Effectiveness of simulator training compared to machine training for equipment operators in the logging industry

References

• Allen T, Han H-S, Shook SR. 2008. A structural assessment of the contract logging sector in the Inland Northwest. Forest Prod J. 58:27–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker S, Greene D. 2008. Changes in Georgia’s logging workforce, 1987-2007. South J Appl for. 32:60–68. doi:10.1093/sjaf/32.2.60.
   Google Scholar
• Brinker RW, Kinard J, Rummer B, Lanford B. 2002. Machines rates for selected harvesting machines. Circular 296 (Revised). Alabama Agri Exp Station Auburn Alabama. 32.
   Google Scholar
• Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2022. Occupational employment and Wages, May 2021: 45- 4022 logging equipment operators. https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes454022.htm (accessed 2022 Sept 8).
   Google Scholar
• Burk E. 2022. Simulator-based training for logging equipment operators. Master’s Thesis, Flagstaff, AZ, USA: Northern Arizona University.
   Google Scholar
• Calabrese D 2000. Canadian switches to mechanized, cut-to-length. TimberLine Magazine. http://www.timberlinemag.com/articledatabase/view.asp?articleID=222 (accessed 2021 Sept 22).
   Google Scholar
• Chang H, Han H-S, Anderson N, Kim YS, Han S-K. 2023. The cost of forest thinning operations in the western United States: a systematic literature review and new thinning cost model. J for. 121(2):193–206. In press. doi:10.1093/jofore/fvac037.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conrad JL, Greene WD, Hiesl P. 2018. A review of changes in US logging businesses 1980s-present. J for. 116(3):291–303. doi:10.1093/jofore/fvx014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cools E. 2020. 2020 Contractor Survey. Simcoe, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Forest Industries.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards R, Han H-S. 2021. Forest equipment operator course program and curriculum (draft). Flagstaff, Arizona: Ecological Restoration Institute. Unpublished.
   Google Scholar
• Freedman P 2004. Operator training with simulator-based help in Quebec. Simulator- based training of forest machine operators – A presentation; 18 Nov; Quebec, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• He M, Smidt M, Li W, Zhang Y. 2021. Logging industry in the United States: employment and profitability. Forests. 12(12):1720. doi:10.3390/f12121720.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoss C 2001. Harvester simulators as effective tools in education. Thinnings, a valuable forest management tool – An international conference; September. Quebec, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• LaPointe JF, Robert JM. 2000. Using VR for efficient training of forestry machine operators. Educ Inform Technol. 5(4):237–250. doi:10.1023/A:1012045305968.
   Google Scholar
• Leon BH, Benjamin JG. 2012. A survey of business attributes, harvest capacity and equipment infrastructure of logging businesses in the northern forest. Orono, ME, USA: University of Maine School of Forest Resources.
   Google Scholar
• Meyers IP, Starr AW, Mullins K. 2018. Flight simulator fidelity, training transfer, and the role of instructors in optimizing learning. Int J Aviat, Aeronaut, Aerosp. 5. doi:10.15394/ijaaa.2018.1203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ovaskainen H. 2005. Comparison of harvester work in forest and simulator environments. Silv Fenn. 39(1):89–101. doi:10.14214/sf.398.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pagnussat MB, Lopes EDS, Robert RCG. 2021. Machine availability and productivity during timber harvester machine operator training. Can J for. 51(3):433–438. doi:10.1139/cjfr-2020-0164.
   Google Scholar
• Proctor RW, Dunston PS, So JCY, Lopez-Santamaria BN, Yamaguchi M, Wang X. 2013. Specificity of transfer in basic and applied perceptual-motor tasks. Amer J Psychol. 126(4):401–415. doi:10.5406/amerjpsyc.126.4.0401.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pürfurst FT. 2010. Learning curves of harvester operators. Croat J Eng. 31:89–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ranta P 2009. Added values of forestry machine simulator based training. Proceedings from the International Conference on Multimedia and ICT Education; 22–24 April; Libson, Portugal.
   Google Scholar
• Riggs JL, Bedworth DD, Randhawa SU 1996. Chapter 12: break even analysis. In: Case K, Wolfe P, editors. Engineering Economics, 4th ed. USA: The McGraw Hill Companies, Inc; p. 473–511.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson R, Makkonen I 1994. The performance of cut-to-length systems in eastern Canada. For Eng Res Inst Can. Technical Report TR-109.
   Google Scholar
• Said S, Gozdzik M, Roche TR, Braun J, Rossler J, Kaserer A, Spahn DR, Nothiger CB, Tscholl DW. 2020. Validation of the raw National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) questionnaire to assess perceived workload in patient monitoring tasks: pooled analysis study using mixed models. J Med Internet Res. 22:9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith DW. 2012. Logging cost and productivity associated with labor and mechanization in the eastern United States. Theses and Dissertations 2969. Mississippi State University.
   Google Scholar
• So JCY, Macrowski LM, Dunston PS, Proctor RW, Goodney JE 2016. Transfer of operator training from simulated to real hydraulic excavators. Proceedings from the 2016 Construction Research Congress; 31 May 2 June; San Juan, Puerto Rico. doi:10.1061/9780784479827.196.
   Google Scholar
• Vaughan D, Edgeley CM, Han H-S. 2021. Forest contracting businesses in the southwest: current profile and workforce training needs. J for. 120:186–197. doi:10.1093/jofore/fvab060.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wenhold R, Ackerman P, Ackerman S, Gagliardi K. 2019. Skills development of mechanized softwood sawtimber cut-to-length harvester operators on the Highveld of South Africa. Int J for Eng. 31:1–10. doi:10.1080/14942119.2019.1578561.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yates B. 2000. High tech training of high-tech workforce in the forest industry. ; 11 - 13 September 2000; Kelowna, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Xu Y, Smidt M, Zhang Y. 2014. Logging worker wage, performance, and experience. For Prod J. 64(5–6):210–216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yerkes RM, Dodson JD. 1908. The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. J Comp Neurol Psychol. 18(5):459–482.
   Google Scholar