Workload and Performance: Associations, Insensitivities, and Dissociations

Objective: The aim of this study was to distill and define those influences under which change in objective performance level and the linked cognitive workload reflections of subjective experience and physiological variation either associate, dissociate, or are insensitive, one to another. Background: Human factors/ergonomics frequently employs users’ self-reports of their own conscious experience, as well as their physiological reactivity, to augment the understanding of changing performance capacity. Under some circumstances, these latter workload responses are the only available assessment information to hand. How such perceptions and physiological responses match, fail to match, or are insensitive to the change in primary-task performance can prove critical to operational success. The reasons underlying these associations, dissociations, and insensitivities are central to the success of future effective human–machine interaction. Method: Using extant research on the relations between differing methods of workload assessment, factors influencing their association, dissociation, and insensitivity are identified. Results: Dissociations and insensitivities occur more frequently than extant explanatory theories imply. Methodological and conceptual reasons for these patterns of incongruity are identified and evaluated. Application: We often seek convergence of results in order to provide coherent explanations as bases for future prediction and practical design implementation. Identifying and understanding the causes as to why different reflections of workload diverge can help practitioners toward operational success.