Meet the Scientists is an Armed with Science segment highlighting the men and women working in the government realms of science, technology, research and development. The greatest minds working on the greatest developments of our time. If you have someone you'd like AWS to highlight for this segment, email Jessica L. Tozer at science@dma.mil.
(Photo by Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division/Released)
WHO: Carla Landsberg. Developed an interest in psychology in high school, which turned into a degree in psychology from the University of Central Florida. A discussion with an academic mentor led to an interest in human factors, an applied multi-disciplinary field that integrates cognitive psychology, ergonomics, perception, and there's some human computer interaction in there as well. This led to a master's degree in Human Factors Psychology. She's currently working on her PhD in Human Factors.
TITLE: Currently, Carla is a research psychologist at the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division in Florida.
MISSION: To make training easier and more effective than ever by combining technology and the human experience. Carla's team is focused on improving training by way of using cognitive science and human factors to try and answer some questions about training that might not be widely studied.
Tell me about some of the specific projects you and your team are working on.
"The current program that we have going on is called the Adaptive Training for Summary Navigation and Piloting, we call it ATSNAP for short. Basically, we developed an adaptive training system for periscope operations. We used the current literature base which includes empirical studies to create this adaptive training system. We also had some subject matter expert input on that."
How do the two training scenarios compare to each other? Traditional versus non-traditional?
"The non-adaptive system is easy scenarios, followed by medium scenarios, followed by hard scenarios…regardless if they were doing well or not. In our adaptive version, if they were doing really well then they would get harder scenarios."
"This would allow them to get practice on harder situations that they might encounter. If [the subject] was struggling a little bit, we would give them easier scenarios to allow them to kind off practice a little bit more and work up to the harder scenarios. Additionally, if they were doing really well, and we didn't think they needed a ton of feedback, the subject would just get something that said, 'Okay! You're doing really well, good job'. If they were struggling, they would get more detailed feedback that would point out actual queues that they could use to perform the task better in the future. That's what makes our approach adaptive."
Is the adaptive training more effective than non-adaptive training?
Carla Landsberg works with a colleague on making those training scenarios really count. (Photo by Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division/Released)
"We did find out the adaptive training system was more effective. More participants in that group were able to get to the more difficult training scenarios, and they were able to complete the tasks faster and end training early. There's an efficiency as well as effectiveness that's happening. We ran subsequent experiments to refine our system to figure out if it was the adaptive feedback that made it work or the adaptive difficulty that made it work. We're still analyzing that data but it's looking like the combination is what is really useful."
So, in these adaptive training scenarios, there is a kind of symbiosis between the computer and the person. Is that correct?
"Yes, if the computer is able to diagnose what you need. Ours is based on the errors that [the subjects] make. So, based on the errors that they're making during training, the computer can figure out if you need harder scenarios, easier scenarios, less feedback, more feedback. It is a little bit more in tune to what the person needs."
In your own words what is it about the research, the work that you do that makes it so significant?
"What's great about simulation is that you can create situations that will be difficult or even dangerous to reproduce out in the field for field training. It gives the warfighter training opportunities that they wouldn't usually receive until they're on the job. Once they get on the job, when they do encounter those situations they're more prepared. Another thing is that it can help the cost associated with training."
"Field training can be very expensive. When you switch over to simulation you can deliver it to a lot of people with just one disk, so that reduces some cost."
"It could also ease the burden on how many instructors you need to provide if you're doing a computer-based training, while still giving them a more individualized experience than if you were just giving them a straight up PowerPoint or something like that. Hopefully, this should help to create a military that's a little bit more prepared, better trained."
How does this improvement on human-computer interaction aid the military and help with military missions?
"Simulation training hopefully you can create a more prepared military that can handle different situations that you may not see a lot. Maybe adapt to changing situations a little bit better because they've been exposed to more types of situations during training that they might not have otherwise seen."
It's like Battleship, only less pegs and more…realistic. (Screen shot provided by Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division/Released)
What do you think is the most impressive or beneficial thing about this process and why?
"Really, the most beneficial thing is that you can present those scenarios that wouldn't be seen. One thing we do is adjust environmental conditions in our scenarios. You can train in all these different situations that you can't go and create in the real-world. We can move contacts back, we can move them forward, we can turn them around any way we want."
Are there any plans to turning this process to something service members can take into the field?
"Actually, our software has transitioned via the APB (Advance Processor Building) 13 and is already on submarines right now. It's on the 688 and 774 class submarines, so they can do this training while they're on the ship. We don't have anything as cool as like a holodeck or anything yet. Maybe one day."
If you could go anywhere in time and space, where would you go and why?
"I'm actually really into space, so I would say I would go to a time when we are into more space exploration. We're in kind of Star Trek mode right now. There's going to be so many new things to discover, like problems we don't even know yet that we're going to have to solve. A lot of new things to learn. We're going to learn more about ourselves from going into space."
Do you have anything else you would like to add?
"The one thing I'd like to say is that I would like to change the way people think about psychology. Often, people think of clinical psychologist or therapist, whereas research psychology is very scientific. Even though we don't use petri dishes or test tubes, we do apply the scientific method in order to answer the research questions that we come up with. It's more scientific and more technical than people give it credit."
Thanks to Carla Landsberg for contributing to this article, and for her contributions to the science and technological communities.
__________
Jessica L. Tozer is the editor and blogger for Armed with Science. She is an Army veteran and an avid science fiction fan, both of which contribute to her enthusiasm for science and technology in the military.
No comments:
Post a Comment