پژوهش در طب ورزشی و فناوری

طراحی نرم‌افزار تخمین میزان تداخل نسبی بین تکالیف چندگانه و تعیین روایی آن

نویسنده

کاظم موسوی ساداتی
https://doi.org/10.29252/jsmt.17.18.45
چکیده
متداول‌ترین روش تجربی برای بررسی مسائل مربوط به محدودیت توجه، ارزیابی میزان تداخل در تکالیف دوگانه یا چندگانه است. هدف تحقیق حاضر، طراحی نرم‌افزاری برای تخمین میزان تداخل نسبی تکالیف چندگانه و ارزیابی روایی آن در پیش‌بینی اجرای چند تکلیف هم‌زمان بود. برای سنجش روایی نرم‌افزار، 46 نفر از دانشجویان دانشگاه آزاد واحد تهران شرق که گواهی‌نامۀ رانندگی داشتند، با روش نمونه‌گیری در دسترس انتخاب شدند. زمان پاسخ مشارکت‌کنندگان به محرک بینایی و شنوایی در حین رانندگی در موقعیت‌های مختلف با استفاده از نرم‌افزار و سخت‌افزاری که روی اتومبیل آنها نصب شده بود اندازه‌گیری شد و سپس، میزان تداخل نسبی در آن موقعیت‌ها با بهره‌گیری از نرم‌افزار تخمین میزان تداخل نسبی محاسبه شد. تجزیه و تحلیل یافته‌‌ها با آزمون هم‌بستگی پیرسون، نشان داد که بین میزان تداخل تخمین‌زده‌شده با نرم‌افزار و زمان پاسخ اندازه‌گیری‌شدۀ شرکت‌کنندگان در شرایط مختلف رانندگی هم‌بستگی بالا، معنی‌دار و مستقیم وجود دارد (r=0/95 ،p≤0/01). بنابراین، از نرمافزار طراحیشده می‌توان برای پیش‌بینی میزان تداخل بین دو یا چند تکلیف هم‌زمان استفاده کرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

طراحی
نرم‌افزار
تداخل نسبی
تکالیف چندگانه
روایی

عنوان مقاله English

Designing software to estimate the relative interference between multiple tasks and determine its validity

نویسنده English

K Mousavi Sadati
چکیده English

The most commonly used empirical approach to address issues of attention constraint is evaluate the degree of interference in dual or multiple tasks. The purpose of this study was designing software to estimate the relative interference between multiple tasks and determine its validity in performance prediction of simultaneous multiple tasks. in order to assess the validity of software, 46 students with a driving certificate from East Tehran branch of Islamic Azad University were selected by available sampling method, the response time to the visual and auditory stimulus of participants during driving in different conditions was measured by using software and hardware installed on their cars, and then relative interference in the above mentioned conditions was estimated by using relative interference software. The result of pearson correlation analysis showed that there is a high, meaningful and direct correlation between the amount of estimated relative interference with the software and measured participants' response time in different driving conditions (r=0.95, p≤0.01). Therefore, the designed software can be used to predict the amount of interference between two or more simultaneous tasks.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Design
Software
Relative Interference
Multiple Tasks
Validity
1. McGarry, T., O'Donoghue, P.,de Eira Sampaio, A.J. (2013). Handbook of Sports Performance Analysis, Publisher: New York : Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9780203806913]
1. McGarry, T., O'Donoghue, P.,de Eira Sampaio, A.J. (2013). Handbook of Sports Performance Analysis, Publisher: New York : Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9780203806913]
2. Koedijker, J.M., Poolton, J.M., Maxwell, J.P., Oudejans, R.R., Beek, P.J., Masters, R.S. (2011). Attention and time constraints in perceptual-motor learning and performance: Instruction, analogy, and skill level. Consciousness and Cognition. 20(2):245-56. [DOI:10.1016/j.concog.2010.08.002]
2. Koedijker, J.M., Poolton, J.M., Maxwell, J.P., Oudejans, R.R., Beek, P.J., Masters, R.S. (2011). Attention and time constraints in perceptual-motor learning and performance: Instruction, analogy, and skill level. Consciousness and Cognition. 20(2):245-56. [DOI:10.1016/j.concog.2010.08.002]
3. Shaw, M.L, Mulligan, R.M., Stone, L.D. (1983). Two-state versus continuous-state stimulus representations: A test based on attentional constraints. Perception & Psychophysics. 33(4):338-54. [DOI:10.3758/BF03205881]
3. Shaw, M.L, Mulligan, R.M., Stone, L.D. (1983). Two-state versus continuous-state stimulus representations: A test based on attentional constraints. Perception & Psychophysics. 33(4):338-54. [DOI:10.3758/BF03205881]
4. Edwards, W. (2010). Learning and Motor Control from Theory to Practice - Volume II, Mousavi Sadati, S.K. (2014). Publisher: Hatmi. First Edition. 165-7. (Persian)
4. Edwards, W. (2010). Learning and Motor Control from Theory to Practice - Volume II, Mousavi Sadati, S.K. (2014). Publisher: Hatmi. First Edition. 165-7. (Persian)
5. Driver, J. (2001). A selective review of selective attention research from the past century. British Journal of Psychology. 92:53-78. [DOI:10.1348/000712601162103]
5. Driver, J. (2001). A selective review of selective attention research from the past century. British Journal of Psychology. 92:53-78. [DOI:10.1348/000712601162103]
6. Welford, A.T. (1952). The 'psychological refractory period' and the timing of high‐speed performance-a review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology. General Section. 43(1):2-19. [DOI:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1952.tb00322.x]
6. Welford, A.T. (1952). The 'psychological refractory period' and the timing of high‐speed performance-a review and a theory. British Journal of Psychology. General Section. 43(1):2-19. [DOI:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1952.tb00322.x]
7. Norman, D.A. (1968). Toward a theory of memory and attention. Psychological Review. 75(6):522-36. [DOI:10.1037/h0026699]
7. Norman, D.A. (1968). Toward a theory of memory and attention. Psychological Review. 75(6):522-36. [DOI:10.1037/h0026699]
8. Schmidt, R., Lee, T. (2014). Motor learning and performance: From principles to applications. Human Kinetics. 205.
8. Schmidt, R., Lee, T. (2014). Motor learning and performance: From principles to applications. Human Kinetics. 205.
9. Magill, R.A. (2016). Motor learning: Concepts and aplications. Vaez Mousavi, M.K., Shojaie, M. Publisher: Bamdad Ketab. 196-9. (Persian)
9. Magill, R.A. (2016). Motor learning: Concepts and aplications. Vaez Mousavi, M.K., Shojaie, M. Publisher: Bamdad Ketab. 196-9. (Persian)
10. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort: Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 145-8.
10. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort: Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 145-8.
11. Navon, D., Gopher, D. (1979). On the economy of the human-processing system. Psychological Review. 86(3):214-55. [DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.86.3.214]
11. Navon, D., Gopher, D. (1979). On the economy of the human-processing system. Psychological Review. 86(3):214-55. [DOI:10.1037/0033-295X.86.3.214]
12. Wickens, C.D., Kessel, C. (1980). Processing resource demands of failure detection in dynamic systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 6(3): 564-77. [DOI:10.1037/0096-1523.6.3.564]
12. Wickens, C.D., Kessel, C. (1980). Processing resource demands of failure detection in dynamic systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 6(3): 564-77. [DOI:10.1037/0096-1523.6.3.564]
13. Pashler H, Johnston JC, Ruthruff E. (2001). Attention and performance. Annual review of psychology. 52(1):629-51. [DOI:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.629]
13. Pashler H, Johnston JC, Ruthruff E. (2001). Attention and performance. Annual review of psychology. 52(1):629-51. [DOI:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.629]
14. Wickens, C.D. (2008). Multiple resources and mental workload. Human Factors. 50(3):449-55. [DOI:10.1518/001872008X288394]
14. Wickens, C.D. (2008). Multiple resources and mental workload. Human Factors. 50(3):449-55. [DOI:10.1518/001872008X288394]
15. Wickens, C.D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science. 3(2):159-77. [DOI:10.1080/14639220210123806]
15. Wickens, C.D. (2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science. 3(2):159-77. [DOI:10.1080/14639220210123806]
16. van Engelen, D. (2011). Attention Drivers: RWTH Aachen University; 11-22.
16. van Engelen, D. (2011). Attention Drivers: RWTH Aachen University; 11-22.