Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Situational awareness and decision support tools such as procedures and alarm systems are vital for effective interaction among control room operators, especially in safety-critical situations. In safety-critical environments such as process plants, there remains a gap in evaluating specific tools during actual operations, or "work-as-done." Additionally, the underlying factors that might impact operators' cognitive states and performance concerning safety have not been thoroughly explored. The need for such an evaluation is further bolstered by current interaction configurations where operators are more passive than active, thus reducing their cognitive performance. Therefore, this experimental study addresses the highlighted evaluation gap by introducing and comparing three human system interfaces/decision support tools in four human-in-the-loop configurations. The supports include two alarm design formats (prioritized vs. non-prioritized) and three procedure representation formats (paper, screen-based digitized, and an AI-based support system built with an integrated Bayesian network and reinforcement learning model). Ninety-two people (n = 92) participated voluntarily in the test. They were divided equally into four groups. Each group tested three safety-related events in a simulated formaldehyde production facility. Individuals belonging to the group with prioritized alarms and utilized paper procedures rated procedural support slightly higher on average than others in different groups. Unlike the other groups, their assessment of alarm prioritization support remained consistent across all scenarios. Further analysis of the impact of the setup on cognitive states and actual performance will be performed.
Amazu et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: