Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “human performance”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 289 records · Page 16
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Expanding Our Understanding of What Constitutes a Safety-Relevant Occurrence

Focusing on undesired operator behaviors is pervasive in system design and safety management cultures. This focus limits the data that are collected, the questions that are asked during data analysis, and therefore our understanding of what operators do in everyday work. Human performance represents a significant source of safety data that includes both desired and undesired actions. When safety is characterized only in terms of errors and failures, the vast majority of human impacts on system safety and performance are ignored. The outcomes of safety data analyses dictate what is learned from those data, which in turn informs safety policies and safety-related decision making. When learning opportunities are systematically restricted by focusing only on rare failure events, not only do we learn less (and less often), but we can draw misleading conclusions by relying on a non-representative sample of human performance data. The study of human contributions to safety represents a vast and largely unexplored opportunity to learn. Changes in how we define and think about safety can highlight new opportunities for collection and analysis of safety-relevant data. Developing an integrated safety picture to better inform system design, safety-related decision making and policies depends upon identifying, collecting, and interpreting safety producing behaviors in addition to safety reducing behaviors.

Jon B Holbrook↗
NASA NTRS1992

Telerobotic system performance measurement - Motivation and methods

A systems performance-based strategy for modeling and conducting experiments relevant to the design and performance characterization of telerobotic systems is described. A developmental testbed consisting of a distributed telerobotics network and initial efforts to implement the strategy described is presented. Consideration is given to the general systems performance theory (GSPT) to tackle human performance problems as a basis for: measurement of overall telerobotic system (TRS) performance; task decomposition; development of a generic TRS model; and the characterization of performance of subsystems comprising the generic model. GSPT employs a resource construct to model performance and resource economic principles to govern the interface of systems to tasks. It provides a comprehensive modeling/measurement strategy applicable to complex systems including both human and artificial components. Application is presented within the framework of a distributed telerobotics network as a testbed. Insight into the design of test protocols which elicit application-independent data is described.

Kondraske, George V.↗
DOE OSTI2025

Advanced Transmission Technologies – GETs and HPCs Session 2: Advanced Power Flow Control and Transmission Topology Optimization

The INL TADA GETs Cohort Session 2, held on November 7, 2025, conducted in collaboration with ScottMadden, focused on two core Advanced Transmission Technologies (ATTs): Advanced Power Flow Control (APFC) and Transmission Topology Optimization (TTO). These technologies are pivotal in enhancing grid flexibility, reliability, and cybersecurity resilience. APFC, particularly through modular FACTS devices like Modular Static Synchronous Series Compensators (M-SSSCs), enables dynamic voltage injection to reroute power flows. The session highlighted the deployment benefits of APFC, such as rapid installation, minimal civil works, and re-deployability. Regulatory drivers like FERC Order 2023 mandate the inclusion of Grid-Enhancing Technologies (GETs) in interconnection studies. Case studies from Central Hudson, CAISO, and National Grid (UK) demonstrated APFC’s effectiveness in congestion relief and cost savings. The session also addressed cybersecurity concerns, including firmware vulnerabilities, SCADA integration risks, and supply chain dependencies. Participants engaged in interactive exercises to rank cybersecurity and supply chain risks, emphasizing the need for robust digital assurance strategies. TTO involves software-based reconfiguration of transmission networks to optimize power flow without new infrastructure. The session showcased its operational value, with examples from SPP, PJM, and MISO showing significant congestion cost reductions. Cybersecurity vulnerabilities were discussed, particularly in API security and software supply chains, referencing incidents like SolarWinds and attacks on Danish utilities. Digital assurance exercises explored worst-case scenarios, attack paths, and mitigation responsibilities between vendors and utilities. Reliability challenges such as algorithm stability, vendor dependency, and operator trust were also examined. Cross-cutting themes emphasized the importance of digital assurance tools, including Software Bills of Materials (SBOMs) and hardware-in-loop testing. Human performance, training, and operational confidence were identified as critical enablers of technology adoption. The session concluded with a preview of Session 3, which will focus on High Performance Conductors (HPCs) and risk-based cybersecurity tools. Session 2 of 3.

24 - POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Systems Integration (HSI) Framework and Training - Shifting the View of HSI for Better Implementation

The Implementation of Human Systems Integration (HSI) presents challenges within the acquisition community for two reasons. The first is that misconceptions of HSI still exist, with many Program Managers (PMs) and leadership uncertain of the value or where to begin. The second is due to an unbalanced approach to HSI in its own framework. These implementation challenges lead to barriers in the early prevention of mishaps. Understanding HSI practices and how they should be implemented in the Acquisition Product Life Cycle (PLC) has been a challenge across the government, leaving the value of HSI unknown and misunderstood with Program Managers. In the case for many acquisition programs, HSI is not implemented in early design, losing the perspective on human capabilities and limitations, creating impacts on human-centered design. Expectations in human performance are not clearly set and operations are baselined with no margin for changes in technology and processes that will affect system performance. The HSI framework addresses total system performance holistically using collaboration as the primary tool. The goal is to create a system with efficiencies while minimizing risk to the operators, maintainers, and support personnel, as well as any collateral personnel and systems. To accomplish this, HSI should be implemented as part of preemptive measures to minimize potential human error and mishaps during the operation phase. Investigative and assessment tools exist that consider events, issues, and other outside influences of a system that may not fall under the current construct of the HSI domains, leaving gaps in early HSI implementation and affecting the prevention of human errors and mishaps. This presentation will outline what NASA HSI is doing to support Early HSI implementation and Operational Performance shifts that affect human performance.

Anthony T Thomas↗
NASA NTRS2017

Playbook Data Analysis Tool: Collecting Interaction Data from Extremely Remote Users

Typically, user tests for software tools are conducted in person. At NASA, the users may be located at the bottom of the ocean in a pressurized habitat, above the atmosphere in the International Space Station, or in an isolated capsule on a simulated asteroid mission. The Playbook Data Analysis Tool (P-DAT) is a human-computer interaction (HCI) evaluation tool that the NASA Ames HCI Group has developed to record user interactions with Playbook, the group's existing planning-and-execution software application. Once the remotely collected user interaction data makes its way back to Earth, researchers can use P-DAT for in-depth analysis. Since a critical component of the Playbook project is to understand how to develop more intuitive software tools for astronauts to plan in space, P-DAT helps guide us in the development of additional easy-to-use features for Playbook, informing the design of future crew autonomy tools.P-DAT has demonstrated the capability of discreetly capturing usability data in amanner that is transparent to Playbook’s end-users. In our experience, P-DAT data hasalready shown its utility, revealing potential usability patterns, helping diagnose softwarebugs, and identifying metrics and events that are pertinent to Playbook usage aswell as spaceflight operations. As we continue to develop this analysis tool, P-DATmay yet provide a method for long-duration, unobtrusive human performance collectionand evaluation for mission controllers back on Earth and researchers investigatingthe effects and mitigations related to future human spaceflight performance.

in-flight monitoring↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Exploring Methods to Collect and Analyze Data on Human Contributions to Aviation Safety: A Panel Discussion

Focusing on undesired operator behaviors is pervasive in system design and safety management cultures in aviation. This focus limits the data that are collected, the questions that are asked during data analysis, and therefore our understanding of what operators do in everyday work. Human performance represents a significant source of aviation safety data that includes both desired and undesired actions. When safety is characterized only in terms of errors and failures, the vast majority of human impacts on system safety and performance are ignored. The outcomes of safety data analyses dictate what is learned from those data, which in turn informs safety policies and safety-related decision making. When learning opportunities are systematically restricted by focusing only on rare failure events, not only do we learn less (and less often), but we can draw misleading conclusions by relying on a non-representative sample of human performance data. Changes in how we define and think about safety can highlight new opportunities for collection and analysis of safety-relevant data. Developing an integrated safety picture to better inform safety-related decision making and policies depends upon identifying, collecting, and interpreting safety-producing behaviors in addition to safety-reducing behaviors. Opportunities and challenges in collecting and analyzing the largely unexploited data on desired, safety-producing operator behaviors are discussed.

Aviation Safety↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Exploring Methods to Collect and Analyze Data on Human Contributions to Aviation Safety: A Panel Discussion

Focusing on undesired operator behaviors is pervasive in system design and safety management cultures in aviation. This focus limits the data that are collected, the questions that are asked during data analysis, and therefore our understanding of what operators do in everyday work. Human performance represents a significant source of aviation safety data that includes both desired and undesired actions. When safety is characterized only in terms of errors and failures, the vast majority of human impacts on system safety and performance are ignored. The outcomes of safety data analyses dictate what is learned from those data, which in turn informs safety policies and safety-related decision making. When learning opportunities are systematically restricted by focusing only on rare failure events, not only do we learn less (and less often), but we can draw misleading conclusions by relying on a non-representative sample of human performance data. Changes in how we define and think about safety can highlight new opportunities for collection and analysis of safety-relevant data. Developing an integrated safety picture to better inform safety-related decision making and policies depends upon identifying, collecting, and interpreting safety producing behaviors in addition to safety reducing behaviors. The panel will discuss opportunities and challenges in collecting and analyzing the largely unexploited data on desired, safety-producing operator behaviors.

aviation safety↗
NASA NTRS1978

Human problem solving performance in a fault diagnosis task

It is proposed that humans in automated systems will be asked to assume the role of troubleshooter or problem solver and that the problems which they will be asked to solve in such systems will not be amenable to rote solution. The design of visual displays for problem solving in such situations is considered, and the results of two experimental investigations of human problem solving performance in the diagnosis of faults in graphically displayed network problems are discussed. The effects of problem size, forced-pacing, computer aiding, and training are considered. Results indicate that human performance deviates from optimality as problem size increases. Forced-pacing appears to cause the human to adopt fairly brute force strategies, as compared to those adopted in self-paced situations. Computer aiding substantially lessens the number of mistaken diagnoses by performing the bookkeeping portions of the task.

Rouse, W. B.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Predicting Cognitive States Using Machine Learning Fusion Paradigms to Reduce Model Uncertainty

The development of a synergetic system between humans and technology is a challenge that the scientific community has been facing for many years. Our aeronautic research aims to enhance this synergy between humans and machines through predictive human performance modeling for systems to mitigate high-risk situations. By being able to predict and anticipate human states, the crew monitoring system should be able to adjust and support the pilot for aviation safety. Our work focusing on attention-related human performance-limiting states (AHPLS) that impact a pilot’s performance and introduce high-risk catastrophic situations [1]. For example, AHPLS has been cited as a causal factor in more than 50% of all loss control in flight and thus contributes significantly toward commercial aviation fatalities [1, 2]. Cognitive state and its physiological fingerprint can be valuable information for this detecting AHPLS, but human cognitive state detection is still a major limitation for these crew monitoring systems.

machine learning↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Utilizing Gaps and Key Performance Parameters to Inform NASA Environmental Control and Life Support and Human Health and Performance Capability Technology Decisions

Human spaceflight is a complex endeavor requiring a multitude of capabilities for transportation, crew health, scientific goals, and safe return to Earth. The difference between spaceflight proven capabilities and those needed for a particular mission is defined as a capability gap. Capability gaps are not technology specific. Each capability gap is approachable with a wide array of technologies that have unique benefits and challenges. Determining what a capability’s relevant and distinguishing key performance parameters (KPPs) are for a mission is critical. Mass, power, and volume are always constrained and important, but defining these in a way normalized by performance is challenging. Additionally, KPP definition for reliability, dormancy, and integration needs are very important and still evolving. This paper provides the approach of the Environmental Control and Life Support – Crew Health and Performance (ECLSS-CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) to defining gaps and KPPs in support of the NASA’s Capabilities Integration Team data call objectives. The nine ECLSS-CHP capability areas are decomposed to capabilities, gaps, and KPPs. Rather than defining very detailed gaps, ECLSS-CHP defines high-level gaps to be technology agnostic. Within a gap, detailed KPPs are defined to both compare technologies and measure progress within a technology over time. Ideally, KPPs are clearly defined, widely communicated both internally and externally, and provide a common nomenclature to describe the state of the art and the degree of improvement required for exploration missions. KPPs help define when the gap is closed and the core mission objectives can be accomplished. Further technology improvements to enhance the capability, as measured by improved KPPs, must then be weighed against investments in open capability gaps that prevent NASA from achieving its exploration missions. It is uncommon that a technology maturation to improve all the relevant KPPs simultaneously but using KPPs is a critical technology investment decision making component. In addition to traditional technology selections, KPPs are informing how investments in ground testing prior to and in parallel with ISS technology demonstrations are required to improve reliability KPPs. The collection of all major technology activities within a capability area are captured on technology roadmaps to communicate how diverse program activities are coordinated to close gaps and infuse into exploration mission needs. A selection of ECLSS-CHP gaps and KPPs and their formulation, current state, and how they inform capability roadmap planning are discussed. The paper will contain a summary of the approximately 60 gaps. Gaps are classified as to their type (architecture, knowledge, technology, developmental, or engineering) depending on the magnitude of the gap. The paper will provide brief overviews of a few major technology challenges and the technologies being considered, but will reference detailed papers for a more thorough treatment of the challenges and state of the art. Data analysis of the gaps is in work and results are not currently available for this abstract. It is anticipated the paper will include examples of select KPPs with descriptions as to why these are the relevant measures. Additionally some KPPs will be graphically presented over time to show progress to date and when performance targets need to be achieved to support exploration missions. Graphical summaries of how gaps closures with near term mission elements support follow-on mission elements will be provided.

Life Support↗
NASA NTRS1990

Investigation of automated task learning, decomposition and scheduling

The details and results of research conducted in the application of neural networks to task planning and decomposition are presented. Task planning and decomposition are operations that humans perform in a reasonably efficient manner. Without the use of good heuristics and usually much human interaction, automatic planners and decomposers generally do not perform well due to the intractable nature of the problems under consideration. The human-like performance of neural networks has shown promise for generating acceptable solutions to intractable problems such as planning and decomposition. This was the primary reasoning behind attempting the study. The basis for the work is the use of state machines to model tasks. State machine models provide a useful means for examining the structure of tasks since many formal techniques have been developed for their analysis and synthesis. It is the approach to integrate the strong algebraic foundations of state machines with the heretofore trial-and-error approach to neural network synthesis.

Livingston, David L.↗