|JANUARY 18, 2018|
Social Media Spotlight
|JANUARY 11, 2018|
Fellows Nominations Due February 1
Submit Your HFES 2018 Annual Meeting Proposal by February 5
Health-Care Symposium Early-Bird Rate Expires on February 9
Nominations for Product Design Award Due April 27
Submit Nominations for 2018 Awards
Virtual/Mixed Reality Submissions Invited for 2018 Human Factors Prize
Congress Passes Tax Reform Bill
Our Friend Neville: Some Personal Reflections on the Life and Contributions of N.P. Moray
By Peter Hancock, University of Central Florida; John Senders, University of Toronto; Neville Stanton, University of Southampton; and John Lee, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Ergonomics Practitioner of the Year Award
By H. Harvey Cohen and Waldemar Karwowski, Foundation for Professional Ergonomics Board Members
Foundation for Professional Ergonomics 2018 Student Award Deadline Set
Among the 200+ presentations for the upcoming International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care are panels, lectures, and posters on current topics like these:
Health information technology
The deadline for submitting any type of proposal for the 2018 Annual Meeting is February 5, 2018. The proposal should be up to five formatted pages, as specified in the Call for Proposals. Papers that have been published previously or presented at another professional meeting may not be submitted.
All research and analyses described in your proposal must be complete at the time the proposal is submitted. The sole exception to this policy is for student work submitted for consideration in the Student Forum track, in which case the proposer may report on work in progress.
Note that for all accepted submissions, one of the authors must attend the meeting to present the work. All presenters are required to pay the meeting registration fee.
Authors of accepted proposals will have the option to print a full paper or an extended abstract in the Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2018 Annual Meeting. HFES requires a transfer of copyright unless the work was performed by employees of the U.S. or other government, or if 100% of the work was performed under government contract. However, the author may reuse the material for any purpose without restriction or fee.
We look forward to receiving your submission and to seeing you in Philadelphia!
HFES Full Members and Fellows are invited to submit nominations for eight Society awards, which will be presented at the 2018 Annual Meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Nominations are invited for individuals whose contributions merit special recognition. The eight awards for which nominees are sought are as follows:
Hal W. Hendrick Distinguished International Colleague Award
Paul M. Fitts Education Award
R. Lauer Safety Award
Alexander C. Williams, Jr., Design Award
Jack A. Kraft Innovator Award
Oliver Keith Hansen Outreach Award
William C. Howell Young Investigator Award
Bentzi Karsh Early-Career Service Award
Nominees are not required to be HFES members, but only members may submit nominations. Submissions are due on or before March 31, 2018. To nominate,
submit the candidate's résumé or curriculum vitae, a nominating letter, and at least two but not more than three letters of support from individuals who know the candidate well enough to assess his or her candidacy in terms of the award's criteria; and
send all nomination packages via e-mail to Julie Freeman. Please submit the package as a single file in PDF format.
For more information on the scope and criteria for HFES awards, please view the HFES Awards Web page.
The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society invites submissions between June 15 and July 16 describing research pertaining to human factors issues in environments with a mixture of real and virtual elements, and the applications of these environments in various domains. The Human Factors Prize recognizes excellence in human factors/ergonomics (HF/E) research through an annual competition that confers a $10,000 cash award and publication of the winning paper in the Society’s flagship journal, Human Factors.
Submissions for the Human Factors Prize can report on the human factors research related to techniques, tools, or training to develop MR/VR to ensure safety and enhance performance in any domain and application area, including but not limited to
Oil and gas, power grid, nuclear energy
Manuscripts should provide a theoretical basis, a thorough background, and a detailed description of the methods, results, and discussion of the practical applications of the research. The paper also needs to show the human factors and ergonomics link and impact.
Papers may address the following topics, among others:
Research activities on HF/E issues related to fidelity, immersion, telepresence, etc. in VR/MR space;
Improvements in the systems for the display of information and interactivity in MR/VR space;
Design and development of display technologies to support immersion and/or presence;
Development of methods and techniques to enhance presence/telepresence;
Applications of MR/VR in archeology, commerce, education, games, tourism, performing arts, etc.
Any researcher is eligible to submit relevant work; membership in HFES is not required.
Submissions must be uploaded between 6:00 a.m. Eastern time on June 15 and 6:00 a.m. Eastern time on July 16, 2018.
Additional details and answers to frequently asked questions may be found at the Human Factors Prize FAQ page.
The award will be presented at a special session at the HFES 2018 International Annual Meeting where the recipient will present his or her work.
On December 20, the House voted 224-201 to concur with a Senate amendment to the Conference Agreement to H.R. 1, the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.” This followed a Senate vote of 51-48 to approve the measure earlier in the day, after a budget point of order was raised on provisions relating to the short title of the measure, 529 plans, and an excise tax on certain private colleges and universities. A "tuition-paying" student requirement that was part of the proposed excise tax on certain private college and university endowments was ruled out of order. These changes required the House to vote again on the tax measure, after initially passing it on December 19.
Highlighted below is an additional provision that could impact HFES members at institutions of higher education and other tax-exempt organizations.
Creates excise tax on the investment income of the endowments of private colleges and universities
Both the House and the Senate versions included an excise tax on the endowments of certain private colleges and universities. The final bill imposes a 1.4% excise tax on the net investment income of private colleges and universities that have at least 500 students, with assets (other than those used directly in carrying out the institution’s educational purposes) valued at least $500,000 per full‐time student. The Secretary of the Treasury is directed to promulgate regulations to carry out the intent of the provision, including regulations that describe: (1) assets that are used directly in carrying out the educational institution’s exempt purpose; (2) the computation of net investment income; and (3) assets that are intended or available for the use or benefit of the educational institution.
Sources and Additional Information
The Senate Amendment to H.R. 1, is available here: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/
Lewis-Burke Associates LLC, a leading Washington, D.C.-based government relations and consulting firm, represents the public policy interests of scientific societies and institutions of higher education. Lewis-Burke's staff of about 20 government relations professionals works to promote the federal research and policy goals of HFES and the HF/E community.
By Peter Hancock, University of Central Florida; John Senders, University of Toronto; Neville Stanton, University of Southampton; and John Lee, University of Wisconsin, Madison
We are saddened to have to convey to our membership the passing of Neville Moray, some-time Professor of Human Factors at the Universities of Sheffield, Stirling, and Surrey (in England and Scotland), the University of Toronto (in Canada), the University of Illinois (in the U.S), and the Université de Valenciennes et du Hainaut-Cambrésis (in France). While more formal assessments of his career and more completely articulated biographies of his life are available, we would like here to provide some more personal perspectives, featuring our own individual recollections of Neville. One of us (JWS) has bracketed Moray’s own career from when he was a graduate student eventually to his status as a Professor emeritus. Another (PAH) seeks to convey the mentoring dimension of Moray’s professional and personal character in respect of a younger and naïve acolyte. A third (NAS) recalls the trials, tribulations and benefits of sharing a common Christian name, while yet another (JDL) recalls his time as Neville’s formal Doctoral student. All convey the respect and admiration held by his saddened friends and colleagues.
John Senders’ Story
I met Neville Moray in 1960 during a visit to an old friend, Harry Kay, then the Professor at Sheffield. Neville and I became instant old friends. He had just, in the company of Richard Gregory, completed a study on a small underwater animal, Copelia. I recall my astonishment at an experimental psychologist who would dive down to administer tests to a small, inoffensive animal in its native habitat. It argued an inquisitive and fecund mind. But it was only when he finally transformed into a Human Factors Engineer at the University of Toronto in Canada that he had found his calling. He had always really wanted to be an engineer – and now he was. We met frequently over the years and collaborated on getting things done but never published any joint research. It is of interest that two people of pretty much like mind on many topics could spend more than forty years talking and thinking together, and occasionally writing together, but never do any research together. Neither of us has ever considered why this was so but it clearly was by unconscious mutual agreement. We did try together to move the world from time to time and organized meetings on topics that other people needed to know about.
I have hardly ever read Neville‘s work - he has always accused me of never reading anyone’s work and I have to confess that he was right. He was a much better scholar than I, either by natural bent or more rigorous training, and so I have left those sorts of things to him. He has been also a much better academic than I, probably also as a consequence of his training. He had, for example, much better judgment of whether a graduate student was worth spending time on. I always wanted to be kind; he wanted rigor and diligence. He was almost always right in his assessment of probable success of the occasional lame ducks that wandered into his orbit. Mostly we have had fun. We drank, ate, and sang songs together, and made clever puns and insulting jokes about one another. The latter are the mark of a genuine friendship of equals; and that we had.
Peter Hancock’s Story
After graduating from the University of Illinois and taking a position at the University of Southern California, I was searching for ways to shape and energize my beginning career. One thing I had taken careful note of was who were the thought-leaders in our area. Many names, well-known to our membership, fell into this category including luminaries such as Tom Sheridan, Chris Wickens, Barry Kantowitz, and of course Neville Moray. But I noticed that all had something else in common; they were each funded by Sandra Hart from NASA Ames Research Center in California. To that end, I decided to pay my way to a meeting at Moffett Field in search of the communal magic that I viewed as one of the keys to success. Although I had met Neville briefly before, it was there I first had the chance to fully make his acquaintance. While cognitive workload was the issue of the day, and he had edited the most prominent text of that era (Moray, 1979), I don’t think we talked workload at all. What was evident to me immediately was his wide ranging intellect, and unbound curiosity and enthusiasm, all underwritten by a great sense of fun. Being able to see the absurdities in life, but especially the absurdities in oneself is a most appealing characteristic. Neville possessed this in abundance and I was hooked. By some miracle, or perhaps by dint of the actions of such senior colleagues, I managed to obtain a support from the NASA Ames group, where Sandy Hart became my sponsor and Mike Vidulich my grant monitor. It was one of the luckiest breaks of my career, not simply for the specific monetary support but because I was now able to interact professionally with the likes of Neville on a regular basis. Through Neville, for example, I was lucky enough to make the acquaintance of many of his students and indeed how such people as John Lee, Penny Sanderson and Kim Vicente have gone on to exert profound influences upon our science is more than testament to Neville’s mentoring capacities and long-term legacy. For me, Neville was very much like Joel Warm in that although he was never a formal mentor, I always knew where to turn for sage advice; which I needed and got on multiple occasions. It is one of my proudest boasts that I was the junior author on one of Neville’s final theoretical contributions to our science (Moray & Hancock, 2009).
But above all, Neville was always a friend. In his later years following his retirement, Neville embraced his love for painting. In keeping with my own love for art (which is sadly not matched by any facility with brush or pencil) I commissioned him to produce a work that embodied the concept of ‘time.’ For many years it was a running joke between us that I had had to wait longer for his canvass than the Pope had for Michelangelo’s decoration of the whole of the Sistine Chapel. Eventually however, it did arrive and hangs on my office wall today and I can see it as I type these words. Over the years I bought other works from him, always joking how they would explode in value when he was no longer with us. And now that he is gone I do not expect to part with them at whatever price is offered. I find now that too often I have had to eulogize friends who are no longer with us, thus my note to the older generation to cease these unacceptable practices. However, as my colleague John Flach has noted, as others go we ourselves take on this mantle of the older generation. It is not one I embrace.
A picture of a ‘timeless’ Neville Moray. Appearing then as he seemed to appear throughout his professional career. Prize offered for the identification of the computer in use. Hint,
this is not Colossus. Send guesses to Peter Hancock.
Neville on Neville: Professor Stanton’s Story
We found that sharing the same given name was a source of mutual amusement, particularly in emails. We were called Neville Sr. and Neville Jr. by our colleagues. I have thus spent an entire career in the shadow of Neville Sr. and occasionally people have mixed us up. I recall one phone call with someone who from the Defence Evaluation Research Agency (DERA) in the UK wanted to sponsor a study of military team-work. I was flattered that he knew my research so well and was keen to give me the contract. It was not until the end of the conversation, when the contract was almost within my grasp, that I realized that caller thought I was Neville Sr. I confessed that I thought he should be speaking to the other Neville and thus the phone called ended!
I always thought of Neville as the gentleman of Ergonomics and Human Factors. Despite a searing intelligence, he was always gentle in is criticism and encouraging by nature. He was inspirational to researchers following in his footsteps and was keen to elevate the status of our discipline. By the end of his academic career, he was arguing that Cognitive Ergonomics was sufficiently mature to engage in modelling of performance. This aspiration has been hugely influential on my research. Neville Sr. even invited me to join with himself and John Groeger on what he called his last paper, which was an immense privilege. It illustrated exactly how such modelling can be performed in respect of ergonomic issues. Although he was quite ill at the time of writing, he was fully engaged in the process. This paper came about after we had all been involved in expert witness work; and that despite the fact that were on opposite sides of the table! When it came to his retirement, now over more than a decade and a half ago, Neville Sr. told me he was off to the south of France to paint. I did not realise what an accomplished painter he was. His works can be found on display at: http://www.morayart.com as well as https://www.saatchiart.com/nevillemoray. He also found time to write a career book in which he brought all of his thoughts together (see Moray, 2014). Neville Sr’s. legacy will live on in all of us whom he taught, collaborated, and inspired.
John Lee’s Story
My relationship with Neville began when I was an undergraduate and discovered his papers. I sent him a letter requesting reprints related to my interest in mental models and mental workload. Unlike my requests to others, he responded with a generous packet that included a manuscript that introduced me to the idea of trust in automation. This subtle hint to be curious and think beyond my immediate interests was a reflection of his own curiosity and changed the way I look at world. My next interaction came as a surprise. I was researching graduate schools and phoned Penny Sanderson, who was then at the University of Illinois. She enquired about my interests and I mentioned the work of Neville. She asked me if I would like to talk with him. As I knew he was at the University of Toronto I thought her question was purely hypothetical. Instead, when I answered that I would, to my astonishment, she handed over the phone to Neville who had recently moved to Illinois. His inquisitive and caring manner was immediately apparent, even over the phone. In seconds, my choice for graduate school was made, and with each year that passes I realize just how fortunate I was to have made that choice and to have worked with Neville.
I came to Illinois for a non-thesis Master’s degree and stayed for a PhD, not because I knew what I would do with it, but just because it was so much fun to be there. Neville inspired fun research. At one his wonderful parties, Neville described a “tickle machine” that he devised to investigate why people can’t tickle themselves; an intriguing, but somewhat absurd question. Recently however, I had to smile when I discovered a paper addressing exactly this question. Through the same line of inquiry, the authors of this work sought to explore the deep implications for our understanding of the issue of agency (see Blakemore, Wolpert & Frith, 1998)!
Neville’s sense of fun and of what mattered likely founded his seminal research on the ‘Cocktail Party’ phenomenon. I suspect this research was also inspired by his love of parties. Neville’s parties produced some of my fondest memories from graduate school. He always provided amazing food and encouraged lively discussions. These parties gave me and the other students a chance to have informal conversations with those who helped to define the field: Jens Rasmussen, Richard Gregory, John Flach, Penny Sanderson, and Jim Reason, to name but a few. Neville’s generosity with students and knack of making research fun inspired me then, and inspires me now as I try to share and pass on just a bit of what he gave to me and to all of us.
Blakemore, S.J., Wolpert, D.M., & Frith, C.D. (1998). Central cancellation of self-produced tickle sensation. Nature Neuroscience, 1 (7), 635-640.
Moray, N.P. (1959). Attention in dichotic listening: Affective cues and the influence of instructions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11 (1), 56-60.
Moray, N.P. (1979). (Ed.). Mental workload: Its theory and measurement. Plenum Press: New York.
Moray, N.P. (2014). Science, cells an souls: An introduction to human nature. Authorhouse: Bloomington, IN.
Moray, N.P, Groeger, J., & Stanton, N.A. (2017) Quantitative modelling in Cognitive Ergonomics: Predicting signals passed at danger. Ergonomics, 60 (2), 206-220.
Moray, N.P., & Hancock, P.A. (2009). Minkowski spaces as models of human-machine communication. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science, 10 (4), 315-334.
The Foundation for Professional Ergonomics (FPE) proudly announces a redirection of its newest award. In addition to the Dieter Jahns student award, established in 2010, FPE is offering a second award in recognition of a current project that best demonstrates the beneficial outcome of ergonomics practice in real-world applications. The submission deadline is May 31, 2018. The awardee will receive $1,000 and his or her name on a plaque.
The award is a continuation of the Ergonomics Practitioner of the Year, awarded during the previous two years to four colleagues who have demonstrated a lifetime of achievement in ergonomics practice: Andy Imada and Tony Andre of the United States in 2016 and Tom Stewart and Peter Buckle, both from the UK in 2017.
Nominations are open to all practicing ergonomics professionals anywhere in the world, regardless of their tenure, and who have completed their last academic work at least three years previously. Students are not eligible.
Submissions can be made individually or as a group and include adequate descriptions in English, illustrations or photos, and details that address the judging criteria, similar to those of the Dieter Jahns student award. Entries will be judged by a panel from the FPE Board of Directors and its international ambassadors.
Go to www.ergofoundation.org for further details or contact Harvey Cohen directly firstname.lastname@example.org.
The Foundation for Professional Ergonomics (FPE), a nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing professionalism in ergonomics, invites submissions by May 31 for the Dieter W. Jahns Student Practitioner Award. The award was created in honor of Dieter Jahns, a lifelong advocate of the practice of ergonomics and a leader in ergonomics certification. Notification will be sent by July 31.
The annual award is given to the student (or group of students) for a project that demonstrates the major practice areas of ergonomics: analysis, design, implementation and validation. The purpose of the award is to advance professionalism in ergonomics by recognizing educational activities that demonstrate how professional ergonomists make people’s lives at work and at home healthier, safer, more productive, and more satisfying.
The award is open to master’s and doctoral students in ergonomics and ergonomics-related programs. Students who have completed their graduate degrees within one year of submitting are also eligible.
As this is a practitioner award, the student (or students) should describe and document a research or intervention project that exhibits the following:
The major practice areas of ergonomics: analysis, design, implementation, and validation.
Direct, practical application.
Final design recommendations or a description of how the resulting information can be applied to design.
The Award and a cash prize of $2,000 (US) will be presented at the Board of Certification in Professional Ergonomics (BCPE) reception during the HFES Annual Meeting, October 1–5, 2018, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
An acrylic award and $1,000 will be presented to the student author(s) in recognition of their project’s excellence in the practice of ergonomics and human factors.
A certificate and $1,000 will be awarded to the professor who served as the mentor for the student project. The cash award is made to the university department or lab for the professor’s discretionary use to advance education in the practice of ergonomics and human factors.
The student(s), professor, and university will be recognized on the FPE Web site as recipients of the award, and a summary of the student project will be posted.
Submissions can be made individually or as a group. They should provide adequate descriptions, illustrations or photos, and details that address the judging criteria. Entries will be judged by the FPE Board of Directors. Please go to www.ergofoundation.org for complete details on criteria and format.