears likely, since both tasks (MA and AU detection) were shown to suffer performance decrements when paired in different combinations (Figure 2). Such decrements by definition provide evidence that neither task is data limited. Resource allocation. It is possible in the two conditions under scrutiny (AU with critical task, MA with mental-arithmetic task), that subjects maintained a constant supply of resources from an undifferentiated pool to the detection task both in the presence and absence of the loading task. Thus, the loading task would be the one to absorb the decrement imposed by concurrence. This seems unlikely. It would suggest that operators were not performing the detection task with maximum effort under single-task

conditions. Yet, the nature of the bonus system imposed made it financially rewarding for them to do so. Furthermore, this interpretation would require that the loading task was performed less well in the presence of the detection task than in its absence. This also did not appear to be the case. Single-task data collected for the mental-arithmetic task showed a mean percentage correct response of 87%. When performed concurrently with MA detection, this percentage actually increased to 89%. Although single-task critical-task data were not available (as noted, they were only collected on the first, practice day), it is important to consider that critical-task RMS error in the AU detection condition was reduced to 3.5% of scale. This translates to only 5.4 minutes of visual angle and does indicate exceedingly accurate performance, certainly not much worse than could be expected under single-task performance of the critical task. Given that both alternative interpretations of the absence of effects in Figure 2 can seemingly be ruled out, the explanation attributable to separate resource pools remains viable. This explanation was of course substantiated further by the absence of effect of the mental-arithmetic task on tracking. It is instructive also to consider the pattern of results that would have emerged had either or both of the assumptions underlying the separate resource pool interpretation (that resources are undifferentiated or that identical information channels are employed in both modes) been false. In the former case, the predicted ordering of dual-task decrements would be related strictly to the difficulty (resource demands) of the tasks, in which case one loading task and/or one modality should consistently show a smaller decrement than the other. In the latter case, each mode should be affected similarly by the two loading tasks. Neither of these patterns of results were observed. One final artifactual explanation that needs to be considered is whether the reduced MA detection performance with the critical tracking task might have been attributable indirectly to the greater primary

PROCESSING RESOURCE DEMANDS

573

tracking error in this condition. This explanation would postulate that the noisier tracking display would mask the failure signals to a greater extent and thereby render them more difficult to detect. However, consideration of the nature of the failures provides some evidence against this interpretation. Since the failure itself is manifest as a differentiated system response (greater acceleration) to a displayed error signal, the larger this error is allowed to be at the instance of failure, the more salient this differential response will become. Thus, although the particular artifact cannot be ruled out altogether, since the confounding of display error with loading task in the MA condition is an inevitable consequence of the tasks performed, the nature of the failure suggests that it may not be a major source of effect. MA Superiority In addition to the three-way interaction discussed above, the other notable aspect of the results concerned the main effect of processing mode on detection performance, a finding that replicated at least three previous investigations (e.g., Wickens & Kessel, 1979; Young, 1969; Kessel & Wickens, Note 2, Experiment 1). The source of this effect is of considerable theoretical and practical interest in its own right and so warrants some discussion. Furthermore, since the interpretation of the three-way interaction is based on the supposition that different channels are employed in MA and AU detection, evidence should be provided to support the assertion that the observed MA superiority results from the presence of the additional proprioceptive input. Wickens and Kessel (1979) have argued for the role of proprioception based on their microanalysis of the detection and tracking data, and the present results support this proposition by the dual-task interference effects. Yet, there exist other possible causes for MA superiority as well, three of which shall be considered later. Despite efforts in the current paradigm to equate tracking performance of the human

and computer (by incorporating a computer autopilot that simulated the linear and nonlinear elements of the human controller and by adjusting these elements to equate tracking error), it is possible that the visual displays were inherently different. This visual difference, rather than the presence or absence of the proprioceptive channel, might have lead to the difference in detection efficiency. However, two lines of evidence collectively suggest the visual equivalence of the two displays. Kessel and Wickens (Note 2, Experiment 1), using equivalent conditions to those compared here, assessed the mean velocity of the cursor just prior to failure occurrence (e.g., during normal dynamics). This measure, which should reflect the total power exerted on the control by the autopilot or subject (a dimension of display characteristics independent from RMS error), was essentially equivalent between the two conditions. Further evidence that MA superiority still obtains even when displays are in fact identical was provided by Young (1969), who compared AU and MA detection when the display viewed by the AU monitors was yoked to the MA display. That is, the autopilot whose tracking was viewed by the AU detector was actually another subject participating in the MA condition. A second potential source of MA superiority pertains to differential experience. This superiority might be a consequence of the greater familiarity with the system dynamics, resulting from the active tracking experience of the MA subjects, an experience precluded the AU group. This difference undoubtedly exists, and some portion of the effect can be so attributed. In fact, this factor probably accounts for the greater magnitude of the MA superiority in the present between-subjects design than was observed by Wickens and Kessel (1979) in a similar repeated-measures design. In that study, subjects in the AU detection condition had full access to an internal model of the system dynamics developed during MA tracking on alternate trials. However, even in that investigation, in which tracking experience was the same

574

CHRISTOPHER D. WICKENS AND COLIN KESSEL

when subjects were detecting in the AU or the MA mode, MA superiority was still obtained. A third possibility is that the requirement to track forced subjects to allocate more resources to the tracking cursor itself in the MA mode, and this difference in the degree of attention allocation induced the superior detection. Results of two experimental investigations, however, argue that the requirement to track is not by itself a sufficient condition to produce greater attention to the spatial characteristics of the cursor. Ephrath and Curry (1977), using a different sort of failure from that employed herea spatial deviation of the target off a linear track obtained the opposite results, showing AU superiority. This reversal of results is not inconsistent with the present findings. The deviation failure is one that does not entail any basic adaptation of MA control manipulation and therefore would not generate the critical proprioceptive cues (Wickens & Kessel, 1979). Also, Klein and Posner (1974) observed that when presented a spatial-temporal pattern for later reproduction, subjects were less accurate in that reproduction when they tracked the original pattern than when they passively monitored it. Although the above evidence counters arguments that MA superiority results exclusively from nonproprioceptive sources, further evidence can also be marshaled to support the assertion that the proprioceptive channel is actively employed in both tracking and in MA failure detection. Thus, Klein and Posner (1974) attributed the poorer reproduction in their tracking condition in part to the forced division of attention between proprioceptive and visual channels. A number of investigations, furthermore, have found that tracking performance deteriorates as the quality of proprioceptive feedback from the control stick is reduced (Bahrick, Bennett, & Fitts, 1955; Frost, 1972; Kessel & Wickens, Note 2, Experiment 3). Curry and Ephrath (1976), furthermore, noted a direct loss in failure-detection performance as the quality of proprioceptive feedback was similarly attenuated.

Since the present results argue for the parallel processing of visual and proprioceptive information in the manual mode, it is instructive to consider these within the framework of the information-processing approach to the visual-dominance phenomenon, (e.g., Kelso, Cook, Olson, & Epstein, 1975; Kelso & Wallace, 1978; Klein, 1976; Posner, Nisson, & Klein, 1976). A visualdominance interpretation would seemingly predict that following a transition and subsequent control adaptation, information reaching a central decision mechanism from the visual sense would suppress that arriving along proprioceptive channels. Furthermore, the control adaptation to the changed dynamics implemented by the subject in the MA condition, if effective, should substantially reduce the magnitude of visual error information concerning the transition (i.e., the error signal should be the same as before transition) relative to visual error produced by the nonadapting autopilot. The greater MA adaptation should thereby produce AU superiority. The reason this effect was not obtained logically relates to a further elaboration of the visualdominance hypothesis suggested by Klein (1976) and Kelso and Wallace (1978). This elaboration asserts that the bias toward processing vision and suppressing proprioception will only be evident when there is no reason to rely on the proprioceptive channel to deliver task-relevant information. In the present paradigm the proprioceptive channel could produce relevant and useful information bearing on the occurrence of transitions, and so the natural visual bias would not operate. In fact, Kelso and Wallace have argued that such conditions may induce a bias toward proprioception. Subjects in the present MA condition could therefore presumably benefit from some degree of bisensory facilitation to increase MA detection performance, a facilitation observed under similar nonbiasing conditions by Klein (1976) in a multimode choice reaction-time paradigm. The Structure of Resources in Detection The present data suggest that the AU detection processthe comparison of in-

PROCESSING RESOURCE DEMANDS

575

coming visual data with an internal model of the normally functioning system and the application of appropriate decision rules to initiate the responsedepends on resources residing in the reservoir associated with encoding, memory, and transformations. The mental-arithmetic task also demands these central-processing resources. In contrast, the critical task, whose dynamics and required transformations are those of a relatively simple first-order system, does not extensively load these reservoirs. Its resource demands do not compete heavily with those of AU detection but apparently draw from the response-related reservoir. This view is consistent with the results of a series of investigations in which tracking has been paired with secondary tasks that elicit evoked brain potentials (Isreal, Chesney, Wickens, & Donchin, 1980; Isreal, Wickens, Chesney, & Donchin, 1980; Isreal et al., 1979). In these investigations, the evoked potentials, assumed to be independent of response-related factors, since no overt responses are required for their elicitation, are found to be insensitive to a variety of manipulations of tracking difficulty but to reflect the demands of perceptual cognitive tasks. In MA detection, the processing of the response-related proprioceptive information channel involved in the early phases of information integration is disrupted by the demand for response resources of the critical task, but the processing is unaffected by the central-processing demands of mental arithmetic. Conversely, AU detection, dependent only on visual information, is unaffected by response-related criticaltask demands but is disrupted by the demands on the central-processing pool imposed by mental arithmetic. Both detection modes involve a common central-processing/decision-making stage, which initiates the discrete manual response. However, the resource demands of these processes are presumably reasonably light and do not provide a source of task interference. In the present interpretation, it will be noted that the concept of processing stages has been uncoupled from that of processing reservoirs. This uncoupling is portrayed in

Encoding

Responding

PROCESSING STAGES

TASK RESOURCE DEMANDS

RESOURCE RESERVOIRS

Figure 3. Representation of resource pools and processing stages utilized by dynamic system (MA) and autopilot (AU) detection and by the two loading tasks. (Height of the task bars indicates demand levels.)

Figure 3 and suggests that two separate stages of processing (perceptual encoding and central processing) both rely on a common reservoir of resources. Some evidence for the commonality of resource demands of those stages is provided by investigations in which detection and memory tasks are found to exhibit considerable mutual interference and to show corresponding performance-difficulty trade-offs (e.g., Shulman & Greenberg, 1971; see Wickens, 1980, for a review). In contrast, the response stage draws resources from its separate reservoir. The critical task relies on the response reservoir as does MA detection, whereas the mental-arithmetic task and AU detection depend on central-processing/ encoding resources. These relations are depicted in Figure 3. The interpretation presented above is certainly not definitive, and alternate explanations of the data could be offered. However, it should be emphasized that the framework within which this interpretation is proposedthe concept of multiple reservoirs that supply stages with processing resourcesis consistent with many findings in the experimental literature that are summarized by Wickens (1980), and in a more general way with theories proposed by Kinsbourne and Hicks (1978), Navon and

576

CHRISTOPHER D. WICKENS AND COLIN KESSEL load. In C. K. Bensel (Ed.), Proceedings, 23rd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, Calif.: Human Factors Society, 1979. Jagacinski, R. J., Burke, M. W., & Miller, D. P. The use of schemata and acceleration information in stopping a pendulum-like system. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1977, 3, 212-223. Jagacinski, R. J., & Miller, R. H. Describing the human operator's internal model of a dynamic system. Human Factors, 1978,20, 425-433. Jex, H. R. Two applications of the critical instability task to secondary workload research. IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, 1967, HFE-8, 279-282. Kantowitz, B. H., & Knight, J. L. Testing tapping time-sharing: II. Auditory secondary task. Acta Psychologica, 1916,40, 343-362. Kelso, J. A. S., Cook, E., Olson, M. E., & Epstein, W. Allocation of attention and the locus of adaptation to displaced vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1975, /, 237-245. Kelso, J. A. S., & Wallace, S. A. Conscious mechanisms in movement. In G. E. Stelmach (Ed.), Information processing in motor control and learning. New York: Academic Press, 1978. Kinsbourne, M., & Hicks, R. Functional cerebral space. In J. Requin (Ed.), Attention and performance VII. New York: Academic Press, 1978. Klein, R. M. Attention and movement. In G. E. Stelmach (Ed.), Motor control issues and trends. New York: Academic Press, 1976. Klein, R. M., & Posner, M. C. Attention to visual and kinesthetic components of skills. Brain Research, 1974, 71, 401-411. Lappin, J., & Disch, K. The latency operating characteristic: I. Effect of stimulus probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1972, 92, 419-427. McNichol, D. A primer of signal detection theory. London: Allen & Irwin, 1972. McRuer, D. T., & Jex, J. R. A review of quasilinear pilot models. IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, 1967, HFE-8, 62-65. Navon, D., & Gopher, D. On the economy of the human processing system: A model of multiple capacity. Psychological Review, 1979,86, 214-255. Navon, D., & Gopher, D. Interpretations of task difficulty in terms of resources. In R. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1980. Norman, D. A. A comparison of data obtained under different false-alarm rates. Psychological Review, 1964,71, 243-246. Norman, D. A., & Bobrow, D. On data limited and resource limited processes. Cognitive Psychology, 1975, 7, 44-64. Pew, R. W. Human perceptual motor performance. In B. H. Kantowitz (Ed.), Human information processing: Tutorials in performance and cognition. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1974. Posner, M. I., Nissen, M. J., & Klein, R. M. Visual

Gopher (1979, 1980), Sanders (1979), and Roediger et al., (1977). Reference Note
1. VanLunteren, A. On-line parameter estimation of the human transfer function in a man-bicycle system. Paper presented at the meeting of the 4th International Automation Control Congress, Warsaw, Poland, July 1969. 2. Kessel, C., & Wickens, C. D. Development and utilization of internal models of dynamic systems: A comparison of monitors and operators as failure detectors. (Tech. Rep. EPL-78-2/AFOSR-78-5). Urbana, 111.: University of Illinois EngineeringPsychology Laboratory, December 1978.

References
Bahrick, H. P., Bennett, W. F., & Fitts, P. M. Accuracy of positioning responses as a function of spring loading in a control. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1955,49, 437-444. Craig, A. Nonparametric measures of sensory efficiency for sustained monitoring tasks. Human Factors, 1979, 21, 69-78. Curry, R., & Ephrath, A. Monitoring and control of unreliable systems. In T. B. Sheridan & G. Johannsen (Eds.), Monitoring behavior and supervisory control. New York: Plenum Press, 1976. Earing, R. The effect of expectancy and training on failure detection performance. Unpublished masters thesis, University of Illinois, 1977. Ephrath, A., & Curry, R. Detection by pilots of system failures during instrument landings. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 1977, SME-7, 841-848. Frost, G. Man-machine dynamics. In H. P. VanCott & R. G. Kinkade (Eds.), Human engineering guide to equipment design. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. Gai, E., & Curry, R. A model of the human observer in failure detection tasks. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 1976, //, 72-80. Gilson, R., Burke, M. W., & Jagacinski, R. J. Secondary visual workload capability with primary visual and kinesthetic tactual displays. In Baise, E. & Miller, J. M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society. Santa Monica, Calif.: Human Factors Society, 1978. Green, D., & Swets, J. A. Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley, 1965. Isreal, J., Chesney, G., Wickens, C. D., & Donchin, E. P-300 and tracking difficulty: Evidence for multiple resources in dual-task performance. Psychophysiology, 1980,17, 57-70. Isreal, J., Wickens, C. D., Chesney, G., & Donchin, E. The event related brain potential as a selective index of display monitoring load. Human Factors, 1980, 22, 280-294. Isreal, J., Wickens, C. D., & Donchin, E. The event related brain potential as a selective index of display

PROCESSING RESOURCE DEMANDS dominance: An information processing account of its origins and significance. Psychological Review, 1976,83, 157-171. Rasmussen, J. Reflections on the concept of operator workload. In N. Moray (Ed.), Mental workload: Its theory and measurement. New York: Plenum Press, 1979. Roediger, H. L., Knight, J. L., & Kantowitz, B. H. Inferring decay in the shortterm memory: The issue of capacity. Memory & Cognition, 1977, J, 167176. Rouse, W. R., & Gopher, D. Estimation and control theory: Application to modeling human behavior. Human Factors, 1977, 19, 315-331. Sanders, A. Some remarks on mental load. In N. Moray (Ed.), Mental workload: Its theory and measurement. New York: Plenum Press, 1979. Sheridan, T. B. On how often the supervisor should sample. IEEE Transactions in System Science and Cybernetics, 1970, SSC-6, 140-145. Shulman, H. G., & Greenberg, S. N. Perceptual deficit due to division of attention between perception and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1971,88, 171-176. Smallwood, R. D. Internal models and the human instrument monitor. IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, 1967, HFE-8, 181-187.

577

Toates, F. M. Control theory in biology and experimental psychology. London: Hutchinson, 1975. Watson, D. S., & Nichols, T. L. Detectability of auditory signals presented without defined observation intervals. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 1976,59, 655-668. Wickens, C. D. The effects of divided attention on information processing in manual tracking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1976,2, 1-17. Wickens, C. D. The structure of processing resources. In R. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII. New York: Erlbaum, 1980. Wickens, C. D., & Kessel, C. The effect of participatory mode and task workload on the detection of dynamic system failures. IEEE Transactions on System, Man and Cybernetics, 1979,13, 24-31. Wicklegren, W. Speed accuracy tradeoff and information processing dynamics. Acta Psychologica, 1977, 41, 67-85. Young, L. On adaptive manual control. IEEE Transactions on Man Machine Systems 1969, MMS-10, 292-331.

Received June 18, 1979