Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Personnel physical activity levels on naval vessels (HPAS 2010)

830 views

Published on

Matsangas et al (2010) - Personnel physical activity levels on naval vessels Evidence for soporific and fatigue effects?

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Personnel physical activity levels on naval vessels (HPAS 2010)

  1. 1. Personnel physical activity levels on naval vessels Evidence for soporific and fatigue effects? LCDR P. Matsangas, HN LT J. Johnston, USN M.E. McCauley N.L. Miller 21/06/10 HPAS 2010 Human Performance at Sea
  2. 2. Introduction <ul><li>Johnston (2009) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Time underway process </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Motion induced fatigue (?) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Sopite syndrome (?) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Actigraphy </li></ul><ul><li>Scope </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ship’s motion vs personnel physical activity under provoking motions </li></ul></ul>21/06/10
  3. 3. Methodology I <ul><li>Retrospective analysis </li></ul><ul><ul><li>HSV-2 SWIFT </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>FSF-1 Sea Fighter </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Activity assessment tools </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Wrist activity monitors (WAMs) - actiwatches </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sleep diaries </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Motion detection </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Wave height measuring system (FSF-1) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>WAM (HSV-2) </li></ul></ul>21/06/10
  4. 4. Methodology II 21/06/10 (1) (2) <ul><li>Physical activity issues </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Inter-subject variability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Baseline value </li></ul></ul>Parameter Description i Day underway J Participant Activity(1,j) mean activity of participant j during day 1 Activity(i,j) Mean daily activity level of participant j during underway day I Activity%(i,j) Mean daily percentage-wise activity level of participant j during underway day I n Number of participants Activity%(i) Mean daily activity level during underway day I
  5. 5. Data sets HSV-2 21/06/10 <ul><li>Main characteristics </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Missions: ASW-SUW-MIW </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Length: 319 ft </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Full Load: 1800 tn </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Speed : >40 kts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Core Crew: 40 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mission modules crew: 25 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Range: 4300 nm at 30-35 kts </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Participants (Crew): 19 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Male: Eighteen (95%) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Female: One (5%) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Data collection period </li></ul><ul><ul><li>10th – 23rd May 2004 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transatlantic transiting from Norway to Norfolk </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Sea State </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mid state 4 to state 5 </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Data sets FSF-1 <ul><li>Participants : 24 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Civilians </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Military </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Contracted crew members </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Data collection period </li></ul><ul><ul><li>14th – 20th March 2007 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transiting from San Diego to Panama Canal Zone </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Sea State </li></ul><ul><ul><li>3 to 5 </li></ul></ul>21/06/10 <ul><li>Main characteristics </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Missions: ASW-SUW-MIW </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Length: 262 ft </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Full load: 1670 tn </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Speed : 50 kts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Crew: 26 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Range: 4400 nm </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Results HSV-2 Swift 21/06/10 Activity and motion vs time on HSV-2 SWIFT Mean daily activity level vs induced motion
  8. 8. Results FSF-1 Sea Fighter 21/06/10 Activity and motion vs time on FSF-1 Mean daily activity level vs induced motion Standard deviation of daily activity level vs induced motion
  9. 9. Discussion 21/06/10 Factors probably involved in personnel decreased activity (a tickmark denotes a possible effect) <ul><li>WAMs to measure motion </li></ul><ul><li>Stressors </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Occupational </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Assigned duties and activities, timing of tasks, etc </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Non-occupational </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Environmental </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Psychological </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Systematic trends (identified) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Motion </li></ul></ul>[a] McCauley, M. E., Matsangas, P., & Miller, N. L. (2005). Motion and fatigue study in High Speed Vessel operations: Phase 1 report . Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School. [b] McCauley, M. E., Pierce, E. C., Matsangas, P., Price, B., LaBreque, J., & Blankenship, J. (2007). Vessel Motion Effects on Human Performance aboard the FSF-1 Sea Fighter (Technical Report). Monterey, California, USA: Naval Postgraduate School and NSWC PC [c] Johnston, J. M. (2009). An Activity-Based Non-Linear Regression Model of Sopite Syndrome and its Effects on Crew Performance in High-Speed Vessel Operations. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA. Factors HSV-2 [a] FSF-1 [b] FSF-1 [c] Sleep deprivation   NA Motion induced fatigue    Motion sickness/ Sopite syndrome    Biodynamic interference  
  10. 10. Conclusions <ul><li>Physical activity decrement </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Time (days underway) (Johnston (2009) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Motion (provoking) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Future work </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More data – More analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Verify time / motion processes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Increase external validity </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Other factors/processes </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Interactions </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Develop model </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Understand what we found!!! </li></ul></ul>21/06/10 36% - 41%

×