Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Modeling the neurodynamic complexity of submarine navigation teams

  • SI: BRIMS 2011
  • Published:
Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Our objective was to apply ideas from complexity theory to derive neurophysiologic models of Submarine Piloting and Navigation showing how teams cognitively organize around changes in the task and how this organization is altered with experience. The cognitive metric highlighted was an electroencephalography (EEG)-derived measure of engagement (termed NS_E) which was modeled into a collective team variable showing the engagement of each of 6 team members as well as the engagement of the team as a whole. We show that during a navigation task the NS_E data stream contains historical information about the cognitive organization of the team and that this organization can be quantified by fluctuations in the Shannon entropy of the data stream.

The fluctuations in the NS_E entropy were complex, showing both rapid changes over a period of seconds and longer fluctuations that occurred over periods of minutes. The periods of low NS_E entropy represented moments when the team’s cognition had undergone significant re-organization, i.e. when fewer NS_E symbols were being expressed.

Decreases in NS_E entropy were associated with periods of poorer team performance as indicated by delays/omissions in the regular determination of the submarine’s position; parallel communication data suggested that these were also periods of increased stress.

Experienced submarine navigation teams performed better than Junior Officer teams, had higher overall levels of NS_E entropy and appeared more cognitively flexible as indicated by the use of a larger repertoire of available NS_E patterns.

The quantitative information in the NS_E entropy may provide a framework for designing future adaptive team training systems as it can be modeled and reported in near real time.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. Alternative numbering schemes such as assigning values of 3, 2 and 1 to the partitions designated as upper, middle or lower third were also tested. These resulted in an R 2 of >0.95 when the entropy of the NS_E data stream was compared with that generated from models where the vectors were assigned values of 3, 1 and −1. The resulting histogram displays were more difficult to understand and so the 3, 1 and −1 convention was retained.

  2. Preliminary models were created with 400, 100, 25 and 16 nodes and 25 nodes provided the best balance between sensitivity and speed.

  3. Across the 6 members of one team the median decontamination period was 840 milliseconds and within this window the first 160 ms and the last 320 ms were reference segments used for interpolation. The decontamination algorithm then examines each remaining data points (∼360 ms) and if 2 SD above the mean reference segment then they were interpolated. This resulted in ∼25 % of the segments being interpolated or ∼90 ms per second, or 45 ms/eye blink

  4. http://www.teamneurodynamics.com.

References

  • Appleton J, Christenson S, Kim D et al (2006) Measuring cognitive and psychological engagement: validation of the student engagement instrument. J Soc Psychol 44:427–445

    Google Scholar 

  • Berka C, Levendowski DJ, Cvetinovic MM, Petrovic MM, Davis G et al (2004) Real-time analysis of EEG indexes of alertness, cognition, and memory acquired with a wireless EEG headset. Int J Hum-Comput Interact 17(2):151–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke NJ, Gorman JC, Kiekel PA (2008) Communication as team-level cognitive process. In: Letsky MP, Warner NW, Smith CAP (eds) Macrocognition in teams: theories and methodologies. Ashgate, Farnham, pp 51–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke NJ, Gorman JC, Rowe LJ (2009) An ecological perspective on team cognition. In: Salas E, Goodwin J, Burke CS (eds) Team effectiveness in complex organizations: cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches. SIOP organizational frontiers series. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 157–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Gorman JC, Cooke NJ, Amazeen PG (2010) Training adaptive teams. Hum Factors 52:295–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard B (1996) Cognitive engagement in cooperative learning. In: Annual meeting of the eastern educational research association, Boston, MA, 21–24 February 1996. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED404352&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED404352. Accessed 8 June 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber L (2008) Measuring cognitive engagement in middle school students. University of South Dakota thesis

  • Krieger AC, Ayappa I (2004) Comparison of the maintenance of wakefulness test (MWT) to a modified behavioral test (OSLER) in the evaluation of daytime sleepiness. J Sleep Res 13(4):407–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levendowski DJ, Berka C, Olmstead RE, Konstantinovic ZR, Davis G, Lumicao MN, Westbrook P (2001) Electroencephalographic indices predict future vulnerability to fatigue induced by sleep deprivation. Sleep 24 (Abstract Supplement): A243–A244

  • Lindenberger U, Li S-C, Gruber W, Muller V (2009) Brains swinging in concert: cortical phase synchronization while playing guitar. BMC Neurosci 10:22–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nowak A, Vallacher R (2007) Dynamical social psychology. Guildord Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Plummer J, Cook B, Diforio D, Schacter B, Sokolyanskaya I, Korde T (2007) Measuring cognitive engagement, vol. II. http://www.classmatandread.net/class/2.Measures~%20of~%20Engagement.pdf. Accessed 8 June 2011

  • Roberts E, Young RM (2008) Maintaining cognitive engagement in training scenarios using explicit cognitive models. In: Interservice/Industry service training and education conference (I/ITSEC), paper 8217, pp 1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Shannon CE (1951) Prediction and entropy of printed English. Bell Syst Tech J 30:50–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens RH, Galloway T, Berka C (2007) Allocation of time, workload, engagement and distraction as students acquire problem solving skills. In: Schmorrow D, Nicholson D, Drexler J, Reeves L (eds) Foundations of augmented cognition, 4th edn, pp 128–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens RH, Galloway T, Berka C, Sprang M (2009) Can neurophysiologic synchronies be detected during collaborative teamwork? In: Proceedings: HCI international 2009, San Diego, CA, 19–24 July 2009, pp 271–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens RH, Galloway T, Berka C, Behneman A (2010a) A neurophysiologic approach for studying team cognition. In: Interservice/Industry training simulation and education conference (I/ITSEC) 2010, Paper No 10135

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens RH, Galloway T, Berka C, Behneman A (2010b) Identification and application of neurophysiologic synchronies for studying team behavior. In: Proceedings of the 19th conference on behavior representation in modeling and simulation, pp 21–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens RH, Gorman G (2011) Mapping cognitive attractors onto the dynamic landscapes of teamwork. In: Proceedings of the 14th international conference on human-computer interaction, Orlando, FL, 9–14 July 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens RH, Galloway T, Wang P, Berka C (2012) Cognitive neurophysiologic synchronies: what can they contribute to the study of teamwork? Hum Factors 54:489–502. 0018720811427296, first published on 12, 2011. doi:10.1177/0018720811427296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner N, Letsky M, Cowen M (2005) Cognitive model of team collaboration: macro-cognitive focus. In: Proceedings of the 49th human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, Orlando, FL, 26–30 September 2005

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We extend a special thanks to Adrienne Behneman for the data collection and to Drs. Jamie Gorman and Polemnia Amazeen for helpful discussions.

Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited. “The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.” This is in accordance with DoDI 5230.29, January 8, 2009. This work was supported by NSF SBIR awards 1215327, 0822020, Office of Naval Research award N00014-11-M-0129, and an award from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) under contract numbers NBCHC070101, NBCHC090054 and W31P4Q12C0166.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UCLA IMMEX Project, 5601 W. Slauson Ave, #272, Culver City, CA, 90230, USA

    Ronald Stevens, Trysha Galloway & Peter Wang

  2. Advanced Brain Monitoring, 2237 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100, Carlsbad, CA, 92008, USA

    Chris Berka & Veasna Tan

  3. Submarine Learning Center, Groton, CT, 06349, USA

    Thomas Wohlgemuth & Robert Buckles

  4. Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory, Groton, CT, 06349, USA

    Jerry Lamb

Authors
  1. Ronald Stevens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Trysha Galloway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chris Berka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Veasna Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Thomas Wohlgemuth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jerry Lamb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Robert Buckles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ronald Stevens.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stevens, R., Galloway, T., Wang, P. et al. Modeling the neurodynamic complexity of submarine navigation teams. Comput Math Organ Theory 19, 346–369 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-012-9135-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-012-9135-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation