Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using multiple cognitive task analysis methods for supervisory control interface design in high-throughput biological screening processes

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cognitive task analysis (CTA) approaches are currently needed in many domains to provide explicit guidance on redesigning existing systems. This study used goal-directed task analysis (GDTA) along with abstraction hierarchy (AH) modeling to characterize the knowledge structure of biopharmacologists in planning, executing and analyzing the results of high-throughput organic compound screening operations, as well as the lab automation and equipment used in these operations. It was hypothesized that combining the results of the GDTA and AH models would provide a better understanding of complex system operator needs and how they may be addressed by existing technologies, as well as facilitate identification of automation and system interface design limitations. We used comparisons of the GDTA and AH models along with taxonomies of usability heuristics and types of automation in order to formulate interface design and automation functionality recommendations for existing software applications used in biological screening experiments. The proposed methodology yielded useful recommendations for improving custom supervisory control applications that led to prototypes of interface redesigns. The approach was validated through an expert usability evaluation of the redesigns and was shown to be applicable to the life sciences domain.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bisantz AM, Vicente KJ (1994) Making the abstraction hierarchy concrete. Int J Hum Comput Stud 40:83–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bisantz AM, Roth E, Brickman B, Gosbee LL, Hettinger L, McKinney J (2003) Integrating cognitive analyses in a large-scale system design process. Int J Hum Comput Stud 58:177–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolstad CA, Riley JM, Jones DG, Endsley MR (2002) Using goal directed task analysis with Army brigade officer teams. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society. Human Factors & Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA, pp 472–476

  • Brooke J (1996) SUS: a ‘quick and dirty’ usability scale. In: Jordan PW, Thomas B, Weerdmeester BA, McClelland IL (eds) Usability evaluation in industry. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 189–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Card S, Moran T, Newell A (1983) The psychology of human–computer interaction. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Comfort DA, Chhabra SR, Conners SB, Chou C-J, Epting KL, Johnson MR, Jones KL, Sehgal AC, Kelly RM (2004) Strategic biocatalysis with hyperthermophilic enzymes. Green Chem 6:459–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endsley MR (1993) A survey of SA requirements in air-to-air combat fighters. Int J Aviat Psychol 3(2):157–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endsley MR (1995) Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors 37(1):32–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Endsley MR, Kaber DB (1999) Level of automation effects on performance, situation awareness and workload in a dynamic control task. Ergonomics 42(3):462–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endsley MR, Rodgers MD (1994) Situation awareness information requirements for en route air traffic control. (Tech. Report DOT/FAA/AM-94/27). Office of Aviation Medicine, United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC

  • Endsley MR, Bolstad CA, Jones DG, Riley JM (2003a) Situation awareness oriented design: from user’s cognitive requirements to creating effective supporting technologies. In Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society. Human Factors & Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA, pp 268–272

  • Endsley MR, Bolte B, Jones DG (2003b) Designing for situation awareness: an approach to human-centered design. Taylor & Francis, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Entzian K, Allwardt A, Holzmüller-Laue S, Junginger S, Roddelkopf T, Stoll N, Thurow K (2005) Automationslösungen für biologische und chemische Screeningverfahren. Proceedings GMA-Kongress “Automation als Interdisziplinäre Herausforderung”, Baden-Baden, June 7–8, pp 235–242

  • Fu L, Salvendy G, Turley L (2002) Effectiveness of user testing and heuristic evaluation as a function of performance classification. Behav Inf Technol 21(2):137–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajdukiewicz JR, Vicente KJ, Doyle DJ, Milgram P, Burns CM (2001) Modeling a medical environment: an ontology for integrated medical informatics design. Int J Med Inform 62:79–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel E (2003) Prolegomenon to cognitive task design. In: Hollnagel E (ed) Handbook of cognitive task design. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 3–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaber DB, Tan K-W, Riley J (2002) Improved usability of aviation automation through direct manipulation and graphical user interface design. Int J Aviat Psychol 12(2):153–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kieras D (1999) A guide to GOMS model usability evaluation using GOMSL and GLEAN3. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein GA, Calderwood R, MacGregor D (1989) Critical decision method for eliciting knowledge. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 19(3):462–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klinger DW, Gomes ME (1993) Cognitive systems engineering application for interface design. In Proceedings of the 37th annual meeting of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society. Human Factors & Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA, pp 16–20

  • Lin L, Isla R, Doniz K, Harkness H, Vicente KJ, Doyle DJ (1998) Applying human factors to the design of medical equipment: patient-controlled analgesia. J Clin Monit Comput 14:253–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen J (1993) Usability engineering. Academic, Boston

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Parasuraman R, Sheridan TB, Wickens CD (2000) A model of types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 30(3):286–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen J (1983) Skills, rules, knowledge: signals, signs, and symbols and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 13:257–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen J (1985) The role of hierarchical knowledge representation in decision-making and system management. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 15:234–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen J, Pejtersen A, Goodstein L (1994) Cognitive systems engineering. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley JM, Endsley MR (2002) Computer-aided decision support: is it what the Army needs? In Proceedings of the 46th annual meeting of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society. Human Factors & Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA, pp 477–481

  • Szczepkowski M, Neville K, Popp E (2005) Application of a work-centered design method to support counterspace operations. In Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society. Human Factors & Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA

  • Thurow K, Göde B, Dingerdissen U, Stoll N (2004) Laboratory information management systems for life science applications. Organic Process Research & Development 12.8 A-M

  • Usher JM, Kaber DB (2000) Establishing information requirements for supervisory controllers in a flexible manufacturing system using goal-directed task analysis. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf 10(4):431–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vicente KJ (1992) Memory recall in a process control system: a measure of expertise and display effectiveness. Mem Cognit 20:356–373

    Google Scholar 

  • Vicente KJ (1999) Wanted: psychologically relevant, device- and event-independent work analysis techniques. Interact Comput 11:237–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vicente KJ (2004) The human factor: revolutionizing the way we live with technology. Vintage Canada, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei J, Salvendy G (2004) The cognitive task analysis methods for job and task design: review and reappraisal. Behav Inf Technol 23(4):273–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woods D (2005) Generic support requirements for cognitive work: laws that govern cognitive work in action. In Proceedings of the 49th annual meeting of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society. Human Factors & Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA

  • Xu W (2005) A cognitive engineering approach for facilitating analysis of human–computer interaction in complex work domains. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society. Human Factors & Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a National Science Foundation (NSF) Information Technology Research Grant (no. 046852). Ephraim Glinert was the technical monitor for the NSF. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF. We thank the University of Rostock and CELISCA for providing us with access to high-throughput biological screening systems and supporting the research through allocation of biopharmacologist and process engineer time to the effort.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cognitive Ergonomics Laboratory, Department of Industrial Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA

    D.B. Kaber, N. Segall & R. S. Green

  2. Center for Life Sciences Automation, University of Rostock, Rostock-Warnemünde, Germany

    K. Entzian

  3. Analytical Instrument Group (AIG), e.V., Rostock-Warnemünde, Germany

    S. Junginger

Authors
  1. D.B. Kaber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. N. Segall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. S. Green
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. K. Entzian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. Junginger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D.B. Kaber.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kaber, D., Segall, N., Green, R.S. et al. Using multiple cognitive task analysis methods for supervisory control interface design in high-throughput biological screening processes. Cogn Tech Work 8, 237–252 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-006-0029-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-006-0029-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation