Download
1 / 26
260 likes | 270 Views
This research focuses on developing an index to evaluate space crew's health, performance, and adaptability using physiological measures, performance metrics, and self-reports. The study explores individual differences in adapting to extended spaceflight and tests countermeasures effectiveness. The Psychophysiological Research Laboratory assesses motion sickness, stress performance, and neurobehavioral functions. The method includes a preflight autogenic-feedback training program and uses converging indicators like physiology, subjective states, and performance. Space crew's adaptational capacity was tested in rotating centrifuge simulations. The findings highlight the importance of assessing individual differences and using converging indicators for a comprehensive evaluation. Explore how this index can enhance space mission habitability and crew well-being.
E N D
Development of an Index of Habitability Using Converging Indicators Principal Investigator: Patricia Cowings, Ph.D. NASA ARC Coinvestigators: William Toscano, Ph.D. NASA ARC Charles DeRoshia, M.S. NASA ARC Bruce Taylor, Ph.D. University of Akron Seleimeh Hines, Ph.D. NRC Post Doctoral Fellow
Primary Mission Goal of Space Human Factors Enable a permanent human presence in space Develop protocols to: • Accurately assess spaceflight effects on crew health, safety, and operational performance. • Evaluate and test countermeasures that will remedy these environmental effects.
Technical Background • Extended spaceflight affects physiology with associated adverse effects on crew performance and health. • Other factors like workload, isolation, fatigue, etc. are known to effect operational efficiency. • There is a wide range in the ability of individuals to adapt to space and re-adapt to Earth. • Future crew complements:men and women, multi-cultural, different professional backgrounds and physical condition.
Statement of Problem • Methods are needed: • to examine individual differences in the environmental effects of extended spaceflight on crew. • to evaluate the efficacy of countermeasures for individuals.
Psychophysiological Research Laboratory Research program includes: • Motion sickness in space and on Earth • Post-flight orthostatic intolerance • Performance during chronic and acute stress • Neurobehavioral/psychosocial function
Psychophysiological Research Laboratory Method of Assessment: Converging Indicators • Physiological measures • Performance metrics • Standardized self-report scales Method of Correction: Preflight Training Autogenic-Feedback Training Exercise (AFTE) • 6-hour physiological conditioning program
Converging Indicators Physiology (ANS, CNS) Subjective States (mood, symptoms) Performance (cognitive, perceptual, neuro-motor)
Autogenic Feedback System-2 Physiological Measures skin temperature finger blood volume pulse skin conductance heart rate respiration rate Reported Symptoms warmth dizziness headache drowsiness salivation pallor sweating nausea vomiting Autogenic-Feeback System-2 (AFS-2)
Mood Scale and Delta Performance Battery Reported Mood States Performance Subtests • code substitution • spatial transformation • non-preferred hand tapping • preferred hand tapping • pattern comparison • three-choice reaction time • grammatical reasoning • motivation to perform • arousal state • fatigue level • ease of concentration • physiological tension • elation • physical discomfort • contentedness
Approach • Database analyses and archival. • Develop signal analysis and processing software. • Test converging indicators methods in operational environments.
Habitability in Rotating Centrifuge 22 hour exposures at G-levels up to 1.5 G
Individual Differences in Adaptational Capacity • Four adult men participated in this study • Each subject lived aboard the centrifuge for 22 hours at 1.0g (i.e., no rotation), and 1.25 g. • One subject also participated in a 1.5g test
Individual Differences in Adaptational Capacity • Ambulatory physiological data were collected continuously.
Individual Differences in Adaptational Capacity • Subjects occupied a small compartment, equipped with bed, video entertainment, laptop computer, toilet facilities and food and beverages.
Individual Differences in Adaptational Capacity • Subjects were in video and voice contact with investigators and medical monitors at all times.
Individual Differences in Adaptational Capacity • G-tolerance tests were administered before and after each 22 hour habitat test. • G-load was increased until subjects experienced reduced peripheral vision and/or pre-syncope.
Individual Differences in Adaptational Capacity • Subjects were required to perform a ‘stand test’ at 4-hour intervals to evaluate their orthostatic tolerance.
Individual Differences in Adaptational Capacity • Performance tests and a mood state scale were performed on a laptop computer following each stand test, and symptom reports were obtained verbally.
Stand Tests at 1.0g Heart Rate and Blood Pressure Subject Q22 Subject Q23 Subject Q20 Subject Q21 Time of Day Time of Day
Stand Tests at 1.25g Heart Rate and Blood Pressure Subject Q21 Subject Q23 SubjectQ20 Subject Q22
Blood Pressure and Heart Rate of Subject Q20 During Hyper-g • As g-load increased, this subject showed both increases in heart rate and diastolic blood pressure which enabled cardiac output to stabilize. • Although his autonomic profile protected him from syncope, he was more susceptible to motion sickness than others.
Conclusions • Converging indicators can be used to identify individual differences in adaptational capacity (e.g., susceptibility to orthostatic intolerance and motion sickness). • Psychomotor performance was significantly degraded during hypergravity. Symptoms generally increased with g-load. Reductions of mood, perceptual or cognitive responses were highly idiosyncratic. • Physiological profiles may be used to predict how well individuals adapt and suggest that training control of autonomic responses (i.e., Autogenic-Feedback Training Exercise-AFTE) may help to reduce or eliminate symptoms.
