- Email: [email protected]
Behavioral and biological effects of autonomous versus scheduled mission management in simulated space-dwelling groups
Acta Astronautica 68 (2011) 1581–1588
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Acta Astronautica journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/actaastro
Behavioral and biological effects of autonomous versus scheduled mission management in simulated space-dwelling groups Peter G. Roma a,b,, Steven R. Hursh a,b, Robert D. Hienz a,b, Henry H. Emurian c, Eric D. Gasior a, Zabecca S. Brinson a, Joseph V. Brady a,b a b c
Human Performance Laboratory, Institutes for Behavior Resources, 2104 Maryland Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA Behavioral Biology Research Center, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA Department of Information Systems, UMBC, Baltimore, MD, USA
a r t i c l e in fo
abstract
Article history: Received 4 August 2009 Received in revised form 21 September 2009 Accepted 24 September 2009 Available online 25 October 2009
Logistical constraints during long-duration space expeditions will limit the ability of Earth-based mission control personnel to manage their astronaut crews and will thus increase the prevalence of autonomous operations. Despite this inevitability, little research exists regarding crew performance and psychosocial adaptation under such autonomous conditions. To this end, a newly-initiated study on crew management systems was conducted to assess crew performance effectiveness under rigid schedule-based management of crew activities by Mission Control versus more flexible, autonomous management of activities by the crews themselves. Nine volunteers formed three long-term crews and were extensively trained in a simulated planetary geological exploration task over the course of several months. Each crew then embarked on two separate 3–4 h missions in a counterbalanced sequence: Scheduled, in which the crews were directed by Mission Control according to a strict topographic and temporal regionsearching sequence, and Autonomous, in which the well-trained crews received equivalent baseline support from Mission Control but were free to explore the planetary surface as they saw fit. Under the autonomous missions, performance in all three crews improved (more high-valued geologic samples were retrieved), subjective self-reports of negative emotional states decreased, unstructured debriefing logs contained fewer references to negative emotions and greater use of socially-referent language, and salivary cortisol output across the missions was attenuated. The present study provides evidence that crew autonomy may improve performance and help sustain if not enhance psychosocial adaptation and biobehavioral health. These controlled experimental data contribute to an emerging empirical database on crew autonomy which the international astronautics community may build upon for future research and ultimately draw upon when designing and managing missions. & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Interactive simulation Autonomy Team performance Psychosocial Cortisol
1. Introduction
Corresponding author at: Human Performance Laboratory, Institutes for Behavior Resources, 2104 Maryland Avenue, 6th Floor, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA. Tel.: þ1 410 752 6080; fax: þ1 410 752 0172. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (P.G. Roma).
0094-5765/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2009.09.034
Logistical constraints imposed by the vast distances inherent to space exploration will limit Earth-based authorities’ ability to manage their astronaut crews due to, for example, the limitations of real-time interactions between crews and their Mission Control teams [1]. In response to these constraints, interest in ‘‘crew
1582
P.G. Roma et al. / Acta Astronautica 68 (2011) 1581–1588
autonomy’’—that is, the opportunity for individuals or teams to determine how best to accomplish pre-determined goals [2]—has increased in recent years [3–5]. Of particular interest are the potential effects of autonomous versus external schedule-based management systems on performance and psychosocial adaptation, especially in light of prospective long-duration missions to Mars. Yet despite the widely acknowledged importance of behavioral factors for successful space exploration and the inevitable necessity of autonomous crew management for future missions beyond Earth’s orbit [6,3], very little empirical data exist within the space research community to inform training and planning for autonomously managed missions. The following report describes the first in a series of experiments from this laboratory exploring the behavioral and biological effects of autonomous versus highly scheduled mission performances in well-trained 3-person teams performing a simulated planetary exploration task. The purpose of this work is to begin to understand fundamental effects of team task autonomy via controlled experimentation, with the ultimate goal of contributing to the evidence base upon which space exploration missions are designed, managed, and optimized. Using our previously described simulated geological survey task [7–10], several measures of performance and psychosocial adaptation were obtained in response to highly scheduled versus autonomously managed mission plans. Based on the human industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology research literature, it was hypothesized that autonomy in these well-trained teams would improve task performance [2]. In terms of psychosocial adaptation, the existing I/O literature as well as some emerging space analogue environment research [11–13] suggested the hypothesis that autonomous management would increase Positive and decrease Negative self-report responses, but have no predicted effect on Physical descriptors. In addition to these measures, quantitative linguistic analyses of post-mission debriefing logs were conducted, and consistent with the above-predicted effects on performance and subjective well-being, it was hypothesized that autonomy would not affect total Word Count or the use of First Person Singular, but would increase verbal expressions of Achievement and Positive Emotion while decreasing expressions of Negative Emotion. If autonomy improves individual measures of psychosocial adaptation, then it was also hypothesized that this effect would carry over into the social domain as indicated by increased use of First Person Plural and discussion of Social Processes. Finally, assuming that a rigid management schedule on a well-trained team may be considered a psychosocial stressor as lack of control is in other occupational settings [14,15], it was hypothesized that the autonomous mission management condition would attenuate cortisol output.
2. Method 2.1. Participants A total of nine individuals from the local community volunteered to serve as subjects. There were four males
and five females ranging in age from 23–32 yr (mean=27 yr), seven of whom were college-educated to at least the bachelor’s level, with the other two having completed some bachelor’s-level coursework. Although no special skills or training were required for participation, a commitment of availability for recurrent training and experimental participation over several months was required. The volunteers participated in three crews of three persons each which remained together and operated the same simulated vehicles described below throughout all training sessions and the experiment proper. Crew IDs and male:female gender ratios were as follows: BV (1:2), CH (1:2), and CG (2:1). All training, testing, and experimental procedures took place between 1000 and 1400 h, and each participant received $20 per hour for participation. All procedures described in this report conformed to US and UN regulations governing the treatment of human research subjects, and all protocols were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the Institutes for Behavior Resources.
2.2. Planetary exploration simulation The computer-generated planetary exploration simulation employed has been extensively described in previously published reports [7–10]. Briefly, each crew trained and participated in experimental ‘‘missions’’ of 3–4 h in duration. During each mission, the crew engaged in a computerized geologic exploration expedition on a simulated planetary surface, with each member of the crew assigned to a different simulated exploration vehicle (‘‘Orbiter,’’ ‘‘Lander,’’ or ‘‘Rover’’). Each crew member operated their respective vehicles via an individual workstation physically and acoustically isolated from the other crewmates. Each workstation included a computerized system for navigation and sample collection as well as a second system for real-time audio, video, text messaging, and digital freehand ‘‘white board’’ communications with the other crewmembers and with ‘‘Mission Control’’ (trained technical personnel supervising and managing the simulation session). Roles and capabilities of the three vehicles were as follows. The Orbiter circled the planet in 18-min orbits comprised of 9 min ‘‘in communication range’’ of the surface vehicles and 9 min out of communication range, remotely sensed and displayed geologic sample locations on the surface for others to see, and analyzed readings from collected samples to determine their geologic grade values. The Rover could move across the planet’s surface, collect and store samples, and transmit geologic information to the Orbiter for further analysis. The Lander provided logistic support for the Rover on the planetary surface such as additional fuel and sample storage space, could dock with the Rover to transport it to other locations on the planetary surface, and could also collect and store samples. Exploratory missions occurred in six distinct regions across the planetary surface. Each region contained randomly distributed geologic samples of varying ‘‘point’’ values that were distinguished by a range of sizes, shapes,
P.G. Roma et al. / Acta Astronautica 68 (2011) 1581–1588
colors, and combinations thereof as a model of geological survey missions where the specimens encountered may vary in interest based on their physical and biochemical composition. The goal of all missions was for the crew to decipher through experience which levels of each characteristic were of high value, and to work together to maximize total value of the geological samples they collected while minimizing point loss from vehicle damage incurred through collisions or failures to shield from unpredictable radiation storms. All missions were comprised of a total of 153 min of active search time, with a 10–15 min break after min 72 of the mission. 2.3. Experimental manipulations Each ‘‘Scheduled’’ mission served to model the extremes of time pressure and performance demands seen in traditional mission management, and was based on pre-determined, randomly generated topographic and temporal region-searching sequences for the two surface-bound vehicles, which were directed and enforced by Mission Control via text and audio. The Scheduled missions consisted of 20 intervals ranging from 1–12 min in duration summing to the standard 153 min mission length. As exemplified in Table 1, the Lander and Rover had their own respective mission plans. By contrast, crews in the ‘‘Autonomous’’ condition were permitted to explore the planet’s surface regions however they chose within the confines of the standard mission length and other baseline technical parameters. The crews were informed of how their missions would be managed during their premission briefing, and Mission Control provided the same level of support service throughout all missions regardless of management condition. Exposure to each mission type was counterbalanced across crews on non-consecutive days, with two of the three crews operating under the Scheduled condition first. 2.4. Data collection, hypotheses, and analyses 2.4.1. Performance, behavioral, and biological measures The simulation program automatically recorded crew mission performances and all communication exchanges. Crew performance for any given mission was quantified by the total point value of all samples collected (minus damage) expressed as a % of maximum possible points. In addition to this overall group performance measure, several individual assessments were made immediately before the start of each mission (pre-mission), immediately after min 72 (mid-mission), and immediately after min 153 (post-mission). Psychosocial adaptation was assessed via computerized visual analog scale (VAS) self-report questionnaires administered pre-, mid-, and post-mission, with the present study focusing on the final post-mission assessments. The VAS battery consisted of 12 individual items; for each item, a subject responded by using the mouse cursor to select a point along a line displayed on the screen (anchored by ‘‘Not at All’’ to ‘‘Extremely’’) that best reflected his or her current state. VAS responses were
1583
Table 1 Example search sequence imposed during Scheduled missions in a simulated planetary exploration task. Interval
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Lander
Rover
Location
Duration
Location
Duration
6 1 5 4 6 1 4 3 5 3 3 4 2 6 6 5 5 2 1 5
8 6 5 12 7 12 12 6 5 12 7 6 8 6 3 6 11 3 6 12
3 4 4 4 6 5 6 3 1 5 5 2 2 6 4 1 6 2 3 6
8 4 9 4 11 5 7 8 11 9 6 8 7 12 11 3 10 9 8 3
The two ground-based vehicles (Lander and Rover) were each assigned a mission plan consisting of 20 search intervals; each interval was comprised of a randomly generated combination of which region to survey (1–6) and duration of the search in minutes (1–12). Interval transitions were directed and enforced by Mission Control. Under the Autonomous condition, the crews were free to conduct the geological survey however they saw fit under otherwise identical conditions to those of the Scheduled mission.
recorded in mm along the response line, and for analyses were converted to % of the response line’s length. The 12 items that defined the VAS battery were grouped and averaged to reflect Positive (e.g., ‘‘Happy’’), Negative (e.g., ‘‘Stressed’’), and Physical (e.g., ‘‘Fatigued’’) responses to the mission (see [10] for additional details). All crewmembers also completed a debriefing logbook entry at the end of each mission where they provided their candid opinions on the mission in an otherwise unguided and unstructured text-based format. The individual debriefing logs were corrected for grammar and spelling and then processed through the 2007 version of the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count program (LIWC; [16]). The software assigned the content of the debriefings into various non-mutually exclusive linguistic categories according to a 4500 word dictionary and hierarchical taxonomy. LIWC data are expressed as the percentage of the entire debriefing log (all words) accounted for by words associated with any given linguistic category. The categories we focused on for the present study were total Word Count, First Person Singular (‘‘I’’), Achievement (e.g., ‘‘earn,’’ ‘‘win’’), Positive Emotion (e.g., ‘‘happy,’’ ‘‘love’’), Negative Emotion (e.g., ‘‘anxiety,’’ ‘‘hate’’), First Person Plural (‘‘we’’), and Social Processes (e.g., ‘‘listen,’’ ‘‘share’’). Finally, salivary cortisol was measured as an objective physiological correlate of stress reactivity [17–19] by obtaining saliva samples from each subject at the same pre-, mid-, and post-mission points as the VAS
1584
P.G. Roma et al. / Acta Astronautica 68 (2011) 1581–1588
assessments. Subjects first rinsed their mouths out with filtered water to remove any residual food or beverage that may interfere with the assay, and then were instructed to provide saliva samples via passive drool through a plastic straw directly into a 200 ml cryovial. Individuals who had difficulty producing saliva were offered a piece of plain Trident sugar-free chewing gum. All vials were placed in a 20 1C freezer within 5 min of sampling, where they remained in storage until shipped on dry ice for processing. Total cortisol values (mg/dl) were expertly determined by a commercial firm (Salimetrics, College Park, PA, USA, www.salimetrics.com) via enzyme immunoassay operating under inter- and intra-assay coefficients of variation o10%. 2.4.2. Statistical analyses All three crews participated in both the Scheduled and Autonomous missions, thereby generating the full suite of performance and behavioral data. However, group CG completed the study before the introduction of saliva sampling, so cortisol data were only available from groups BV and CH. Performances are presented as the % of maximum possible grade values per mission for each crew; all subsequent descriptive statistics are presented as mean7SEM. Preliminary 2 2 mixed analyses of variance with a between groups factor of gender (male or female) and a repeated-measures factor of mission type (Scheduled and Autonomous) revealed no main or interaction effects involving gender on any of the variables studied (F(1,7)so2.5, ps40.16), so this factor was excluded from the formal analyses presented below in Section 3. For these analyses, variables with sample sizes appropriate for inferential statistics were subjected to paired-samples t tests comparing the Scheduled and Autonomous sessions. One-tailed tests were applied to variables with hypothesized effects (two-tailed otherwise and as noted). Statistical significance for all analyses was set at a=0.05. 3. Results 3.1. Crew performance Performances in all three crews improved as hypothesized by at least 9 percentage points from the Scheduled to Autonomous mission management conditions (BV: 64–73%, CH: 43–56%, CG: 22–50%). Although the crews differed in their baseline performances, the consistency and size of the autonomy effect across three independent groups is noteworthy. 3.2. Subjective self-report As hypothesized and illustrated in Fig. 1, pairedsamples t tests of the post-mission VAS data revealed that compared to the Scheduled condition, the Autonomous mission management condition significantly increased Positive self-reports (3878% vs. 4776%; t(8)= 2.22, po0.05) and significantly decreased Negative selfreports (3976% vs. 2374%; t(8)=2.22, po0.01), but had
Fig. 1. Visual analog scale self-report ratings following 3–4 h missions in a simulated planetary exploration task operating under Scheduled or Autonomous mission management. Data are expressed as meanþSEM % of maximum (n=9, *po0.05 Scheduled vs. Autonomous).
no effect on Physical self-reports (4177% vs. 3778%; t(8)=0.60, p40.50, two-tailed). 3.3. Linguistic analyses As hypothesized, the autonomous condition did not affect total Word Count of the debriefing log entries (7279 vs. 87716 words; t(8)=1.04, p40.30, two-tailed). Autonomous mission management did not affect the use of First Person Singular (470.9% vs. 570.9%; t(8)=1.96, p=0.09, two-tailed) or expressions of Positive Emotion (470.7% vs. 570.9%; t(8)=1.96, p40.10). However, the autonomous condition did significantly increase the use of First Person Plural (370.9% vs. 771.3%; t(8)=1.96, po0.05) and references to Social Processes (671% vs. 971%; t(8)=2.20, po0.05) and Achievement (170.5% vs. 37 0.6%; t(8)=2.20, po0.05) while significantly decreasing expressions of Negative Emotion (470.7% vs. 270.7%; t(8)=2.20, po0.05; see Fig. 2). 3.4. Salivary cortisol Regardless of time point or session type, raw cortisol values ranged from 0.04 to 1.18 mg/dl. To control for individual differences in baseline hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis output, cortisol values at each time point from each mission were transformed to the % of that mission’s pre-session baseline, and these values were plotted and subjected to individual area under the curve (AUC) analyses. Mean AUC values over the course of the Scheduled and Autonomous missions were then compared via paired-samples t test. This analysis confirmed that overall cortisol production was significantly lower during the Autonomous missions relative to the Scheduled missions (t(6)=2.59, po0.05; see Fig. 3).
P.G. Roma et al. / Acta Astronautica 68 (2011) 1581–1588
1585
Fig. 2. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) analyses of unstructured debriefing logs following 3–4 h missions in a simulated planetary exploration task operating under Scheduled or Autonomous mission management. Note that the y-axes vary in scale for each linguistic category. Data from each category are expressed as the meanþSEM % of all words in the debriefing log (n=9, *po0.05 Scheduled vs. Autonomous).
4. Discussion The results of the present study clearly revealed several apparent benefits of autonomous mission management on crew performance and individual behavioral and biological indices of psychosocial adaptation within a laboratorybased planetary exploration simulation. Under the autonomous condition, performance in all three groups improved, subjective self-reports of negative emotional states decreased, unstructured debriefing logs contained fewer references to negative emotions and greater use of social language, and physiological stress reactivity in the form of salivary cortisol output was attenuated across the 3–4 h missions. To those familiar with the I/O psychology literature and other workplace research, it should come as no surprise that the autonomous condition proved beneficial at least in terms of psychosocial adaptation and biobehavioral stress response. The present experiment now contributes to the field by highlighting individual benefits of autonomous mission management in well-trained small groups engaged in interdependent team-based work. Although these results are clear and make a promising first offering in the experimental analysis of autonomous
mission management for the international astronautics community, there are a number of issues worth considering for future research and application. Among them is the direction and consistency of the effects of autonomous mission management strategies across different conditions of relevance to space exploration. For example, one of the reasons for investigating autonomy is that limited communications and unpredictable technical difficulties may require independent action outside of standard operating procedures and crew routines. To test this, a follow-up study is currently being conducted using this same simulation paradigm to explore the effects of autonomy in teams confronted by unexpected communications outages. In addition, heavy workload and endogenous biological rhythms often converge to impair performance, psychological adaptation, and interpersonal interactions in many operational settings [20,21], and studies are now being planned to test the interaction between autonomy and circadian phase during extended 12-hr duty periods. Whether autonomy’s benefits are limited to relatively benign conditions or prove resilient to compromised communications and fatigue states, all insights are useful as interest in the management of psychosocial factors and behavioral health increases.
1586
P.G. Roma et al. / Acta Astronautica 68 (2011) 1581–1588
Fig. 3. Salivary cortisol over the course of 3–4 h missions in a simulated planetary exploration task operating under Scheduled or Autonomous mission management. The left panel presents the mean7SEM % of pre-session baseline before, during, and after each mission. These values were calculated for each subject and subjected to area under the curve analyses, the meanþSEM of which were directly compared as seen in the right panel (n=6, *po0.05 Scheduled vs. Autonomous).
Understanding the factors that alter the trajectory of autonomy’s effects is important, but it is also worthwhile to explore the breadth of those effects. In the present study, crew task performances as well as subjective and objective measures of individual biobehavioral adaptation improved under autonomous mission management. Further, the linguistic analyses also revealed an unsolicited increase in the use of socially-referent language, suggesting a potential enhancement of group affiliation and cohesion. This finding may be of particular interest to many in the space research community since the matter of building, monitoring, and maintaining cohesion is a high priority issue, particularly in the age of diverse international and mixed-gender crews. In response to these results and NASA’s emphasis on the importance of group cohesion, several conceptual prototypes for a team performance task (TPT) are under development in this laboratory to provide a rapid and objective behavioral assay of the fundamental elements of team cohesion and performance (cooperation, coordination, communication, situational awareness [22,23]). The inherent complexity of cohesion makes it a challenging proposition to reduce the phenomenon to its constituent parts and operationally define them in purely behavioral terms, but the potential utility of a valid yet rapid and non-invasive assay makes it a worthwhile endeavor. Despite its early stage of development, a recently tested version of the TPT showed promising sensitivity to individual and group differences in cooperative behavior [24,25]. Regardless of the factors surrounding this study of autonomous mission management, perhaps the broadest consideration is that of generalizability of results from a population of community volunteers that meet in a laboratory for several missions a month to real astronaut crews that constantly live, train, and work together. Unlike many team-based experimental paradigms [2,26], the simulation task employed in this laboratory does require a
standing commitment lasting months, with some groups working together for years, and it seems highly unlikely that the kind of autonomous mission management that benefitted these subjects would negatively affect the truly exceptional individuals that constitute any nation’s astronaut corps. Nonetheless, basic laboratory experiments such as the one reported here provide a sound logical basis and ‘‘proof of concept’’ foundation to warrant scalable tests of autonomy in even higher-fidelity settings such as the fully immersive environment of a residential laboratory [24,27,28], for much-needed controlled field experiments in isolated and operationally demanding analogue environments [5,29,30], and even for evaluation in active astronaut crews in space. The collective results of such studies can provide empirical insight on autonomy as both an inherent feature of future missions and another potential prophylactic measure against the psychosocial rigors of life aloft (cf. [31,32]). In conclusion, when considering the dynamic interplay between mission management, environmental influences, and psychosocial factors, it is important to consider the nature of autonomy itself. The present study focused on intra-task autonomy in that the crews engaged in a single (albeit complex) task with a single goal bound by a fixed temporal framework, and with the mission management approach governing how the crew pursued that goal within that framework. This approach differs from autonomous conditions that take the form of crew involvement in the sequencing and timing of multiple distinct tasks, social activities, and rest periods over an extended temporal framework. Even when task autonomy per se does not apply in light of optimal performance training, this higher-order type of autonomy is of known interest to astronauts the world over [1,5]. However, given the tremendous investment of resources committed to even the most mundane space-bound activities, concerns still linger over crew autonomy as increasing the risk of
P.G. Roma et al. / Acta Astronautica 68 (2011) 1581–1588
compromised performance, frequent insubordination, or even mutiny [V.I. Gushin, personal communication, June 10, 2009]. In this regard, as the space research community moves forward with its study of psychosocial factors, it is equally important to define not only what autonomy is, but what it is not. Autonomy is not anarchy. Particularly in highly disciplined and extraordinarily well-trained astronaut crews, there is a difference between autonomy within a pre-assigned task, autonomy in selecting and sequencing required tasks over the course of a duty period, and complete freedom to chose whether or not to even work towards mission goals or any other end. Fortunately, the present study suggests that regardless of immediate improvements in performance, incorporation of autonomous mission management strategies may contribute to critically important long-term benefits on individual and group behavioral health and well-being, and given the inevitability of autonomous crew operations in future missions, an evidence-based understanding of how autonomy works may be the most responsible course of action to protect space agencies’ investments in human and other resources. With a secure experimental knowledge base established, leaders of the international astronautics community may make better informed decisions regarding crew autonomy to universal benefit when managing ongoing projects and designing future manned missions beyond Earth’s orbit.
Acknowledgments This research was supported by National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI) grant # NCC 9-58NBPF01602 and by intramural funds from the Institutes for Behavior Resources. The authors of this report were entirely responsible for the design of the study, the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, the preparation of the manuscript, and the decision to submit the paper for publication. The authors have no interests that may be perceived as conflicting with the research. References [1] J. Jaap, P. Meyer, E. Davis, L. Richardson, In-space crew-collaborative task scheduling, NASA Document ID 20070013716, 2007. [2] C.W. Langfred, N.A. Moye, Effects of task autonomy on performance: an extended model considering motivational, informational, and structural mechanisms, J. Appl. Psychol. 89 (2004) 934–945. [3] N. Kanas, D. Manzey, Space Psychology and Psychiatry, second ed., Microcosm Press, Springer, El Segundo, CA, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008. [4] N. Kanas, G. Sandal, J.E. Boyd, V.I. Gushin, D. Manzey, R. North, G.R. Leon, P. Suedfeld, S. Bishop, E.R. Fiedler, N. Inoue, B. Johannes, D.J. Kealey, N. Kraft, I. Matsuzaki, D. Musson, L.A. Palinkas, V.P. Salnitskiy, W. Sipes, J. Stuster, J. Wang, Psychology and culture during long-duration space missions, Acta Astronaut. 64 (2009) 659–677. [5] S.I. Stepanova, V.F. Nesterov, I.F. Saraev, V.A. Galichiy, E.G. Savchenko, I.N. Lavrentieva, N.M. Rudometkin, The ISS crew work/ rest schedule (WRS): open issues and satellite challenges, Paper presented at the biannual meeting of the International Academy of Astronautics’ Humans in Space Symposium, Moscow, Russian Federation, 2009. [6] J.V. Brady, Behavioral health: the propaedeutic requirement, Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 76 (2005) B13–B24.
1587
[7] J.V. Brady, R.D. Hienz, S.R. Hursh, L.C. Ragusa, C.O. Rouse, E.D. Gasior, Distributed interactive communication in simulated space-dwelling groups, Comput. Hum. Behav. 20 (2004) 311–340. [8] R.D. Hienz, J.V. Brady, S.R. Hursh, L.C. Ragusa, C.O. Rouse, E.D. Gasior, Distributed communication and psychosocial performance in simulated space dwelling groups, Acta Astronaut. 56 (2005) 937–948. [9] R.D. Hienz, J.V. Brady, S.R. Hursh, M.J. Banner, E.D. Gasior, K.R. Spence, Communication constraints, indexical countermeasures, and crew configuration effects in simulated space-dwelling groups, Acta Astronaut. 60 (2007) 362–378. [10] R.D. Hienz, J.V. Brady, S.R. Hursh, E.D. Gasior, K.R. Spence, H.H. Emurian, Effects of incentives on psychosocial performances in simulated space-dwelling groups, Acta Astronaut. 63 (2008) 800–810. [11] B. Gardell, Technology, alienation and mental health in the modern industrial environment, in: L. Levi (Ed.), Society, Stress and Disease, vol. 1, Oxford University Press, London, 1971, pp. 148–180. [12] J.R. Hackman, E.E. Lawler III, Employee reactions to job characteristics, J. Appl. Psychol. 55 (1971) 259–286. [13] N. Kanas, S. Saylor, T. Neylan, J. Boyd, D. Weiss, C. Marmar, Effects of high crewmember autonomy in two space analog conditions, Paper presented at the biannual meeting of the International Academy of Astronautics’ Humans in Space Symposium, Moscow, Russian Federation, 2009. [14] M. Calnan, D. Wainrwright, S. Almond, Job strain, effort-reward imbalance and mental distress: a study of occupations in general medical practice, Work Stress 14 (2000) 297–311. [15] G. Maina, A. Palmas, M. Bovenzi, F.L. Filon, Salivary cortisol and psychosocial hazards at work, Am. J. Ind. Med. 52 (2009) 251–260. [16] J.W. Pennebaker, L.A. King, Linguistic styles: language use as an individual difference, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77 (1999) 1296–1312. [17] C. Kirschbaum, D.H. Hellhammer, Salivary cortisol in psychoneuroendocrine research: recent developments and applications, Psychoneuroendocrinology 19 (1994) 313–333. ¨ [18] B.M. Kudielka, D.H. Hellhammer, S. Wust, Why do we respond so differently? Reviewing determinants of human salivary cortisol responses to challenge, Psychoneuroendocrinology 34 (2009) 2–18. [19] P.G. Roma, The SPIT method for simultaneous and unobtrusive collection of salivary cortisol from individually housed infant monkeys, in: G.P. Sackett, G.C. Ruppenthal, K. Elias (Eds.), Nursery Rearing of Nonhuman Primates in the 21st Century, SpringerVerlag, New York, 2006, pp. 429–460. [20] M.M. Mallis, C.W. DeRoshia, Circadian rhythms, sleep, and performance in space, Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 76 (2005) B94–B107. [21] D.J. Mollicone, H.P. Van Dongen, N.L. Rogers, D.F. Dinges, Response surface mapping of neurobehavioral performance: testing the feasibility of split sleep schedules for space operations, Acta Astronaut. 63 (2008) 833–840. [22] E. Salas, K.A. Wilson, C.E. Murphy, H. King, M. Salisbury, Communicating, coordinating, and cooperating when lives depend on it: tips for teamwork, Jt. Comm. J. Qual. Patient Saf. 34 (2008) 333–341. [23] K.A. Wilson, E. Salas, H.A. Priest, D. Andrews, Errors in the heat of battle: taking a closer look at shared cognition breakdowns through teamwork, Hum. Factors 49 (2007) 243–256. [24] H.H. Emurian, K. Canfield, P.G. Roma, E.D. Gasior, Z.S. Brinson, R.D. Hienz, S.R. Hursh, J.V. Brady, Behavioral systems management of confined microsocieties: an agenda for research and applications, in: Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Environmental Systems, SAE International, Warrendale, PA, 2009, paper number 2009-01-2423. [25] P.G. Roma, H.H. Emurian, S.R. Hursh, K. Canfield, R.D. Hienz, E.D. Gasior, Z.S. Brinson, J.V. Brady, Preliminary analyses of TPT 2.0 beta test data in teams with and without a shared work history, unpublished results. [26] R.P. DeShon, S.W. Kozlowski, A.M. Schmidt, K.R. Milner, D. Wiechmann, A multiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance, J. Appl. Psychol. 89 (2004) 1035–1056. [27] J.V. Brady, G.E. Bigelow, H.H. Emurian, D.M. Williams, Design of a programmed environment for the experimental analysis of social behavior, in: D.H. Carson (Ed.), Man–Environment Interactions: Evaluations and Applications. vol. 7, Social Ecology, Environment Design Research Association, Milwaukee, 1975, pp. 187–208. [28] H.H. Emurian, J.V. Brady, Behavioral health management of space dwelling groups: safe passage beyond earth orbit, Behav. Anal. Today 8 (2007) 25–41. [29] K.A. Binsted, R.L. Kobrick, S. Bishop, M. O’Griofa, J. Lapierre, An overview of the human factors research conducted on a
1588
P.G. Roma et al. / Acta Astronautica 68 (2011) 1581–1588
four-month mars simulation in the Canadian high arctic, with recommendations for future analogue research, Paper presented at the biannual meeting of the International Academy of Astronautics’ Humans in Space Symposium, Moscow, Russian Federation, 2009. [30] C. Shea, K.J. Slack, K.E. Keeton, L.A. Palinkas, L.B. Leveton, Antarctica meta analysis: psychosocial factors related to long-duration isolation and confinement, NASA Document ID JSC-CN-18397, 2009.
[31] J.A. Carter, J.C. Buckey, L. Greenhalgh, A.W. Holland, M.T. Hegel, An interactive media program for managing psychosocial problems on long-duration spaceflights, Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 76 (2005) B213–B223. [32] M.G. Craske, R.D. Rose, A. Lang, S.S. Welch, L. Campbell-Sills, G. Sullivan, C. Sherbourne, A. Bystritsky, M.B. Stein, P.P. Roy-Byrne, Computer-assisted delivery of cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety disorders in primary-care settings, Depress Anxiety 26 (2009) 235–242.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Acta Astronautica journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/actaastro
Behavioral and biological effects of autonomous versus scheduled mission management in simulated space-dwelling groups Peter G. Roma a,b,, Steven R. Hursh a,b, Robert D. Hienz a,b, Henry H. Emurian c, Eric D. Gasior a, Zabecca S. Brinson a, Joseph V. Brady a,b a b c
Human Performance Laboratory, Institutes for Behavior Resources, 2104 Maryland Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA Behavioral Biology Research Center, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA Department of Information Systems, UMBC, Baltimore, MD, USA
a r t i c l e in fo
abstract
Article history: Received 4 August 2009 Received in revised form 21 September 2009 Accepted 24 September 2009 Available online 25 October 2009
Logistical constraints during long-duration space expeditions will limit the ability of Earth-based mission control personnel to manage their astronaut crews and will thus increase the prevalence of autonomous operations. Despite this inevitability, little research exists regarding crew performance and psychosocial adaptation under such autonomous conditions. To this end, a newly-initiated study on crew management systems was conducted to assess crew performance effectiveness under rigid schedule-based management of crew activities by Mission Control versus more flexible, autonomous management of activities by the crews themselves. Nine volunteers formed three long-term crews and were extensively trained in a simulated planetary geological exploration task over the course of several months. Each crew then embarked on two separate 3–4 h missions in a counterbalanced sequence: Scheduled, in which the crews were directed by Mission Control according to a strict topographic and temporal regionsearching sequence, and Autonomous, in which the well-trained crews received equivalent baseline support from Mission Control but were free to explore the planetary surface as they saw fit. Under the autonomous missions, performance in all three crews improved (more high-valued geologic samples were retrieved), subjective self-reports of negative emotional states decreased, unstructured debriefing logs contained fewer references to negative emotions and greater use of socially-referent language, and salivary cortisol output across the missions was attenuated. The present study provides evidence that crew autonomy may improve performance and help sustain if not enhance psychosocial adaptation and biobehavioral health. These controlled experimental data contribute to an emerging empirical database on crew autonomy which the international astronautics community may build upon for future research and ultimately draw upon when designing and managing missions. & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Interactive simulation Autonomy Team performance Psychosocial Cortisol
1. Introduction
Corresponding author at: Human Performance Laboratory, Institutes for Behavior Resources, 2104 Maryland Avenue, 6th Floor, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA. Tel.: þ1 410 752 6080; fax: þ1 410 752 0172. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (P.G. Roma).
0094-5765/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2009.09.034
Logistical constraints imposed by the vast distances inherent to space exploration will limit Earth-based authorities’ ability to manage their astronaut crews due to, for example, the limitations of real-time interactions between crews and their Mission Control teams [1]. In response to these constraints, interest in ‘‘crew
1582
P.G. Roma et al. / Acta Astronautica 68 (2011) 1581–1588
autonomy’’—that is, the opportunity for individuals or teams to determine how best to accomplish pre-determined goals [2]—has increased in recent years [3–5]. Of particular interest are the potential effects of autonomous versus external schedule-based management systems on performance and psychosocial adaptation, especially in light of prospective long-duration missions to Mars. Yet despite the widely acknowledged importance of behavioral factors for successful space exploration and the inevitable necessity of autonomous crew management for future missions beyond Earth’s orbit [6,3], very little empirical data exist within the space research community to inform training and planning for autonomously managed missions. The following report describes the first in a series of experiments from this laboratory exploring the behavioral and biological effects of autonomous versus highly scheduled mission performances in well-trained 3-person teams performing a simulated planetary exploration task. The purpose of this work is to begin to understand fundamental effects of team task autonomy via controlled experimentation, with the ultimate goal of contributing to the evidence base upon which space exploration missions are designed, managed, and optimized. Using our previously described simulated geological survey task [7–10], several measures of performance and psychosocial adaptation were obtained in response to highly scheduled versus autonomously managed mission plans. Based on the human industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology research literature, it was hypothesized that autonomy in these well-trained teams would improve task performance [2]. In terms of psychosocial adaptation, the existing I/O literature as well as some emerging space analogue environment research [11–13] suggested the hypothesis that autonomous management would increase Positive and decrease Negative self-report responses, but have no predicted effect on Physical descriptors. In addition to these measures, quantitative linguistic analyses of post-mission debriefing logs were conducted, and consistent with the above-predicted effects on performance and subjective well-being, it was hypothesized that autonomy would not affect total Word Count or the use of First Person Singular, but would increase verbal expressions of Achievement and Positive Emotion while decreasing expressions of Negative Emotion. If autonomy improves individual measures of psychosocial adaptation, then it was also hypothesized that this effect would carry over into the social domain as indicated by increased use of First Person Plural and discussion of Social Processes. Finally, assuming that a rigid management schedule on a well-trained team may be considered a psychosocial stressor as lack of control is in other occupational settings [14,15], it was hypothesized that the autonomous mission management condition would attenuate cortisol output.
2. Method 2.1. Participants A total of nine individuals from the local community volunteered to serve as subjects. There were four males
and five females ranging in age from 23–32 yr (mean=27 yr), seven of whom were college-educated to at least the bachelor’s level, with the other two having completed some bachelor’s-level coursework. Although no special skills or training were required for participation, a commitment of availability for recurrent training and experimental participation over several months was required. The volunteers participated in three crews of three persons each which remained together and operated the same simulated vehicles described below throughout all training sessions and the experiment proper. Crew IDs and male:female gender ratios were as follows: BV (1:2), CH (1:2), and CG (2:1). All training, testing, and experimental procedures took place between 1000 and 1400 h, and each participant received $20 per hour for participation. All procedures described in this report conformed to US and UN regulations governing the treatment of human research subjects, and all protocols were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the Institutes for Behavior Resources.
2.2. Planetary exploration simulation The computer-generated planetary exploration simulation employed has been extensively described in previously published reports [7–10]. Briefly, each crew trained and participated in experimental ‘‘missions’’ of 3–4 h in duration. During each mission, the crew engaged in a computerized geologic exploration expedition on a simulated planetary surface, with each member of the crew assigned to a different simulated exploration vehicle (‘‘Orbiter,’’ ‘‘Lander,’’ or ‘‘Rover’’). Each crew member operated their respective vehicles via an individual workstation physically and acoustically isolated from the other crewmates. Each workstation included a computerized system for navigation and sample collection as well as a second system for real-time audio, video, text messaging, and digital freehand ‘‘white board’’ communications with the other crewmembers and with ‘‘Mission Control’’ (trained technical personnel supervising and managing the simulation session). Roles and capabilities of the three vehicles were as follows. The Orbiter circled the planet in 18-min orbits comprised of 9 min ‘‘in communication range’’ of the surface vehicles and 9 min out of communication range, remotely sensed and displayed geologic sample locations on the surface for others to see, and analyzed readings from collected samples to determine their geologic grade values. The Rover could move across the planet’s surface, collect and store samples, and transmit geologic information to the Orbiter for further analysis. The Lander provided logistic support for the Rover on the planetary surface such as additional fuel and sample storage space, could dock with the Rover to transport it to other locations on the planetary surface, and could also collect and store samples. Exploratory missions occurred in six distinct regions across the planetary surface. Each region contained randomly distributed geologic samples of varying ‘‘point’’ values that were distinguished by a range of sizes, shapes,
P.G. Roma et al. / Acta Astronautica 68 (2011) 1581–1588
colors, and combinations thereof as a model of geological survey missions where the specimens encountered may vary in interest based on their physical and biochemical composition. The goal of all missions was for the crew to decipher through experience which levels of each characteristic were of high value, and to work together to maximize total value of the geological samples they collected while minimizing point loss from vehicle damage incurred through collisions or failures to shield from unpredictable radiation storms. All missions were comprised of a total of 153 min of active search time, with a 10–15 min break after min 72 of the mission. 2.3. Experimental manipulations Each ‘‘Scheduled’’ mission served to model the extremes of time pressure and performance demands seen in traditional mission management, and was based on pre-determined, randomly generated topographic and temporal region-searching sequences for the two surface-bound vehicles, which were directed and enforced by Mission Control via text and audio. The Scheduled missions consisted of 20 intervals ranging from 1–12 min in duration summing to the standard 153 min mission length. As exemplified in Table 1, the Lander and Rover had their own respective mission plans. By contrast, crews in the ‘‘Autonomous’’ condition were permitted to explore the planet’s surface regions however they chose within the confines of the standard mission length and other baseline technical parameters. The crews were informed of how their missions would be managed during their premission briefing, and Mission Control provided the same level of support service throughout all missions regardless of management condition. Exposure to each mission type was counterbalanced across crews on non-consecutive days, with two of the three crews operating under the Scheduled condition first. 2.4. Data collection, hypotheses, and analyses 2.4.1. Performance, behavioral, and biological measures The simulation program automatically recorded crew mission performances and all communication exchanges. Crew performance for any given mission was quantified by the total point value of all samples collected (minus damage) expressed as a % of maximum possible points. In addition to this overall group performance measure, several individual assessments were made immediately before the start of each mission (pre-mission), immediately after min 72 (mid-mission), and immediately after min 153 (post-mission). Psychosocial adaptation was assessed via computerized visual analog scale (VAS) self-report questionnaires administered pre-, mid-, and post-mission, with the present study focusing on the final post-mission assessments. The VAS battery consisted of 12 individual items; for each item, a subject responded by using the mouse cursor to select a point along a line displayed on the screen (anchored by ‘‘Not at All’’ to ‘‘Extremely’’) that best reflected his or her current state. VAS responses were
1583
Table 1 Example search sequence imposed during Scheduled missions in a simulated planetary exploration task. Interval
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Lander
Rover
Location
Duration
Location
Duration
6 1 5 4 6 1 4 3 5 3 3 4 2 6 6 5 5 2 1 5
8 6 5 12 7 12 12 6 5 12 7 6 8 6 3 6 11 3 6 12
3 4 4 4 6 5 6 3 1 5 5 2 2 6 4 1 6 2 3 6
8 4 9 4 11 5 7 8 11 9 6 8 7 12 11 3 10 9 8 3
The two ground-based vehicles (Lander and Rover) were each assigned a mission plan consisting of 20 search intervals; each interval was comprised of a randomly generated combination of which region to survey (1–6) and duration of the search in minutes (1–12). Interval transitions were directed and enforced by Mission Control. Under the Autonomous condition, the crews were free to conduct the geological survey however they saw fit under otherwise identical conditions to those of the Scheduled mission.
recorded in mm along the response line, and for analyses were converted to % of the response line’s length. The 12 items that defined the VAS battery were grouped and averaged to reflect Positive (e.g., ‘‘Happy’’), Negative (e.g., ‘‘Stressed’’), and Physical (e.g., ‘‘Fatigued’’) responses to the mission (see [10] for additional details). All crewmembers also completed a debriefing logbook entry at the end of each mission where they provided their candid opinions on the mission in an otherwise unguided and unstructured text-based format. The individual debriefing logs were corrected for grammar and spelling and then processed through the 2007 version of the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count program (LIWC; [16]). The software assigned the content of the debriefings into various non-mutually exclusive linguistic categories according to a 4500 word dictionary and hierarchical taxonomy. LIWC data are expressed as the percentage of the entire debriefing log (all words) accounted for by words associated with any given linguistic category. The categories we focused on for the present study were total Word Count, First Person Singular (‘‘I’’), Achievement (e.g., ‘‘earn,’’ ‘‘win’’), Positive Emotion (e.g., ‘‘happy,’’ ‘‘love’’), Negative Emotion (e.g., ‘‘anxiety,’’ ‘‘hate’’), First Person Plural (‘‘we’’), and Social Processes (e.g., ‘‘listen,’’ ‘‘share’’). Finally, salivary cortisol was measured as an objective physiological correlate of stress reactivity [17–19] by obtaining saliva samples from each subject at the same pre-, mid-, and post-mission points as the VAS
1584
P.G. Roma et al. / Acta Astronautica 68 (2011) 1581–1588
assessments. Subjects first rinsed their mouths out with filtered water to remove any residual food or beverage that may interfere with the assay, and then were instructed to provide saliva samples via passive drool through a plastic straw directly into a 200 ml cryovial. Individuals who had difficulty producing saliva were offered a piece of plain Trident sugar-free chewing gum. All vials were placed in a 20 1C freezer within 5 min of sampling, where they remained in storage until shipped on dry ice for processing. Total cortisol values (mg/dl) were expertly determined by a commercial firm (Salimetrics, College Park, PA, USA, www.salimetrics.com) via enzyme immunoassay operating under inter- and intra-assay coefficients of variation o10%. 2.4.2. Statistical analyses All three crews participated in both the Scheduled and Autonomous missions, thereby generating the full suite of performance and behavioral data. However, group CG completed the study before the introduction of saliva sampling, so cortisol data were only available from groups BV and CH. Performances are presented as the % of maximum possible grade values per mission for each crew; all subsequent descriptive statistics are presented as mean7SEM. Preliminary 2 2 mixed analyses of variance with a between groups factor of gender (male or female) and a repeated-measures factor of mission type (Scheduled and Autonomous) revealed no main or interaction effects involving gender on any of the variables studied (F(1,7)so2.5, ps40.16), so this factor was excluded from the formal analyses presented below in Section 3. For these analyses, variables with sample sizes appropriate for inferential statistics were subjected to paired-samples t tests comparing the Scheduled and Autonomous sessions. One-tailed tests were applied to variables with hypothesized effects (two-tailed otherwise and as noted). Statistical significance for all analyses was set at a=0.05. 3. Results 3.1. Crew performance Performances in all three crews improved as hypothesized by at least 9 percentage points from the Scheduled to Autonomous mission management conditions (BV: 64–73%, CH: 43–56%, CG: 22–50%). Although the crews differed in their baseline performances, the consistency and size of the autonomy effect across three independent groups is noteworthy. 3.2. Subjective self-report As hypothesized and illustrated in Fig. 1, pairedsamples t tests of the post-mission VAS data revealed that compared to the Scheduled condition, the Autonomous mission management condition significantly increased Positive self-reports (3878% vs. 4776%; t(8)= 2.22, po0.05) and significantly decreased Negative selfreports (3976% vs. 2374%; t(8)=2.22, po0.01), but had
Fig. 1. Visual analog scale self-report ratings following 3–4 h missions in a simulated planetary exploration task operating under Scheduled or Autonomous mission management. Data are expressed as meanþSEM % of maximum (n=9, *po0.05 Scheduled vs. Autonomous).
no effect on Physical self-reports (4177% vs. 3778%; t(8)=0.60, p40.50, two-tailed). 3.3. Linguistic analyses As hypothesized, the autonomous condition did not affect total Word Count of the debriefing log entries (7279 vs. 87716 words; t(8)=1.04, p40.30, two-tailed). Autonomous mission management did not affect the use of First Person Singular (470.9% vs. 570.9%; t(8)=1.96, p=0.09, two-tailed) or expressions of Positive Emotion (470.7% vs. 570.9%; t(8)=1.96, p40.10). However, the autonomous condition did significantly increase the use of First Person Plural (370.9% vs. 771.3%; t(8)=1.96, po0.05) and references to Social Processes (671% vs. 971%; t(8)=2.20, po0.05) and Achievement (170.5% vs. 37 0.6%; t(8)=2.20, po0.05) while significantly decreasing expressions of Negative Emotion (470.7% vs. 270.7%; t(8)=2.20, po0.05; see Fig. 2). 3.4. Salivary cortisol Regardless of time point or session type, raw cortisol values ranged from 0.04 to 1.18 mg/dl. To control for individual differences in baseline hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis output, cortisol values at each time point from each mission were transformed to the % of that mission’s pre-session baseline, and these values were plotted and subjected to individual area under the curve (AUC) analyses. Mean AUC values over the course of the Scheduled and Autonomous missions were then compared via paired-samples t test. This analysis confirmed that overall cortisol production was significantly lower during the Autonomous missions relative to the Scheduled missions (t(6)=2.59, po0.05; see Fig. 3).
P.G. Roma et al. / Acta Astronautica 68 (2011) 1581–1588
1585
Fig. 2. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) analyses of unstructured debriefing logs following 3–4 h missions in a simulated planetary exploration task operating under Scheduled or Autonomous mission management. Note that the y-axes vary in scale for each linguistic category. Data from each category are expressed as the meanþSEM % of all words in the debriefing log (n=9, *po0.05 Scheduled vs. Autonomous).
4. Discussion The results of the present study clearly revealed several apparent benefits of autonomous mission management on crew performance and individual behavioral and biological indices of psychosocial adaptation within a laboratorybased planetary exploration simulation. Under the autonomous condition, performance in all three groups improved, subjective self-reports of negative emotional states decreased, unstructured debriefing logs contained fewer references to negative emotions and greater use of social language, and physiological stress reactivity in the form of salivary cortisol output was attenuated across the 3–4 h missions. To those familiar with the I/O psychology literature and other workplace research, it should come as no surprise that the autonomous condition proved beneficial at least in terms of psychosocial adaptation and biobehavioral stress response. The present experiment now contributes to the field by highlighting individual benefits of autonomous mission management in well-trained small groups engaged in interdependent team-based work. Although these results are clear and make a promising first offering in the experimental analysis of autonomous
mission management for the international astronautics community, there are a number of issues worth considering for future research and application. Among them is the direction and consistency of the effects of autonomous mission management strategies across different conditions of relevance to space exploration. For example, one of the reasons for investigating autonomy is that limited communications and unpredictable technical difficulties may require independent action outside of standard operating procedures and crew routines. To test this, a follow-up study is currently being conducted using this same simulation paradigm to explore the effects of autonomy in teams confronted by unexpected communications outages. In addition, heavy workload and endogenous biological rhythms often converge to impair performance, psychological adaptation, and interpersonal interactions in many operational settings [20,21], and studies are now being planned to test the interaction between autonomy and circadian phase during extended 12-hr duty periods. Whether autonomy’s benefits are limited to relatively benign conditions or prove resilient to compromised communications and fatigue states, all insights are useful as interest in the management of psychosocial factors and behavioral health increases.
1586
P.G. Roma et al. / Acta Astronautica 68 (2011) 1581–1588
Fig. 3. Salivary cortisol over the course of 3–4 h missions in a simulated planetary exploration task operating under Scheduled or Autonomous mission management. The left panel presents the mean7SEM % of pre-session baseline before, during, and after each mission. These values were calculated for each subject and subjected to area under the curve analyses, the meanþSEM of which were directly compared as seen in the right panel (n=6, *po0.05 Scheduled vs. Autonomous).
Understanding the factors that alter the trajectory of autonomy’s effects is important, but it is also worthwhile to explore the breadth of those effects. In the present study, crew task performances as well as subjective and objective measures of individual biobehavioral adaptation improved under autonomous mission management. Further, the linguistic analyses also revealed an unsolicited increase in the use of socially-referent language, suggesting a potential enhancement of group affiliation and cohesion. This finding may be of particular interest to many in the space research community since the matter of building, monitoring, and maintaining cohesion is a high priority issue, particularly in the age of diverse international and mixed-gender crews. In response to these results and NASA’s emphasis on the importance of group cohesion, several conceptual prototypes for a team performance task (TPT) are under development in this laboratory to provide a rapid and objective behavioral assay of the fundamental elements of team cohesion and performance (cooperation, coordination, communication, situational awareness [22,23]). The inherent complexity of cohesion makes it a challenging proposition to reduce the phenomenon to its constituent parts and operationally define them in purely behavioral terms, but the potential utility of a valid yet rapid and non-invasive assay makes it a worthwhile endeavor. Despite its early stage of development, a recently tested version of the TPT showed promising sensitivity to individual and group differences in cooperative behavior [24,25]. Regardless of the factors surrounding this study of autonomous mission management, perhaps the broadest consideration is that of generalizability of results from a population of community volunteers that meet in a laboratory for several missions a month to real astronaut crews that constantly live, train, and work together. Unlike many team-based experimental paradigms [2,26], the simulation task employed in this laboratory does require a
standing commitment lasting months, with some groups working together for years, and it seems highly unlikely that the kind of autonomous mission management that benefitted these subjects would negatively affect the truly exceptional individuals that constitute any nation’s astronaut corps. Nonetheless, basic laboratory experiments such as the one reported here provide a sound logical basis and ‘‘proof of concept’’ foundation to warrant scalable tests of autonomy in even higher-fidelity settings such as the fully immersive environment of a residential laboratory [24,27,28], for much-needed controlled field experiments in isolated and operationally demanding analogue environments [5,29,30], and even for evaluation in active astronaut crews in space. The collective results of such studies can provide empirical insight on autonomy as both an inherent feature of future missions and another potential prophylactic measure against the psychosocial rigors of life aloft (cf. [31,32]). In conclusion, when considering the dynamic interplay between mission management, environmental influences, and psychosocial factors, it is important to consider the nature of autonomy itself. The present study focused on intra-task autonomy in that the crews engaged in a single (albeit complex) task with a single goal bound by a fixed temporal framework, and with the mission management approach governing how the crew pursued that goal within that framework. This approach differs from autonomous conditions that take the form of crew involvement in the sequencing and timing of multiple distinct tasks, social activities, and rest periods over an extended temporal framework. Even when task autonomy per se does not apply in light of optimal performance training, this higher-order type of autonomy is of known interest to astronauts the world over [1,5]. However, given the tremendous investment of resources committed to even the most mundane space-bound activities, concerns still linger over crew autonomy as increasing the risk of
P.G. Roma et al. / Acta Astronautica 68 (2011) 1581–1588
compromised performance, frequent insubordination, or even mutiny [V.I. Gushin, personal communication, June 10, 2009]. In this regard, as the space research community moves forward with its study of psychosocial factors, it is equally important to define not only what autonomy is, but what it is not. Autonomy is not anarchy. Particularly in highly disciplined and extraordinarily well-trained astronaut crews, there is a difference between autonomy within a pre-assigned task, autonomy in selecting and sequencing required tasks over the course of a duty period, and complete freedom to chose whether or not to even work towards mission goals or any other end. Fortunately, the present study suggests that regardless of immediate improvements in performance, incorporation of autonomous mission management strategies may contribute to critically important long-term benefits on individual and group behavioral health and well-being, and given the inevitability of autonomous crew operations in future missions, an evidence-based understanding of how autonomy works may be the most responsible course of action to protect space agencies’ investments in human and other resources. With a secure experimental knowledge base established, leaders of the international astronautics community may make better informed decisions regarding crew autonomy to universal benefit when managing ongoing projects and designing future manned missions beyond Earth’s orbit.
Acknowledgments This research was supported by National Space Biomedical Research Institute (NSBRI) grant # NCC 9-58NBPF01602 and by intramural funds from the Institutes for Behavior Resources. The authors of this report were entirely responsible for the design of the study, the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, the preparation of the manuscript, and the decision to submit the paper for publication. The authors have no interests that may be perceived as conflicting with the research. References [1] J. Jaap, P. Meyer, E. Davis, L. Richardson, In-space crew-collaborative task scheduling, NASA Document ID 20070013716, 2007. [2] C.W. Langfred, N.A. Moye, Effects of task autonomy on performance: an extended model considering motivational, informational, and structural mechanisms, J. Appl. Psychol. 89 (2004) 934–945. [3] N. Kanas, D. Manzey, Space Psychology and Psychiatry, second ed., Microcosm Press, Springer, El Segundo, CA, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008. [4] N. Kanas, G. Sandal, J.E. Boyd, V.I. Gushin, D. Manzey, R. North, G.R. Leon, P. Suedfeld, S. Bishop, E.R. Fiedler, N. Inoue, B. Johannes, D.J. Kealey, N. Kraft, I. Matsuzaki, D. Musson, L.A. Palinkas, V.P. Salnitskiy, W. Sipes, J. Stuster, J. Wang, Psychology and culture during long-duration space missions, Acta Astronaut. 64 (2009) 659–677. [5] S.I. Stepanova, V.F. Nesterov, I.F. Saraev, V.A. Galichiy, E.G. Savchenko, I.N. Lavrentieva, N.M. Rudometkin, The ISS crew work/ rest schedule (WRS): open issues and satellite challenges, Paper presented at the biannual meeting of the International Academy of Astronautics’ Humans in Space Symposium, Moscow, Russian Federation, 2009. [6] J.V. Brady, Behavioral health: the propaedeutic requirement, Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 76 (2005) B13–B24.
1587
[7] J.V. Brady, R.D. Hienz, S.R. Hursh, L.C. Ragusa, C.O. Rouse, E.D. Gasior, Distributed interactive communication in simulated space-dwelling groups, Comput. Hum. Behav. 20 (2004) 311–340. [8] R.D. Hienz, J.V. Brady, S.R. Hursh, L.C. Ragusa, C.O. Rouse, E.D. Gasior, Distributed communication and psychosocial performance in simulated space dwelling groups, Acta Astronaut. 56 (2005) 937–948. [9] R.D. Hienz, J.V. Brady, S.R. Hursh, M.J. Banner, E.D. Gasior, K.R. Spence, Communication constraints, indexical countermeasures, and crew configuration effects in simulated space-dwelling groups, Acta Astronaut. 60 (2007) 362–378. [10] R.D. Hienz, J.V. Brady, S.R. Hursh, E.D. Gasior, K.R. Spence, H.H. Emurian, Effects of incentives on psychosocial performances in simulated space-dwelling groups, Acta Astronaut. 63 (2008) 800–810. [11] B. Gardell, Technology, alienation and mental health in the modern industrial environment, in: L. Levi (Ed.), Society, Stress and Disease, vol. 1, Oxford University Press, London, 1971, pp. 148–180. [12] J.R. Hackman, E.E. Lawler III, Employee reactions to job characteristics, J. Appl. Psychol. 55 (1971) 259–286. [13] N. Kanas, S. Saylor, T. Neylan, J. Boyd, D. Weiss, C. Marmar, Effects of high crewmember autonomy in two space analog conditions, Paper presented at the biannual meeting of the International Academy of Astronautics’ Humans in Space Symposium, Moscow, Russian Federation, 2009. [14] M. Calnan, D. Wainrwright, S. Almond, Job strain, effort-reward imbalance and mental distress: a study of occupations in general medical practice, Work Stress 14 (2000) 297–311. [15] G. Maina, A. Palmas, M. Bovenzi, F.L. Filon, Salivary cortisol and psychosocial hazards at work, Am. J. Ind. Med. 52 (2009) 251–260. [16] J.W. Pennebaker, L.A. King, Linguistic styles: language use as an individual difference, J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77 (1999) 1296–1312. [17] C. Kirschbaum, D.H. Hellhammer, Salivary cortisol in psychoneuroendocrine research: recent developments and applications, Psychoneuroendocrinology 19 (1994) 313–333. ¨ [18] B.M. Kudielka, D.H. Hellhammer, S. Wust, Why do we respond so differently? Reviewing determinants of human salivary cortisol responses to challenge, Psychoneuroendocrinology 34 (2009) 2–18. [19] P.G. Roma, The SPIT method for simultaneous and unobtrusive collection of salivary cortisol from individually housed infant monkeys, in: G.P. Sackett, G.C. Ruppenthal, K. Elias (Eds.), Nursery Rearing of Nonhuman Primates in the 21st Century, SpringerVerlag, New York, 2006, pp. 429–460. [20] M.M. Mallis, C.W. DeRoshia, Circadian rhythms, sleep, and performance in space, Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 76 (2005) B94–B107. [21] D.J. Mollicone, H.P. Van Dongen, N.L. Rogers, D.F. Dinges, Response surface mapping of neurobehavioral performance: testing the feasibility of split sleep schedules for space operations, Acta Astronaut. 63 (2008) 833–840. [22] E. Salas, K.A. Wilson, C.E. Murphy, H. King, M. Salisbury, Communicating, coordinating, and cooperating when lives depend on it: tips for teamwork, Jt. Comm. J. Qual. Patient Saf. 34 (2008) 333–341. [23] K.A. Wilson, E. Salas, H.A. Priest, D. Andrews, Errors in the heat of battle: taking a closer look at shared cognition breakdowns through teamwork, Hum. Factors 49 (2007) 243–256. [24] H.H. Emurian, K. Canfield, P.G. Roma, E.D. Gasior, Z.S. Brinson, R.D. Hienz, S.R. Hursh, J.V. Brady, Behavioral systems management of confined microsocieties: an agenda for research and applications, in: Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Environmental Systems, SAE International, Warrendale, PA, 2009, paper number 2009-01-2423. [25] P.G. Roma, H.H. Emurian, S.R. Hursh, K. Canfield, R.D. Hienz, E.D. Gasior, Z.S. Brinson, J.V. Brady, Preliminary analyses of TPT 2.0 beta test data in teams with and without a shared work history, unpublished results. [26] R.P. DeShon, S.W. Kozlowski, A.M. Schmidt, K.R. Milner, D. Wiechmann, A multiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance, J. Appl. Psychol. 89 (2004) 1035–1056. [27] J.V. Brady, G.E. Bigelow, H.H. Emurian, D.M. Williams, Design of a programmed environment for the experimental analysis of social behavior, in: D.H. Carson (Ed.), Man–Environment Interactions: Evaluations and Applications. vol. 7, Social Ecology, Environment Design Research Association, Milwaukee, 1975, pp. 187–208. [28] H.H. Emurian, J.V. Brady, Behavioral health management of space dwelling groups: safe passage beyond earth orbit, Behav. Anal. Today 8 (2007) 25–41. [29] K.A. Binsted, R.L. Kobrick, S. Bishop, M. O’Griofa, J. Lapierre, An overview of the human factors research conducted on a
1588
P.G. Roma et al. / Acta Astronautica 68 (2011) 1581–1588
four-month mars simulation in the Canadian high arctic, with recommendations for future analogue research, Paper presented at the biannual meeting of the International Academy of Astronautics’ Humans in Space Symposium, Moscow, Russian Federation, 2009. [30] C. Shea, K.J. Slack, K.E. Keeton, L.A. Palinkas, L.B. Leveton, Antarctica meta analysis: psychosocial factors related to long-duration isolation and confinement, NASA Document ID JSC-CN-18397, 2009.
[31] J.A. Carter, J.C. Buckey, L. Greenhalgh, A.W. Holland, M.T. Hegel, An interactive media program for managing psychosocial problems on long-duration spaceflights, Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 76 (2005) B213–B223. [32] M.G. Craske, R.D. Rose, A. Lang, S.S. Welch, L. Campbell-Sills, G. Sullivan, C. Sherbourne, A. Bystritsky, M.B. Stein, P.P. Roy-Byrne, Computer-assisted delivery of cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety disorders in primary-care settings, Depress Anxiety 26 (2009) 235–242.