曝光台 注意防骗
网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
addressed. One category is based on errors in the formation of the intention. A second category is
based on errors having to do with faulty activation of schemas. The third category is based on
errors dealing with faulty triggering. The author proposes a model called the activation-triggerschema
system (ATS). It contains a system of activated schemas with a triggering mechanism for
determining appropriate time for activation. This provides a satisfactory framework for the
categorization and analysis of slips. The ATS model is considered novel for five reasons. It
combines schemas, activation values, and triggering conditions. It considers the application of
motor action sequences. The role of intention is considered. There is consideration of the
operation of cognitive systems when several different action sequences are operative
simultaneously, And finally, it is novel because a specific application of this framework to the
classification of slips is employed.
Norman, D. A. (1986). Cognitive engineering. In D. A. Norman & S. W. Draper (Eds.), User
centered system design (pp. 31-62).
This selected chapter introduces a theory for action to understand what the user of a system is
doing. A discrepancy between the psychological terms of the user and the physical variables of a
system is stated as the Gulf of Execution and the Gulf of Evaluation. Bridging the gap in the
Gulf of Execution is done in four segments that deal with intention, formation, specifying the
action sequence, and executing the action. Bridging the gap in the Gulf of Evaluation consists of
comparing the interpretation of system state with the original goals and intentions.
34
OASIS: Occurrence Analysis and Safety Information Systems. (1998). (NASA Aviation
Data Sources Resource Notebook).
The OASIS system is a database that is based on the ICAO standard. The major difference is that
the OASIS manual provides definitions of the explanatory factors. OASIS is also able to
generate safety reports from data entered during an investigation. Explanatory factors are
structured into eight categories:
(1) Between people
(2) Human-environment
(3) Human-machine
(4) Human system support
(5) Physical
(6) Physiological
(7) Psychological
(8) Psychosocial
O’Connor, S. L., & Bacchi, M. (1997). A preliminary taxonomy for human error analysis
in civil aircraft maintenance operations. Ninth Biennial Symposium on Aviation
Psychology.
The authors argue that a reporting scheme for human error analysis needs to have three steps. It
needs to provide detail and structure of the error form or tool. It needs to provide a method of
data collection and a procedure of implementing such a tool. It also needs to provide a storage
and utilization mechanism. This paper describes an error taxonomy that tries to provide detail
and structure of human error in aircraft maintenance. Three broad classification of human error
are identified that are based on a task oriented classification that include maintenance and
dispatch activities. The first classification, external error modes, is based on three main activities.
These are repair, service, and inspection/checking. The second classification, performance
influencing factors, is split into six main groups. These include task factors, task support,
situational factors, environmental factors, personnel factors, and error agents. The third and final
classification, psychological error mechanisms, is based on four models. Information processing
theory, symbolic processing theory, Endsley’s model of mechanisms of situational awareness,
and Rasmussen’s skill-rule-knowledge based levels of cognitive control are the four important
models that serve as the basis of this classification.
35
O’Hare, D. (1992). The “artful” decision maker: A framework model for aeronautical
decision making. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 2(3), 175-191.
This paper reviews the available literature on aeronautical decision making and then proposes a
new framework called ARTFUL. This framework is a goal-directed process with five
functionally separate components that deal with situational awareness (detection and diagnosis),
risk assessment, planning, response selection, and response execution. This framework
recognizes three important points. It is acknowledged that most routine decision making arises
directly from situation awareness which then maps directly to response selection. Errors may
arise in the process of response execution in predictable forms such as slips. It is also recognized
that as long as the current state is consistent with the current goal state and no other threatening
circumstances exist, the current goal will continue to be pursued. The framework can be
中国航空网 www.aero.cn
航空翻译 www.aviation.cn
本文链接地址：
人为因素分析综述(20)
