Analysis of Lookout Activity in a Simulated Environment to Investigate Maritime Accidents Caused by Human Error
Source abstract
Abstract
Maritime accidents remain a significant concern for the shipping industry, despite recent technological developments. In the Republic of Korea, the leading cause of maritime accidents is navigator error, particularly in collisions and groundings; this cause has led to 79% of maritime accidents, according to a recent assessment. The reduction of navigator error is crucial for accident prevention; however, the lack of objective measures to monitor navigator error remains a challenge. The purpose of this study was to develop an objective classification of navigation behaviors in a simulated environment. The statistical model of classification of lookout activity was developed by collecting participants’ lookout behavior using a Kinect sensor within a given scenario. This classification model was validated in non-scenario experiments. The results showed that seven standard lookout activities during a lookout routine were accurately classified in both the model development and validation phases. The proposed model classification of lookout activity using an optical sensor is expected to provide a better understanding of how navigators behave to help prevent maritime accidents in practice.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Maritime Navigation and Safety · Marine and Coastal Research · Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Division of Navigation & Information Systems, Mokpo National Maritime University, Mokpo 58628, Korea
Department of Maritime Transportation System, Mokpo National Maritime University, Mokpo 58628, Korea
Division of Navigation Sciences, Korea Maritime and Ocean University, Busan 49112, Korea
Funding
the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries of Korea
References (21)
Show source-provided references
1. Human fatigue’s effect on the risk of maritime groundings—A Bayesian Network modeling approach10.1016/j.ssci.2013.10.002 ↗
2. Human error: Models and management10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768 ↗
3. Human error risk management for engineering systems: A methodology for design, safety assessment, accident investigation and training10.1016/j.ress.2003.09.013 ↗
4. Behavior of ship officers in maneuvering to prevent a collision10.51400/2709-6998.2084 ↗
5. Rip, A. (2018). Constructive technology assessment. Futures of Science and Technology in Society, Springer VS.10.1007/978-3-658-21754-9 ↗
6. Branch, M.A.I., House, C., and Place, C. (2004). Bridge Watchkeeping Safety Study.
7. Corporate, A.G. (2017). Safety and Shipping Review, Allianz Global Corporate and Specialty.
8. Human and organisational factors in maritime accidents: Analysis of collisions at sea using the HFACS10.1016/j.aap.2013.05.006 ↗
9. Basic evaluation of performance of bridge resource teams involved in on-board smart education: Lookout pattern
10. Deficiencies in Learning COLREGs and New Teaching Methodology for Nautical Engineering Students and Seafarers in Lifelong Learning Programs10.1017/S037346331500096X ↗
11. Effects of 6/6 and 4/8 watch systems on sleepiness among bridge officers10.1080/07420520802106769 ↗
12. Lützhöft, M., and Dukic, T. (2007, January 1–3). Show me where you look and I’ll tell you if you’re safe: Eye tracking of maritime watchkeepers. Proceedings of the 39th Nordic Ergonomics Society Conference, Lysekil, Sweden.
13. Bjørneseth, F.B., Renganayagalu, S.K., Dunlop, M.D., Homecker, E., and Komandur, S. (2012, January 12–14). Towards an experimental design framework for evaluation of dynamic workload and situational awareness in safety critical maritime settings. Proceedings of the 26th Annual BCS Interaction Specialist Group Conference on People and Computers, Birmingham, UK.10.14236/ewic/HCI2012.43 ↗
14. Di Nocera, F., Mastrangelo, S., Colonna, S.P., Steinhage, A., Baldauf, M., and Kataria, A. (2015, January 14–16). Mental workload assessment using eye-tracking glasses in a simulated maritime scenario. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Europe, Groningen, The Netherlands.
15. Calibration of kinect for xbox one and comparison between the two generations of microsoft sensors10.3390/s151127569 ↗
16. Gait assessment using the Microsoft Xbox One Kinect: Concurrent validity and inter-day reliability of spatiotemporal and kinematic variables10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.05.021 ↗
17. Concurrent validity of the Microsoft Kinect for assessment of spatiotemporal gait variables10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.08.011 ↗
18. Shotton, J., Fitzgibbon, A., Cook, M., Sharp, T., Finocchio, M., Moore, R., Kipman, A., and Blake, A. (2011, January 20–25). Real-time human pose recognition in parts from single depth images. Proceedings of the 24th IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR 2011), Springs, CO, USA.10.1109/CVPR.2011.5995316 ↗
19. Human activity recognition via recognized body parts of human depth silhouettes for residents monitoring services at smart home10.1177/1420326X12469714 ↗
20. Microsoft kinect sensor and its effect10.1109/MMUL.2012.24 ↗
21. Human Activity Recognition Process Using 3-D Posture Data10.1109/THMS.2014.2377111 ↗