Publication statistics
Pub. period:1987-2007
Pub. count:12
Number of co-authors:14
Co-authors
Number of publications with 3 favourite co-authors:
Richard E. Christ:6Allen L. Zaklad:5Alvah C. Bittner:5 Productive colleagues
Susan G. Hill's 3 most productive colleagues in number of publications:
Richard E. Christ:14Alvah C. Bittner:13Allen L. Zaklad:9
“
The theory gives the answers, not the theorist.
”
-- Allen Newell
Featured chapter
Read the fascinating history of Wearable Computing, told by its father, Steve Mann
Read Steve's chapter !
Susan G. Hill
Publications by Susan G. Hill (bibliography)
Hill, Susan G. and Bodt, Barry (2007): A field experiment of autonomous mobility: operator workload for one and two robots. In: Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction 2007. pp. 169-176.
“An experiment was conducted on aspects of human-robot interaction in a field environment using the U.S. Army's Experimental Unmanned Vehicle (XUV). Goals of this experiment were to examine the use of scalable interfaces and to examine operator span of control when controlling one versus two autonomous unmanned ground vehicles. We collected workload ratings from two Soldiers after they had performed missions that included monitoring, downloading and reporting on simulated reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition (RSTA) images, and responding to unplanned operator intervention requests from the XUV. Several observations are made based on workload data, experimenter notes, and informal interviews with operators.”
© All rights reserved Hill and Bodt and/or ACM Press
Reece, Wendy J. and Hill, Susan G. (1995): Human Performance Analysis of Industrial Radiography Radiation Exposure Events. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting 1995. pp. 491-495.
“A set of radiation overexposure event reports were reviewed as part of a program to examine human performance in industrial radiography for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Incident records for a seven year period were retrieved from an event database. Ninety-five exposure events were initially categorized and sorted for further analysis. Descriptive models were applied to a subset of severe overexposure events. Modeling included: (1) operational sequence tables to outline the key human actions and interactions with equipment, (2) human reliability event trees, (3) an application of an information processing failures model, and (4) an extrapolated use of the error influences and effects diagram. Results of the modeling analyses provided insights into the industrial radiography task and suggested areas for further action and study to decrease overexposures.”
© All rights reserved Reece and Hill and/or Human Factors Society
Harbour, Jerry L. and Hill, Susan G. (1990): Using HSYS in the Analysis of Human-System Interactions: Examples from the Offshore Petroleum Industry. In: D., Woods, and E., Roth, (eds.) Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting 1990, Santa Monica, USA. pp. 1190-1194.
Bulger, John P., Hill, Susan G. and Christ, Richard E. (1989): Operator Workload in the Army Materiel Acquisition Process. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting 1989. pp. 1054-1058.
“The Army developer community needs to be attuned to the need for addressing operator workload issues within the framework of the materiel acquisition process. Brief descriptions are given of: (a) the major acquisition approaches; (b) the Manpower and Personnel Integration (MANPRINT) program; and, (c) operator workload. The interrelationships between these three areas are considered. Workload is important because it affects the ability of the operator to perform required tasks; hence, system performance can be affected by workload. MANPRINT provides a framework for addressing operator workload issues and for formalizing workload analysis requirements.”
© All rights reserved Bulger et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Hill, Susan G., Byers, James C., Zaklad, Allen L. and Christ, Richard E. (1989): Subjective Workload Assessment during 48 Continuous Hours of LOS-F-H Operations. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting 1989. pp. 1129-1133.
“Two operator workload (OWL) subjective rating scales were used to obtain judgments of workload during 48 hours of operation. The Task Load Index (TLX) and Overall Workload (OW) scales were administered to two crews during 48-hour operations. A 16-item symptoms ratings scale was also administered to investigate motion sickness and other physical ailments. Results indicated that workload increases across time. Factor analysis on the symptoms found three significant: (1) Heat; (2) Eyestrain/Headache; and (3) Allergy/Dust. Regression analyses suggest that OWL scores can be described as a combination of hour into mission and job being performed. These findings are discussed in the context of a methodology for assessing.”
© All rights reserved Hill et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Harris, Regina M., Hill, Susan G. and Lysaght, Robert J. (1989): Operator Workload Knowledge-Based Expert System Tool (OWLKNEST) Demonstration. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting 1989. pp. 1140-1141.
“The Operator Workload Knowledge-based Expert System Tool (OWLKNEST) is a tool that provides guidance in selecting the most appropriate technique(s) for estimating or predicting Operator Workload (OWL). This demonstration will provide hands-on usage for interested parties in utilizing OWLKNEST to determine the most appropriate OWL technique for their particular situation, interpreting the resulting outputs, and performing sensitivity analysis to assess the impact of changing responses.”
© All rights reserved Harris et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Christ, Richard E., Zaklad, Allen L., Bittner, Alvah C., Hill, Susan G. and Linton, Paul M. (1989): The Army Operator Workload (OWL) Program: Review and Prospects. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting 1989. pp. 1471-1475.
“The Operator Workload (OWL) Program is a just-completed, three-year, basic and applied research effort sponsored by the Army Research Institute (ARI). As part of the Army's research thrust into workload, the OWL Program was directed to establish guidance for the assessment of OWL associated with the operation of Army systems. Its intent was to identify and integrate the most relevant of workload research into a set of practicable workload assessment methods for Army developers, and then apply and validate these methods on selected Army systems. Lessons learned from OWL studies of these systems formed the basis for guidance for Army system developers. This paper overviews the objectives, the accomplishments, and the future prospects of the OWL Program.”
© All rights reserved Christ et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Bittner, Alvah C., Byers, James C., Hill, Susan G., Zaklad, Allen L. and Christ, Richard E. (1989): Generic Workload Ratings of a Mobile Air Defense System (LOS-F-H). In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting 1989. pp. 1476-1480.
“Operator workload (OWL) scales were used to obtain ratings of generic mission scenarios and tasks for a mobile air defense missile system (LOS-F-H) following a candidate-selection field evaluation. NASA TLX, SWAT, Overall Workload (OW), and the Modified Cooper-Harper (MCH) ratings were obtained from both crew and Subject Matter Experts (SMEs). Jackknife factor analysis revealed the presence of only a single "OWL" factor for both crew and SMEs (explaining 75.9% and 82.6% of the respective total variances) and indicated a significant (p < 0.00005) ordering of the mean factor loadings: TLX (0.924) was significantly greater than OW (0.905) and MCH (0.904), which were greater than SWAT (0.778). Subsequent analysis of OWL factor scores indicated that the crew and SMEs yielded essentially equivalent evaluations of OWL for the system variables investigated. This analysis also indicated that the highest levels of OWL were obtained for the track-to-intercept task during dual Rotary-Wing (RW) and Fixed-Wing (FW) attacks although the ID/IFF task during a dual RW attack was almost as high. These findings are discussed in the context of a methodology for assessing OWL.”
© All rights reserved Bittner et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Harris, Regina M., Hill, Susan G. and Lysaght, Robert J. (1989): OWLKNEST: An Expert System to Provide Operator Workload Guidance. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting 1989. pp. 1486-1490.
“The Operator Workload Knowledge-based Expert System Tool (OWLKNEST) is a microcomputer-based tool that provides guidance in selecting the most appropriate technique to use for estimating Operator Workload (OWL) for developing Army systems. OWLKNEST is based on twenty years of workload research and on knowledge gained in the three-year Army Research Institute OWL Program. The design approach is presented along with a general description of targeted users and knowledge representation scheme. The criteria used to evaluate available OWL techniques for inclusion in the system are also presented. Sample system applications are presented which illustrate how OWLKNEST can be used for a variety of needs.”
© All rights reserved Harris et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Hill, Susan G., Zaklad, Allen L., Bittner, Alvah C., Byers, James C. and Christ, Richard E. (1988): The Workload Assessment of a Mobile Air Defense Missile System. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting 1988. pp. 1068-1072.
“Four operator workload (OWL) scales were retrospectively applied to crewmembers of a mobile air defense missile system, LOS-F(H), following a candidate-selection field evaluation: NASA TLX, SWAT, Overall Workload (OW), and the Modified Cooper-Harper (MCH). Jackknife factor analysis revealed the presence of only a single factor (explaining 79.6% of the total variation) and indicated a significant (p<.0075) ordering of the mean factor loadings: TLX (.935) and OW (.927) were significantly greater than MCH (.862) and SWAT (.860). Comparison with an earlier field test of a remotely piloted vehicle revealed a significant (p<.00005) interaction of test and ordering of the OWL scales, but TLX and MCH consistently had the respectively highest and lowest loadings across the two field tests. Multiple correlation also revealed a significant (p<.0001) relationship, R = 0.66, between system performance and TLX. These findings and lessons learned are discuss in the context of the development and validation of a methodology for assessing OWL.”
© All rights reserved Hill et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Byers, James C., Bittner, Alvah C., Hill, Susan G., Zaklad, Allen L. and Christ, Richard E. (1988): Workload Assessment of a Remotely Piloted Vehicle (RPV) System. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting 1988. pp. 1145-1149.
“Four empirical operator workload (OWL) scales were applied to ground control operations of the Aquila RPV during a recent field test: NASA TLX, SWAT, Overall Workload (OW), and the Modified Cooper-Harper (MCH). Seventeen sets of individual assessments of mission segments were made by the four members of each of four crews and one replacement crewman. "Jackknife factor analysis" revealed the presence of only a single factor and indicated that the mean factor loadings formed a consistent ordering (F(3,48) = 503.5, p<.00005): TLX (.910) > SWAT (.893) > OW (.869) > MCH (.833). ANOVAs also examined the effects of various variables on the composite workload factor scores; significant findings were found which reflected both upon the system and its test. These findings as well as informal lessons learned are discussed in the context of the development and validation of a methodology for assessing OWL.”
© All rights reserved Byers et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Hill, Susan G., Plamondon, Brian D., Wierwille, Walter W., Lysaght, Robert J., Dick, A. O. and Bittner, Alvah C. (1987): Analytic Techniques for the Assessment of Operator Workload. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting 1987. pp. 368-372.
“Workload techniques may be divided into two broad classes: 1) Analytic techniques -- predictive techniques that may be applied early in system design before "operator-in-the-loop" studies; and 2) Empirical techniques -- workload measurements taken with "operator-in-the-loop" during simulator, prototype, or system evaluations. Described here are five categories of the analytic techniques: 1) Comparability Analysis; 2) Mathematical Models; 3) Expert Opinion; 4) Task Analytic Methods; and 5) Simulation Models. A description, with examples, is given for each category. The motivation for focusing on the analytic techniques lies in their application during the earliest stages of system development where the greatest design flexibility is available at the least cost.”
© All rights reserved Hill et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Show this list on your homepage
Join the technology elite and advance:
Changes to this page (author)
23 Feb 2010: Modified09 Jul 2009: Added27 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
25 Jun 2007: Added
25 Jun 2007: Added
25 Jun 2007: Added
Page Information
Page maintainer:
The Editorial Team
URL: http://www.interaction-design.org/references/authors/susan_g__hill.html
Log in !
