Questions Submitted and Government Responses (21 September 2021).pdf

Questions Submitted & Government Responses (W911NF‐18‐S‐0005‐FY21‐05)

Q1: Is there a preference for using field versus lab environments for collecting data? For example, would performance in a virtual environment that simulates extreme situations be acceptable for the development, testing, and refinement of feedback techniques and tools?

A1: Our preference is for solutions that work in the natural field environment, which implies self‐ regulation skills that specifically, yet holistically, address field contexts. Ostensibly, many of these contextual features may be difficult to fully replicate in artificial environments. If our goal is to enrich the feedback back loop to an individual about their performance under specific field contexts, the more abstract methods (including virtual) may fail to faithfully represent key factors of both context and performance as they often are applied together. That said, we are intrigued by training approaches that argue for lab or virtual training methods as long as they are also well informed by sensitive/specific/salient data from the field and rely on technology that can be scaled across the Army. Ultimately, any formative self‐regulation competency platforms constructed under this award would need to graduate toward field applications and be validated in the Soldiers’ natural operating environments. Thus, proposed interventions that rely on abstract methods would need to successfully argue for their necessity and validity in enhancing Soldier developmental trajectories in complex and variable natural environments.

Q2: In general, is there existing performance outcome data that could be made available for this effort (e.g. mission outcomes; training outcomes; performance evaluations; physiological data)? I assume that the type of data available would vary by context/application.

A2: Yes, but depending on how this question is asked… We do not have a library of existing data that may be used in this way, except possibly to pilot explorations of general concepts. Also, while the Army does track training outcomes, many of these data are designed to track performance success for qualification purposes and may lack the functional detail necessary for mechanistic or diagnostic descriptions of performance. We would seek to find or develop technologies and techniques that would enable targeted and individualized interventions above what can be determined by extant training performance records alone.

Q3: In the list of previously submitted questions, it is stated that you have already initiated some work in this area (effort ongoing). Is it anticipated that this effort will result in a cooperative agreement to leverage ARI’s ongoing effort in this or other areas?

A3: Yes, all of our previous or current work in the area of self‐regulation will be used to support the future work associated with this award.