Changes in performance and bio-mathematical model performance predictions during 45 days of sleep restriction in a simulated space mission.

Lunar habitation and exploration of space beyond low-Earth orbit will require small crews to live in isolation and confinement while maintaining a high level of performance with limited support from mission control. Astronauts only achieve approximately 6 h of sleep per night, but few studies have linked sleep deficiency in space to performance impairment. We studied crewmembers over 45 days during a simulated space mission that included 5 h of sleep opportunity on weekdays and 8 h of sleep on weekends to characterize changes in performance on the psychomotor vigilance task (PVT) and subjective fatigue ratings. We further evaluated how well bio-mathematical models designed to predict performance changes due to sleep loss compared to objective performance. We studied 20 individuals during five missions and found that objective performance, but not subjective fatigue, declined from the beginning to the end of the mission. We found that bio-mathematical models were able to predict average changes across the mission but were less sensitive at predicting individual-level performance. Our findings suggest that sleep should be prioritized in lunar crews to minimize the potential for performance errors. Bio-mathematical models may be useful for aiding crews in schedule design but not for individual-level fitness-for-duty decisions.

Psychometric Personality Differences Between Candidates in Astronaut Selection.

INTRODUCTION: This paper investigates personality traits as potential factors for success in an astronaut selection by comparing personality profiles of unsuccessful and successful astronaut candidates in different phases of the ESA selection procedure. It is further addressed whether personality traits could predict an overall assessment rating at the end of the selection. METHODS: In 2008/2009, ESA performed an astronaut selection with 902 candidates who were either psychologically recommended for mission training (N = 46) or failed in basic aptitude (N = 710) or Assessment Center and interview testing (N = 146). Candidates completed the Temperament Structure Scales (TSS) and the NEO Personality Inventory Revised (NEO-PI-R). RESULTS: Those candidates who failed in basic aptitude testing showed higher levels of Neuroticism (M = 49.8) than the candidates who passed that phase (M = 45.4 and M = 41.6). Additionally, candidates who failed in basic testing had lower levels of Agreeableness (M = 132.9) than recommended candidates (M = 138.1). TSS scales for Achievement (r = 0.19) and Vitality (r = 0.18) showed a significant correlation with the overall assessment rating given by a panel board after a final interview. DISCUSSION: Results indicate that a personality profile similar to Helmreich's "Right Stuff" is beneficial in astronaut selection. Influences of test anxiety on performance are discussed. Mittelstädt JM, Pecena Y, Oubaid V, Maschke P. Psychometric personality differences between candidates in astronaut selection. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2016; 87(11):933-939.