See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228742286

Neuroergonomics: Research and practice

Article  in  Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science · January 2003

DOI: 10.1080/14639220210199753

CITATIONS READS
223 866

1 author:

Raja Parasuraman
George Mason University
295 PUBLICATIONS   18,327 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

NeuroErgonomics Methods and Applications View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Raja Parasuraman on 02 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Theor. Issues in Ergon. Sci., 2003, vol. 4, nos. 1–2, 5–20

Neuroergonomics: research and practice

Raja Parasuraman*

Cognitive Science Laboratory, Catholic University of America, Washington DC 20064, USA

Keywords: Brain and behaviour; cognitive science; neuroscience; ergonomics; human factors.

This article describes the characteristics and scope of neuroergonomics, defined as

the study of brain and behaviour at work. Neuroergonomics focuses on investi-
gations of the neural bases of mental functions and physical performance in
relation to technology, work, leisure, transportation, health care and other set-
tings in the real world. The two major goals of neuroergonomics are to use
knowledge of brain function and human performance to design technologies
and work environments for safer and more efficient operation, and to advance
understanding of brain function underlying real-world human performance. The
conceptual, theoretical and philosophical issues at the core of neuroergonomics—
that lie at the confluence of cognitive science, neuroscience, and ergonomics—are
discussed. Adaptive human–machine systems are then described as an illustration
of neuroergonomic research. Several other examples of neuroergonomic research
and practice are also described.

1. Introduction
1.1. Neuroergonomics: definitions and scope
‘Neuroergonomics’ is the study of brain and behaviour at work. As the name
implies, this emerging area comprises two disciplines that are themselves interdisci-
plinary, neuroscience and ergonomics. Neuroscience is the study of brain structure
and function. Ergonomics (also known as human factors) examines human use of
technology at work and in other real-world settings. As the intersection of these two
fields, neuroergonomics is concerned both with the brain and with humans at work,
but more precisely with their dynamic interaction—with human brains at work
(Parasuraman 1998a).
Neuroergonomics focuses on investigations of the neural bases of such percep-
tual and cognitive functions as seeing, hearing, attending, remembering, deciding
and planning in relation to technologies and settings in the real world. Because the
human brain interacts with the world via a physical body, neuroergonomics is also
concerned with the neural basis of physical performance—grasping, moving or lift-
ing objects and one’s limbs. The real-world environments that neuroergonomics
deals with are many and diverse. They include, for example: working with computers
and various other machines at home, in the workplace, or when engaged in leisure
activities, using consumer products and operating vehicles such as aircraft, cars,
trains and ships.

* e-mail: parasuraman@cua.edu

Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science ISSN 1463–922X print/ISSN 1464–536X online # 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI 10.1080/14639220210199753
6 R. Parasuraman

1.2. Why neuroergonomics?

To answer this query, I hope to show that neuroergonomics provides added value,
beyond that available from ‘traditional’ neuroscience and ‘conventional’ ergo-
nomics. The guiding principle of neuroergonomics is that understanding how the
brain carries out the complex tasks of everyday life—and not just the simple, arti-
ficial tasks of the research laboratory—can provide important benefits for both
ergonomics research and practice. An understanding of brain function can lead to
the development and refinement of theory in ergonomics, which in turn will promote
new, far-reaching types of research. For example, knowledge of how the brain pro-
cesses visual, auditory and tactile information can provide important guidelines and
constraints for theories of information presentation and task design. The basic pre-
mise is that the neuroergonomic approach allows the researcher to ask different
questions and develop new explanatory frameworks about humans and work than
an approach based solely on the measurement of the overt performance or subjective
perceptions of the human operator. The added value that neuroergonomics provides
is likely to be even greater for work settings such as modern automated systems
(Parasuraman and Riley 1997) where measures of overt behaviour can be difficult to
obtain (Kramer and Weber 2000).
At the practical level, neuroergonomics can lead to the design of more efficient
and safer working conditions. These outcomes can provide substantial economic
benefits for many. The potential beneficiaries include the developers of technologies,
the owners of the systems in which the technologies are used and the work is carried
out, and when the systems are widely used by the general public, such as with
transportation or health care, society at large. In sum, the basic enterprise of
human factors/ergonomics can be considerably enhanced in a fundamental way if
we also consider the brain that mediates and makes possible human performance in
the real world.
Some may see the gaps between brain function, human behaviour, work, tech-
nology and society as forbiddingly large. Yet, a rapid expansion of knowledge is
bridging the gulfs between these levels of analysis. In pursuing the links between
brain function and the world of technology and work, neuroergonomics has two
major goals: (1) to use existing and emerging knowledge of human performance and
brain function to design technologies and work environments for safer and more
efficient operation; and (2) to advance understanding of brain function in relation to
human performance in real-world tasks.
An example may help to better illustrate the value of this approach. Consider a
new traffic monitoring system that is to be installed in the cockpit of a commercial
aircraft. The system portrays to the pilot other aircraft that are in the immediate
vicinity, showing their speed, altitude, flight path, etc., using colour-coded symbols
on a computer display. The design of this system could be informed by various types
of neuroergonomic work, both basic and applied. For example, designers may wish
to know what features of the symbols (e.g. shape, intensity, motion, etc.) serve to
best attract the pilot’s attention to a potential ‘intruder’ in the immediate airspace.
At the same time, there may be a concern that the presentation of traffic information,
while helping the pilot monitor the immediate airspace, may increase the pilot’s
overall mental workload, thereby degrading the performance of the primary flight
task. Although subjective or performance measures could be used to evaluate this
possibility, a neuroergonomic approach can provide more sensitive evaluation of any
impact on flight performance. It may also lead the researcher to ask new and poten-
 Neuroergonomics 7

tially more profitable questions about attention allocation than before. Measures of
brain function that reflect visual attention and oculomotor control can help deter-
mine the impact of the new display on the pilot’s visual scanning and attentional
performance. Finally, neuroergonomic evaluation of the manual and physical
demands involved in interacting with the information panels and controls of the
new traffic monitoring system would also be required for this system to be used
effectively and safely by pilots. Several other examples of neuroergonomic research
and practice are discussed in a later section of this article. More specifically, three
topic areas relevant to this example—assessment of cognitive workload, attention
and oculomotor control, and manual performance—are each discussed from a neu-
roergonomic perspective in other papers in the two special issues on neuroergo-
nomics in this journal, by Just et al. (2003), Kramer and McCarley (2003) and
Karwowski, Siemionow and Gielo-Perczak (2003), respectively.

2. Some conceptual, theoretical and philosophical issues in neuroergonomics

2.1. Neuroscience and ergonomics
The constituent disciplines of neuroergonomics—neuroscience and ergonomics (or
human factors)—are both 20th-century, post-World War II fields. The spectacular
rise of neuroscience towards the latter half of that century, and the smaller but no
less important growth in ergonomics, can both be linked to technological progress,
particularly in digital computers, initiated by engineers and physicists. The brain
imaging technologies that have revolutionized modern neuroscience (e.g. functional
magnetic resonance imaging) and the sophisticated automated systems that have
stimulated much human factors work (e.g. the aircraft flight management system)
were both made possible by these engineering developments. Nevertheless, the two
fields have developed independently. Traditionally, ergonomics has not paid much
attention to neuroscience or to the results of studies concerning brain mechanisms
underlying human perceptual, cognitive, affective and motor processes. Many psy-
chologists and most current researchers in ergonomics/human factors ignore the
startling discoveries of modern neuroscience.
At the same time, neuroscience and its more recent off-shoot, cognitive neu-
roscience, has only been partially concerned with whether its findings bear any
relation to human functioning in real (as opposed to laboratory) settings. The excep-
tion concerns applications to the diagnosis and treatment of individuals with neuro-
logical and psychiatric disorders. To paraphrase the philosopher Bunge (1980), until
recently (i.e. the period up to 1990), psychology (and ergonomics) has been ‘brain-
less’, whereas neuroscience has been ‘mindless’. Neuroergonomics is a response to
this twin disregard.

2.2. Brain, mind and technology

The relative neglect by ergonomics of human brain function is understandable given
that this discipline had its roots in a psychology of the 1940s that was firmly in the
behaviourist camp. More recently, the rise of cognitive psychology in the 1960s
influenced human factors, but for the most part neuroscience continued to be
ignored, a state of affairs consistent with a functionalist approach to the philosophy
of mind (Dennett 1991). Such an approach implies that the characteristics of neural
structure and functioning are largely irrelevant to the development of theories of
mental functioning. Cognitive psychology (and cognitive science) also went through
a functionalist period in the 1970s and 1980s, mainly due to the influence of research-
8 R. Parasuraman

ers from artificial intelligence and computer science. Their rallying cry was that the
mind is software. The task of cognitive science, in their view, was to determine the
characteristics and rules of the software, irrespective of the hardware that imple-
ments the software. Accordingly, the rules of mind could as easily be studied in a
computer as they could in a human. The actual hardware, the structures and
mechanisms of the brain, were deemed unimportant. In contrast, the recently devel-
oped field of cognitive neuroscience proposes that neural structure and function
constrain and, in some cases, determine theories of human mental processes (Gaz-
zaniga 2000). The influence of neuroscience has carried over not only to the other
cognitive sciences (Pinker 1997), but also to philosophy (Churchland 2002).
If neuroscience has freed cognitive science from rigid functionalism, then ergo-
nomics may serve to liberate it from a disembodied existence devoid of context and
provide it an anchor in the real world. Even though researchers are aware of the
importance of ecological validity, modern cognitive psychology (with a few excep-
tions) tends to study mental processes in isolation, apart from the artifacts and
technologies of the world that require the use of those processes. However, it may
be more useful to see technology, particularly computers, as representing an exten-
sion of human cognitive capability, a view that emerged as psychology escaped from
the grip of behaviourism in the late 1940s (Craik 1947). A modern version of this
doctrine is the view espoused by the new field of cognitive engineering that humans
and intelligent computer systems constitute ‘joint cognitive systems’ (Roth et al.
1987, Hutchins 1995). Furthermore, much human behaviour is situated and context
dependent. Context is often defined and even driven by technological change. How
humans design, interact with and use technology—the essence of ergonomics—
should, therefore, also be central to cognitive science.
The idea that cognition should be considered in relation to action in the world
has many antecedents. Piaget’s (1952) work on cognitive development in the infant
and its dependence on exploration of the environment anticipated the concept of
situated or embodied cognition. In a recent philosophical work, Clark (1997) provides
a modern statement of this thesis. Going beyond the old distinction between mind
and matter, Clark examines the characteristics of an embodied mind that is shaped
by and helps shape action in a physical world. If cognitive science should, therefore,
study mind not in isolation but in interaction with the physical world, then it is a
natural second step to ask how to design artifacts in the world that best facilitate that
interaction. This is the domain of ergonomics. Neuroergonomics goes one, critical,
step further. It postulates that the human brain that implements cognition and is
itself shaped by the physical environment must also be examined in order to under-
stand fully the inter-relationships of cognition, action and the world of artifacts.
Currently, a coherent body of concepts and empirical evidence that constitutes
neuroergonomics theory does not exist. Of course, broad theories in the human
sciences are also sparse, whether in ergonomics (Hancock and Chignell 1995) or in
neuroscience (Albright et al. 2001). What one finds are small-scale theories that
could be integrated into a macrotheory but which would still apply only to a specific
domain of human functioning. For example, neural theories of attention are becom-
ing increasingly well specified, both at the macroscopic level of large-scale neural
networks (Posner and Dehaene 1994, Parasuraman 1998b), at the level of neuronal
function (Sarter et al. 2001), and, in the near future, at the more fundamental level of
individual genes and their protein products (Fosella et al. 2002, Parasuraman et al.
2002). At the same time, psychological theories of attention have informed human
 Neuroergonomics 9

factors research and design (Wickens and Hollands 2000). Difficult though the task
may be, one can envisage amalgamation of these respective theories into a neuroer-
gonomic theory of attention. Integration across a broader range of functional
domains, however, is as yet premature.

3. Neuroergonomics, psychophysiology and ergonomics

3.1. Brain imaging
A core feature of neuroergonomics is an interest in brain mechanisms in relation to
human performance at work. To this end, researchers may make use of physiological
measures that reflect, more or less directly, aspects of brain function. The most direct
of such measures are those derived from the brain itself, as in the electroencephalo-
gram (EEG), which represents the summated electrical activity of populations of
neuronal cells as recorded on the scalp, magnetoencephalogaphy (MEG), which
consists of the associated magnetic flux that is recorded at the surface of the head,
and event-related brain potentials (ERPs) and magnetic fields, which constitute the
brain’s specific response to sensory, cognitive and motor events. In addition to these
electromagnetic measurements, measures of the brain’s metabolic and vascular
responses, e.g. positron emission tomography (PET) and functional magnetic reso-
nance imaging (fMRI), which can be linked to neuronal activity, also provide a non-
invasive window on human brain function. Currently, electromagnetic measures
such as ERPs provide the best temporal resolution (1 ms or better) for evaluating
neural activity in the human brain and metabolic measures such as fMRI have the
best spatial resolution (1 cm or better). No single technique combines both high
temporal and spatial resolution. Furthermore, some of these techniques (e.g.
fMRI) are expensive and restrict participant movement, which makes them difficult
to use for neuroergonomic studies. However, new imaging technologies are being
developed, such as near infra-red spectroscopy and other forms of optical imaging,
that promise to provide high temporal and spatial resolution (Gratton and Fabiani
2001). These techniques have the additional advantage of being more portable and
less expensive than fMRI, which will, therefore, add them to the catalogue of avail-
able methods that are appropriate for neuroergonomic research. (For a review of
brain imaging techniques and their application to psychology, see Cabeza and King-
stone 2001.)
These brain imaging technologies can also be complemented by stimulation tech-
niques, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), which can be applied to
produce transient, reversible disruption of local neuronal function (Pascual-Leone
et al. 1999). This allows the investigator to examine the behavioural consequences of
TMS applied to specific brain regions (at least of superficial brain structures),
thereby permitting the testing of hypotheses linking brain activation to human per-
formance.

3.2. Neuroergonomics and psychophysiology

Physiological measures recorded from the body, e.g. heart rate, skin conductance,
urinary catecholamines, blood pressure, etc., have also been used in psychological
studies and more recently in ergonomic research. The field of psychophysiology is
concerned with the use of all such measures in relation to psychological functioning.
Moreover, in recent years a ‘Psychophysiology in Ergonomics’ (PIE) interest group
has been formed specifically to examine the use of psychophysiological measures in
ergonomics (e.g. Boucsein and Backs 2000). One might ask, therefore, why propose
10 R. Parasuraman

neuroergonomics given that this group is already established? After all, the two fields
share one goal—the design of safe and efficient technologies and systems for human
work. Nevertheless, the two represent distinct endeavours for the following reasons.
First, whereas psychophysiology focuses on physiological measures and their
psychological correlates, neuroergonomics is more directly concerned with brain
function and not with physiological measures per se. The physiological measure is
primarily of interest to the extent that it provides an index of neural activity related
to the perceptual, cognitive, affective or motor functioning of the human. The meas-
ure is used principally to evaluate a theory of brain function or to see how brain
function is linked to human performance or use of technology. These characteristics
apply to the brain imaging methods discussed previously, so that even if one were to
re-label and include fRMI or optical imaging as psychophysiological measures, the
distinction between neuroergonomics and psychophysiology would remain.
Secondly, if the physiological measure is more ‘distant’ from brain function, as
with measures such as heart rate and skin conductance that are typically used in
psychophysiological research, then the link to neuroergonomics is less direct or
relevant. Thirdly, psychophysiology also has a major focus on autonomic nervous
system (ANS) measures in relation to somatic factors, emotion and stress. Although
these topics are also of interest to neuroergonomics, especially as they are linked to
brain function, a dominant theme in neuroergonomics is neural activity in inter-
action with the ANS and in relation to human performance. According to this
view, stress and emotion are certainly valid topics for neuroergonomics research,
but only if they are grounded in theories of brain function.
Another major reason for distinguishing neuroergonomics from psychophysiol-
ogy is that one can easily envisage a neuroergonomic study in which no physiological
measure at all is used as a dependent variable, which would rule out a classification
of the work as falling within the realm of psychophysiology. Yet, such a study could
clearly qualify as a neuroergonomic investigation. Consider the following example.
Suppose that as a result of the manipulation of some factor, performance on a target
discrimination task (e.g. detection of an ‘intruder’ aircraft in the cockpit traffic
monitoring example discussed previously) in which location cues are provided
prior to the target yields the following results: reaction time (RT) to the target
when preceded by an invalid location cue is disproportionately increased while
that to a valid cue is not. This might happen, for example, if the cue is derived
from the output of an automated detection system, which is not perfectly reliable
(Hitchcock et al. 2003). In simple laboratory tasks using such a cueing procedure,
there is good evidence linking this performance pattern to a basic attentional opera-
tion and to activation of a specific distributed network of cortical and sub-cortical
regions—on the basis of previous research using non-invasive brain imaging in
humans, invasive recordings in animals and performance data from individuals
who have suffered damage to these brain regions (Posner and Dehaene 1994). One
could then conduct a study using the same cueing procedure and performance meas-
ures as a behavioural ‘assay’ of the activation of the neural network in relation to
performance of a more complex task in which the same basic cognitive operation is
used. (See Parasuraman et al. (2002) for a discussion of the logic of behavioural
assays of brain function as used in a quite different area of study—the genetic
contribution to individual differences in cognition.) If the characteristic performance
pattern was observed—a disproportionate increase in RT following an invalid loca-
tion cue, with a normal decrease in RT following a valid cue, then one could argue
 Neuroergonomics 11

that the distributed cortical/sub-cortical network of brain regions is likely to have

been involved in task performance. This would then enable the researcher to link the
full body of neuroscience work on this aspect of attentional function to performance
on the complex intruder detection task. Thus, even though no physiological index
was used and although the same performance measure (RT) was used as in a tradi-
tional ergonomic analysis, the type of question asked and the explanatory frame-
work can be quite different in the neuroergonomic approach.
Finally, a neuroergonomic study could also involve a computational analysis of
brain or cognitive function underlying performance of a complex task. So long as the
analysis was theoretically driven and linked to brain function, the study would
qualify as neuroergonomic, even though no physiological index was used. Several
computational models of human performance have been developed for use in human
factors (Pew and Mavor 1998). Of these, models that can be linked, in principle, to
brain function, such as neural network (connectionist) models (O’Reilly and
Munakata 2000) would be of relevance to neuroergonomics.
In summary, neuroergonomics and psychophysiology in ergonomics share a
common goal of seeking the design of safe and efficient human–machine systems.
Nevertheless, there are several reasons why neuroergonomics and psychophysiology
can be differentiated. Consequently, the two can be considered complementary,
overlapping approaches.

4. Adaptive systems: an avenue for neuroergonomic research and practice

4.1. Adaptive automation
The goal of neuroergonomics—designing safe, efficient and usable systems—requires
synergy between human and machine, but sometimes this goal is not met. Auto-
mated systems provide a good example of the mismatch that can occur between
human and machine. A common form of automation is the provision of computer
support to the human operator. Alternatively, automation may refer to allocation of
a function previously carried out by humans to a computer. These and other forms
of automation have yielded several benefits, in terms of improved capacity, efficiency
and safety (Parasuraman and Mouloua 1996). At the same time, problems in
human–automation interaction have also been well documented, both in the labora-
tory and the field (Wiener and Curry 1980, Bainbridge 1983, Rasmussen 1986,
Sheridan 1992, Billings 1997, Parasuraman and Riley 1997, Sarter et al. 1997,
Lewis 1998, Satchell 1998, Parasuraman et al. 2000). In some instances, these per-
formance costs may be severe enough to outweigh the benefits of automation.
As a result, there has been considerable interest in developing alternative
approaches to the design and implementation of automation. Adaptive human–
machine systems, or adaptive automation, represents one such alternative approach.
In adaptive systems, the ‘division of labour’ between human and machine agents is
not fixed and pre-specified during the design and development of the system, but
dynamic and variable during the operation of the system. Computer aiding of the
human operator and task allocation between the operator and computer systems are
flexible and context-dependent (Hancock et al. 1985, Rouse 1988, Parasuraman et al.
1992, Scerbo 1996, 2001). In contrast, in static automation, provision of computer
aiding is pre-determined at the design stage, and task allocation is fixed.
One of the problems that has been observed when human operators work with
automated systems is that, although automation is often introduced in an attempt to
reduce operator mental workload, it may not do so, or may even increase workload at
12 R. Parasuraman

times (Wiener 1988, Parasuraman and Riley 1997). This suggests the need for linking
the provision of automated support to the level of operator workload or performance.
Automated support is needed only when the operator’s mental workload is relatively
high, so that the operator is likely to benefit by the freeing up of cognitive resources
that automation provides. At other times, automated support need not be given, or, if
operator workload is too low and there is a danger of the operator becoming disen-
gaged from the system, a task previously carried out by automation can be re-allocated
to the operator. Parasuraman et al. (1996) showed that such temporary re-allocation of
an automated task to human control promotes better monitoring of the automation
and improved fault detection when anomalies occur.
Either of these adaptive strategies—automated support when workload is high,
or task re-allocation when it is low—have been found to benefit performance when
their implementation is closely matched to operator workload (Parasuraman et al.
1999). However, accomplishing such workload-matched adaptation is dependent on
the ability to measure the operator’s mental workload in real time. Although mental
workload can be measured using a number of different techniques (Byrne and
Parasuraman 1996), measures of brain function offer particular benefits for use in
adaptive systems (Scerbo et al. 2001, Parasuraman and Caggiano 2002). First, meas-
ures of cognitive-related brain activity, unlike most behavioural measures (with the
exception of continuous motor tasks) can be obtained continuously. In many
systems where the operator is placed in a supervisory role over automated sub-
systems, very few overt responses (e.g. button presses or cursor movements) may
be made even as the operator is engaged in considerable cognitive activity. In such a
situation, a behavioural measure (e.g. RT or cursor movement error) provides a
relatively impoverished sample of the mental activity of the operator.
Physiological measures, on the other hand, may be recorded continuously without
respect to overt responses and may provide a measure of the covert activities of the
human operator. Moreover, if the measures can be directly linked to brain activity,
as neuroergonomic measures should, then sensitive, real-time monitoring of cogni-
tive workload may be possible. In other words, brain measures have a higher band-
width than behavioural or performance measures. As discussed previously, therefore,
automated systems in which little overt behaviour can be recorded provide a par-
ticularly compelling case for the neuroergonomic approach (see also Kramer and
Weber 2000).
Secondly, in some instances, measures of brain function may provide more infor-
mation when coupled with behavioural measures than behavioural measures alone.
For example, changes in RT may reflect contributions of both central processing
(working memory) and response-related processing to workload. However, when
coupled with the amplitude and latency of the P300 component of the ERP, such
changes may be more precisely localized to central processing stages than to
response-related processing (Donchin et al. 1986, Wickens 1990, Kramer and
Weber 2000). In addition, measures of brain function can indicate not only when
an operator is overloaded, drowsy, or fatigued, but also which brain networks and
circuits may be affected. In short, neuroergonomic measures offer new avenues for
adaptive interventions aimed at enhancing system performance.

4.2. Brain work and mental work

What measures of brain activity can be used to assess mental workload? There are a
number of potential candidates. All stem from the notion of mental workload as
 Neuroergonomics 13

reflecting how hard one’s mind is working at any given moment. Accordingly, men-
tal workload can be associated with brain work. Various candidate measures for
brain work have been proposed over the years, all of which owe their existence to the
brilliant early investigations of Sherrington, who studied the regulation of the blood
supply of the brain (Roy and Sherrington 1890). Sherrington demonstrated that
there is a close coupling between the electrical activity of neuronal cells, the energy
demands of the associated cellular processes and regional blood flow in the brain.
His pioneering investigations suggested that, if mental activity results in increased
neuronal response in localized regions of the brain, then in principle it should be
possible to measure mental workload by assessing regional cerebral metabolism and
blood flow.
It took several years before sensitive techniques were developed for measuring
regional brain blood flow in humans. An early development was the invention of the
Xenon-133 (Xe-133) method for assessing regional cortical changes in brain blood
flow and glucose metabolism. Injection in human patient volunteers of the radio-
actively tagged Xenon gas, which passes freely across the blood–brain barrier,
showed that performance of various mental tasks led to increased metabolic activity
in specific cortical regions. However, the Xe-133 technique was too invasive to be
used routinely in normal human participants. The development of PET paved the
way for less invasive measurement of regional cerebral metabolism and blood flow.
Regional cerebral glucose metabolism can be non-invasively determined using PET
and radioactively labelled glucose (18-fluoro-deoxyglucose), while regional cerebral
blood flow may be assessed with PET and radioactively-labelled oxygen (O-15) in
water. A disadvantage of PET is the need for ionizing radiation, which, although
safe when used within exposure limits, prevents frequent use in studies with normal
human participants. The recent development of fMRI has overcome this limitation.
fMRI provides non-invasive, high-resolution assessments of regional cerebral blood
flow that can be repeatedly obtained in the same participant.
There is now an emerging literature indicating that different PET and fMRI
measures of brain activity, as well as electromagnetic measures such as EEG and
ERPs, provide sensitive indexes of moment-to-moment variations in mental work-
load (Parasuraman and Caggiano 2002). The potential use of these and other phy-
siological measures for real-time assessment of mental workload in adaptive human–
machine systems has also been documented (Parasuraman 1990, Kramer et al. 1996,
Scerbo et al. 2001). Prinzel et al. (2000) have also specifically demonstrated the
feasibility of an adaptive system based on EEG measures (see also the article by
Scerbo et al. (2003) in the second special issue on neuroergonomics in this journal).
Technical developments will determine the further utility of measures of brain
function in neuroergonomic research on mental workload and adaptive systems. For
example, PET and fMRI are currently expensive to acquire and to operate, cumber-
some, unduly restrictive of participant movement, and are not portable. These char-
acteristics limit their routine use in neuroergonomic studies. Despite the limitations,
Peres et al. (2000) recently reported an fMRI study examining changes in regional
cerebral blood flow in pilots performing a flight control task. Although it has much
poorer spatial resolution than PET or fMRI, transcranial Doppler sonography
(TCD) has high temporal resolution, thus allowing for continuous, real-time mon-
itoring of cerebral blood flow, which facilitates neuroergonomic applications (see the
TCD study by Hitchcock et al. (2003) in this special issue). The newer optical
imaging technologies that are currently being developed will also be cheaper and
14 R. Parasuraman

more portable (Gratton and Fabiani 2001) and will lead to more ergonomic applica-
tions.

5. Other examples of neuroergonomics research and practice

The explosive growth of neuroscience has provided a wealth of other opportunities
for research in neuroergonomics. A number of different investigations that fall
within the boundaries of neuroergonomics as defined in this article have been carried
out. The research conducted to date can be characterized as broad, diverse and not
yet forming a coherent, established body of work. However, this situation is likely to
change as the field develops and more neuroergonomic studies are conducted in the
future. Some examples are briefly described here.

5.1. Human error

A potentially fertile area for neuroergonomic research is in the analysis and possible
prediction of human error. Cognitive scientists and human factors analysts have
proposed many different approaches to the classification, description and explana-
tion of human error in complex human–machine systems (Norman and Shallice
1986, Reason 1990, Senders and Moray 1991). Analysis of brain activity associated
with errors can help refine these taxonomies, particularly in leading to testable
hypotheses concerning the elicitation of error.
It is reasonable to hypothesize that, whenever an individual commits an error, a
particular neural mechanism is activated. A specific ERP component associated with
errors has been identified, the error-related negativity (ERN). The ERN, which has a
fronto-central distribution over the scalp, reaches a peak 100–150 ms after the
onset of the erroneous response (as revealed by measures of electromyographic
activity), and is smaller or absent following a correct response (Gerhring et al.
1993). The ERN amplitude is related to perceived accuracy, or the extent to which
participants are aware of their errors (Scheffers and Coles 2000). Importantly, the
ERN seems to reflect central mechanisms and is relatively independent of output
modality. Holroyd et al. (1998) found that errors made in a choice reaction time task
in which either the hand or the foot was used to respond led to nearly identical ERN.
The relevance of ERN to neuroergonomic research and applications is straight-
forward. The ERN allows identification, prediction and perhaps prevention of
operator errors in real time. For example, the ERN could be used to identify the
human operator tendency to either commit, recognize or correct an error. This could
potentially be detected covertly by on-line measurement of ERN, prior to the actual
occurrence of the error, given that the ERN could be reliably measured on a single
trial. Theoretically, a system could be activated by an ERN detector in order to
either take control of the situation (for example in those cases where time to act is an
issue), or notifying the operator about the error he/she committed, even providing an
adaptive interface which selectively presents the critical sub-systems or function.
Such a system would have the advantage of keeping the operator still in control
of the entire system, while providing an anchor for troubleshooting when the error
actually occurs (and having the possibility, for the system, to correct it by itself if
needed).

5.2. Learning and skill acquisition

Learning represents an area that may be particularly well suited to neuroergonomic
studies. As people acquire a skill, the associated brain functional changes that occur
 Neuroergonomics 15

can now be monitored concurrently to address various theoretical and practical

issues in a more direct way than is possible using only behavioural (performance)
measures. For example, procedural learning is generally thought to progress through
a series of stages, with the final stage representing full acquisition and the develop-
ment of a highly-skilled, almost ‘automatic’ stage (Newell and Rosenbloom 1980).
The characteristics of these stages can be better understood through functional brain
imaging studies. Understanding the brain changes that accompany stages of learning
could lead to the development of better training procedures. Conversely, the atrophy
of skills—something that has been attributed to particular forms of high-level auto-
mation (Wiener 1988)—could also be monitored and assessed.
A study by Krebs et al. (1998) provides a good recent example of a neuroergo-
nomic analysis of learning of a complex task, in a novel integration of robotic
technology with brain imaging. PET was used to monitor brain activity associated
with participants learning to operate a tele-robotic arm. Krebs et al. found different
patterns of brain activation early and late in learning of this motor task. They
concluded that motor learning of this type involves at least two stages, an early
cortico-striatal network and a later cortical-cerebellar loop.
The Krebs et al. study is important for being one of the first studies to integrate
functional brain imaging and an important area in ergonomics research—tele-
robotic operation. Nevertheless, because this study used PET, it has the disadvan-
tage that learning could only be studied over a relatively short period. In contrast to
PET, which can only be used infrequently on the same participant because of the use
of ionizing radiation, fMRI can be administered repeatedly at frequent intervals,
making it well suited to studies of learning. Using fMRI to examine acquisition of
skilled motor skills, Karni et al. (1998) also found evidence for multiple stages of
learning, characterized by different time scales, gains and patterns of activity in
primary motor cortex. An important feature of this study was that experience-related
brain changes were measured over an impressively long period of training, 3 weeks.
In principle, fMRI studies could be conducted for even longer periods of time, which
may be required in studying the acquisition (and retention) of skill in more complex
tasks representative of modern human–machine systems.

5.3. Other applications

Applications can complement the examples of neuroergonomic research that have
been discussed so far. Such development-oriented work in neuroergonomics is in its
early phases. Although it is premature at this point in time to speak of ‘neuroergo-
nomic practice’, practical applications are around the corner and are likely to grow
in number as the field matures. Some examples are briefly discussed here.
As discussed previously, EEG and ERPs provide continuous measures of brain
electrical activity that can be used to index mental workload for potential use in
adaptive systems. A modification of this procedure is to use brain potentials to
directly control external devices by the physically handicapped (Farwell and
Donchin 1988), including individuals with little or no motor function
(Pfurtscheller et al. 2000). As EEG technology continues to become cheaper, smaller,
portable and robust applications such as these will increase. Applying knowledge of
brain and cognitive architectures could be used to produce ‘neural chips’ (as opposed
to traditional VLSI architectures) and intelligent user interfaces with exceptionally
fast computing systems. These could then be used to develop ‘neuroergonomic aids’
for the physically incapacitated.
16 R. Parasuraman

Such applications are likely to be influenced by further basic research on the

neural control of motor function. A recent example of ground-breaking research
is that of Reger et al. (2000), who described a hybrid sensory-motor system involving
the brain of a lamprey coupled to a small mobile robot. The brain–robot coupling
formed a closed-loop sensory-motor system whose primary research purpose was to
provide a platform for validating computational models of neural function.
However, such a system or closely-related ones could also be used to test hypotheses
concerning perception–action loops in human performance (Hancock and Chignell
1995).
Understanding the mechanisms of spatial navigation, both in real and virtual
environments, is another example of an area of neuroergonomic research where
applications may flourish. Early data from animal studies and from brain damaged
individuals have long pointed to the role of the hippocampal formation in the ability
to navigate through space, suggesting that the hippocampus provides a spatially-
referenced ‘cognitive map’ (O’Keefe and Nadel 1978). More recently, functional
brain imaging studies have also implicated this brain region in the recall of well-
established topographical maps. Maguire et al. (1996) studied London taxicab dri-
vers, who typically train for as many as 3 years to acquire the route knowledge of
London streets to pass their stringent licensing examinations. PET revealed that the
right hippocampus was critically involved in the recall of specific routes around
London in this expert group. In subsequent studies by this group using a virtual
reality (VR) environment, right hippocampal activation was also associated with
navigating accurately between locations in a complex town (Maguire et al. 1998,
Pine et al. 2002). These neuroergonomic studies have important implications for
further understanding of the mechanisms of spatial navigation and its acquisition
in other expert groups such as pilots and controllers. Further studies in virtual
environments could also lead to the development of enhanced VR systems.
These examples by no means exhaust the range of possibilities. Rather, the types
of practical application are limited only by the imagination of researchers and prac-
titioners in the field.

6. Conclusions
Neuroergonomics represents a deliberate merger of neuroscience and ergonomics
with the goal of advancing understanding of brain function underlying human per-
formance of complex, real-world tasks. A second major goal is to use existing and
emerging knowledge of human performance and brain function to design tech-
nologies and work environments for safer and more efficient operation. More pro-
gress has been made on the first goal than on the second, but both neuroergonomic
research and practice should flourish in the future, as the value of the approach is
appreciated. The basic enterprise of ergonomics—how humans design, interact with
and use technology—can be considerably enriched if we also consider the human
brain that makes such activities possible.

References
Albright, T. D., Jessell, T. M., Kandel, E. R. and Posner M. I. 2001, Progress in the
neural sciences in the century after Cajal (and the mysteries that remain), Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences, 929, 11–40.
Bainbridge, L. 1983, Ironies of automation, Automatica, 19, 775–779.
 Neuroergonomics 17

Billings, C. E. 1997, Aviation Automation: The Search for a Human-Centered Approach

(Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum).
Boucsein, W. and Backs, R. W. 2000, Engineering psychophysiology as a discipline: histor-
ical and theoretical aspects, in R. W. Backs and W. Boucsein (eds), Engineering
Psychophysiology: Issues and Applications (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum), 3–30.
Bunge, M. 1980, From mindless neuroscience to brainless psychology to neuropsychology,
Paper presented at the Annual Winter Conference for Brain Research, January, Keystone,
CO.
Byrne, E. A. and Parasuraman, R. 1996, Psychophysiology and adaptive automation,
Biological Psychology, 42, 249–268.
Cabeza, R. and Kingstone, A. 2001, Handbook of Functional Neuroimaging of Cognition
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Churchland, P. S. 2002, Self-representation in nervous systems, Science, 296, 308–310.
Clark, A. 1997, Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and the World Together Again (Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press).
Craik, K. 1947, Theory of the human operator in control systems, British Journal of
Psychology, 38, 56–61.
Dennett, D. C. 1991, Consciousness Explained (Boston: Little Brown).
Donchin, E., Kramer, A. F. and Wickens, C. 1986, Applications of brain event-related
potentials to problems in engineering psychology, in M. G. H. Coles, E. Donchin
and S. Porges (eds), Psychophysiology: Systems, Processes and Applications
(Middletown, NJ: Till and Till), 702–718.
Farwell, L. A. and Donchin, E. 1988, Talking off the top of your head: toward a mental
prosthesis utilizing event-related potentials, Electroencephalography and Clinical
Neurophysiology, 70, 510–523.
Fosella, J., Posner, M. I., Fan, J., Swanson, J. M. and Pfaff, D. W. 2002, Attentional
phenotypes for the analysis of higher mental function, The Scientific World Journal, 2,
217–233.
Gazzaniga, M. S. 2000, The New Cognitive Neurosciences (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Gehring, W.J., Goss, B., Coles, M. G. H., Meyer, D. E. and Donchin, E. 1993, A neural
system for error detection and compensation, Psychological Science, 4, 385–390.
Gratton, G. and Fabiani, M. 2001, Sheddding light on brain function: the event-related
optical signal, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 357–363.
Hancock, P. A. and Chignell, M. H. 1995, On human factors, in J. Flach, P. Hancock, J.
Caird and K. Vicente (eds), Global Perspectives on the Ecology of Human–Machine
Systems (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum), 14–53.
Hancock, P. A., Chignell, M. H. and Lowenthal, A. 1985, An adaptive human–machine
system, Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 15, 627–
629.
Hitchcock, E. M., Warm, J. S., Matthews, G., Dember, W. N., Shear, P. K., Tripp, L.
D., Mayleben, D. W., Rosa, R. R. and Parasuraman, R. 2003, Automation cueing
modulates cerebral blood flow and vigilance in a simulated air traffic control task,
Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 4, 89–112.
Holroyd, C. B., Dien, J. and Coles, M. G. H. 1998, Error-related scalp potentials elicited
by hand and foot movements: evidence for an output-independent error-processing
system in humans, Neuroscience Letters, 242, 65–68.
Hutchins, E. 1995, Cognition in the Wild (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Just, M. A., Carpenter, P. A. and Miyake, A. 2003, Neuroindices of cognitive workload:
neuroimaging, pupillometric and event-related potential studies of brain work,
Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 4, 56–88.
Karni, A., Meyer, G., Rey-Hopolito, C., Jezzard, P., Adams, M. M., Turner, R. and
Ungerleider, L. G. 1998, The acquisition of skilled motor performance: fast and slow
experience-driven changes in primary motor cortex, Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences (USA), 95, 861–868.
Karwowski, W., Siemionow, W. and Gielo-Perczak, K. 2003, Physical neuroergonomics:
the human brain in control of physical work activities. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics
Science, 4, 175–199.
18 R. Parasuraman

Kramer, A. F. and McCarley, J. S. 2003, Oculomotor behavior as a reflection of attention

and memory processes: neural mechanisms and applications to human factors,
Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 4, 21–55.
Kramer, A. F. and Weber, T. 2000, Applications of psychophysiology to human factors, in J.
T. Cacioppo, L. G. Tassinary and G. G. Berntson (eds), Handbook of Psychophysiology,
2nd edn (New York: Cambridge University Press), 794–814.
Kramer, A. F., Trejo, L. J. and Humphrey, D. G. 1996, Psychophysiological measures of
workload: potential applications to adaptively automated systems, in R. Parasuraman
and M. Mouloua (eds), Automation and Human Performance: Theory and Applications
(Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 137–162
Krebs, H., Brashers-Krug, T., Rauch, S., Savage, C. R., Hogan, N., Rubin, R. H.,
Fischman, A. J. and Alpert, N. M. 1998, Robot-aided functional imaging: application
to a motor learning study, Human Brain Mapping, 6, 59–72.
Lewis, M. 1998, Designing for human-agent interaction, Artificial Intelligence Magazine,
Summer (Washington DC: American Association for Artificial Intelligence), 67–78.
Maguire, E. A., Burgess, N., Donnett, J. G., Frackowiak, R. S., Frith, C. D. and
O’Keefe, J. 1998, Knowing where and getting there: a human navigation network,
Science, 280, 921–924.
Maguire, E. A., Frackowiak, R. S. J. and Frith, C. D. 1996, Recalling routes around
London: activation of the right hippocampus in taxi drivers, Journal of Neuroscience,
17, 7103–7110.
Newell, A. and Rosenbloom, P. S. 1980, Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of
practice, in J. R. Anderson (ed.), Cognitive Skills and their Acquisition (Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum) 1–55.
Norman, D. A. and Shallice, T. 1986, Attention to action: willed and automatic control of
behavior, in R. J. Davidson, G. E. Schwartz and D. Shapiro (eds), Consciousness and
Self-Regulation (New York: Plenum Press), 1-18.
O’Keefe, J. and Nadel, L. 1978, The Hippocampus as a Cognitive Map (New York: Plenum).
O’Reilly, R. C. and Munakata, Y. 2000, Computational Explorations in Cognitive
Neuroscience (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Parasuraman, R. 1990, Event-related brain potentials and human factors research, in J. W.
Rohrbaugh, R. Parasuraman and R. Johnson (eds), Event-related Brain Potentials:
Basic and Applied Issues (New York: Oxford University Press), 279–300.
Parasuraman, R. 1998a, Neuroergonomics: The Study of Brain and Behavior at Work,
http://arts-sciences.cua.edu/csl/neuroerg.htm.
Parasuraman, R. 1998b, The Attentive Brain (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Parasuraman, R. and Caggiano, D. 2002, Mental workload, in V. S. Ramachandran (ed.),
Encyclopedia of the Human Brain Volume 3 (San Diego: Academic Press), 17–27.
Parasuraman, R. and Mouloua, M. 1996, Automation and Human Performance: Theory and
Applications (Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum).
Parasuraman, R. and Riley, V. A. 1997, Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse,
abuse, Human Factors, 39, 230–253.
Parasuraman, R., Bahri, T., Deaton, J., Morrison, J. and Barnes, M. 1992, Theory and
design of adaptive automation in aviation systems, Progress Report No.
NAWCADWAR-92033-60 (Warminster, PA: Naval Air Warfare Center).
Parasuraman, R., Greenwood, P. M. and Sunderland, T. 2002, The apolipoprotein E
gene, attention, and brain function, Neuropsychology, 16, 254–274.
Parasuraman, R., Mouloua, M. and Hilburn, B. 1999, Adaptive aiding and adaptive task
allocation enhance human–machine interaction, in M. Scerbo and M. Mouloua (eds),
Automation Technology and Human Performance: Current Research and Trends
(Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum), 119–123.
Parasuraman, R., Mouloua, M. and Molloy, R. 1996, Effects of adaptive task allocation
on monitoring of automated systems, Human Factors, 38, 665–679.
Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B. and Wickens, C. D. 2000, A model for types and levels
of human interaction with automation, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and
Cybernetics, 30, 286–297.
Pascual-Leone, A., Bartres-Faz, D. and Keenan, J. P. 1999, Transcranial magnetic sti-
mulation: studying the brain-behavior relationship by induction of ‘virtual lesions’,
 Neuroergonomics 19

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Biological Sciences, 354,

1129–1238.
Pe¤ re' s, M., Van De Moortele, P. F. and Pierard, C. 2000, Functional magnetic resonance
imaging of mental strategy in a simulated aviation performance task, Aviation, Space
and Environmental Medicine, 71, 1218–1231.
Pew, R. and Mavor, A. 1998, Modeling Human and Organizational Behaviour: Application to
Military Simulations (Washington D.C.: National Academy Press).
Pfurtscheller, G., Guger, C., Muller, G., Krausz, G. and Neurper, C. 2000, Brain
oscillations control hand orthosis in a tetraplegic, Neuroscience Letters, 292, 211–214.
Piaget, J. 1952, The Origins of Intelligence in Children (New York: Longman).
Pine, D. S., Grun, J., Maguire, E. A., Burgess, N., Zarahn, E., Koda, V., Fyer, A.,
Szezko, P. R. and Bilder, R. M. 2002, Neurodevelopmental aspects of spatial naviga-
tion: a virtual reality fMRI study, Neuroimage, 15, 396–406.
Pinker, S. 1997, How the Mind Works (New York: Norton).
Posner, M. I. and Dehaene, S. 1994, Attentional networks, Trends in Neuroscience, 17, 75–
79.
Prinzel, L. J., Freeman, F. G., Scerbo, M. W., Mikulka, P. J. and Pope, A. T. 2000, A
closed-loop system for examining psychophysiological measures for adaptive automa-
tion, International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 10, 393–410.
Rasmussen, J. 1986, Information Processing and Human–Machine Interaction (Amsterdam:
North-Holland).
Reason, J. 1990, Human Error (New York: Oxford University Press).
Reger, B. D., Fleming, K. M., Sanguineti, V., Alford, S. and Musaa-Ivaldi, F. A. 2000,
Connecting brains to robots: an artificial body for studying the computational proper-
ties of neural tissues, Artificial Life, 6, 307–324.
Roth, E. M., Bennett, K. B. and Woods, D. D. 1987, Human interaction with an ‘intelligent’
machine, International Journal of Man–Machine Studies, 27, 479–525.
Rouse, W. B. 1988, Adaptive aiding for human/computer control, Human Factors, 30, 431–
438.
Roy, C. S. and Sherrington, C. S. 1890, On the regulation of the blood supply of the brain,
Journal of Physiology (London), 11, 85–108.
Sarter, M., Givens, B. and Bruno, J. P. 2001, The cognitive neuroscience of sustained
attention: where top-down meets bottom-up, Brain Research Reviews, 35, 146–160.
Sarter, N., Woods, D. D. and Billings, C. E. 1997, Automation surprises, in G. Salvendy
(ed.), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 2nd edn (New York: Wiley), 1926–
1943.
Satchell, P. 1998, Innovation and Automation (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate).
Scerbo, M. W. 1996, Theoretical perspectives on adaptive automation, in R. Parasuraman
and M. Mouloua (eds), Automation and Human Performance: Theory and Applications
(Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum), 37–63.
Scerbo, M. W. 2001, Adaptive automation, in W. Karwowski (ed.), International
Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors (London: Taylor and Francis), 1077–
1079.
Scerbo, M. W., Freeman, F. G., Mikulka, P. J., Parasuraman, R., Di Nocera, F. and
Prinzel, L. J. 2001, The efficacy of psychophysiological measures for implementing
adaptive technology, NASA TP-2001-211018 (Hampton, VA: NASA Langley
Research Center).
Scerbo, M. W., Freeman, F. G. and Mikulka, P. J. 2003, A brain-based system for adaptive
automation, Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 4, 200–219.
Scheffers, M. K. and Coles, M. G. H. 2000, Performance monitoring in a confusing world:
error-related brain activity, judgements of response accuracy, and types of errors,
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 141–151.
Senders, J. W. and Moray, N. 1991, Human Error: Cause, Prediction, Reduction (Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum).
Sheridan, T. B. 1992, Telerobotics, Automation, and Supervisory Control (Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press).
Wickens, C. D. 1990, Applications of event-related potential research to problems in human
factors, in J. W. Rohrbaugh, R. Parasuraman, and R. Johnson (eds), Event-related
 20 R. Parasuraman

Brain Potentials: Basic and Applied Issues (New York: Oxford University Press), 301–
309.
Wickens, C. D. and Hollands, J. G. 2000, Engineering Psychology and Human Performance
(New York, NY: Longman).
Wiener, E. L. 1988, Cockpit automation, in E. L. Wiener and D. C. Nagel (eds), Human
Factors in Aviation (San Diego, CA: Academic Press), 433–461.
Wiener, E. L. and Curry, R. E. 1980. Flight-deck automation: promises and problems,
Ergonomics, 23, 995–1011.

About the author

Raja Parasuraman, PhD, is Director of the Cognitive Science Laboratory and Professor of
Psychology at The Catholic University of America in Washington, DC. He received a BSc (1st
Class Honours) in Electrical Engineering from Imperial College, University of London, UK
(1972), an MSc in Applied Psychology (1973) and a PhD in Psychology from the University of
Aston, Birmingham, UK (1976). He has carried out research on attention, automation, air
traffic control, ageing and Alzheimer’s disease, event-related brain potentials, functional brain
imaging, signal detection, vigilance and workload. He is a Fellow of the American Association
for the Advancement of Science (1994), the American Psychological Association (1991) and
the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (1994). He is also currently serving as Chair of
the Committee on Human Factors of the National Research Council, National Academy of
Sciences.

View publication stats