Objective: Using the landmark–route–survey frame-work, this research investigated the effect of synthetic vision systems (SVS) in either low or high visibility conditions on performance in wayfinding and spatial-knowledge-based tasks that probed spatial awareness.
Background: SVS are cockpit displays that depict computer-generated views of the terrain surrounding an aircraft and have been developed to support flight efficiency through improved spatial awareness. No studies have directly measured SVS impact on the three levels of spatial knowledge (landmark, route, and survey).
Method: A total of 55 nonpilots learned a route in four different experimental conditions (high or low visibility, either with or without SVS). Subsequently, they underwent four recall tasks: wayfinding, scene recognition, scene classification, and sketch map. Six dependent measures were used to probe the three levels of spatial knowledge (selection errors, sorting errors, number of landmarks depicted, bidimensional regression) and their use in the wayfinding task (direction errors, designated landmark errors, and wayfinding verbalized hesitations).
Results: SVS produced higher performance in all four tasks. The low visibility condition lowered the wayfinding and scene-recognition performance.
Conclusion: The overall results indicated that visibility mostly affected the first level of spatial knowledge (landmark) inducing a decreased wayfinding performance, whereas the use of SVS influenced the three levels of spatial knowledge (route and survey) inducing an increased wayfinding performance.
Application: Potential applications of this work include spatial knowledge-based measures to evaluate SVS prototypes as well as to assess the relationship between spatial knowledge and spatial awareness.
AginskyV.HarrisC.RensinkR.BeusmansJ. (1997). Two strategies for learning a route in a driving simulator. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 317–331.
2.
AlexanderA. L.PrinzelL. J.WickensC. D.KramerL. J.ArthurJ. J.BaileyR. E. (2009). Evaluating the effects of dimensionality in advanced avionic display concepts for synthetic vision systems. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 19, 105–130.
3.
AlexanderA. L.WickensC. D. (2003, April). The effects of spatial awareness biases on maneuver choice in a cockpit display of traffic information. Paper presented at the 12th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Dayton, OH.
4.
AlexanderA. L.WickensC. D.HardyT. J. (2005). Synthetic vision systems: The effects of guidance symbology, display size, and field of view. Human Factors, 47, 693–707.
5.
ArthurJ. J.PrinzelL. J.IIIKramerL. J.ParrishR. V.BaileyR. E. (2004). Flight simulator evaluation of synthetic vision display concepts to prevent controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) (NASA TP-2004-213008). Washington, DC: NASA.
BoltonM. L.BassE. J. (2009). Comparing perceptual judgment and subjective measures of spatial awareness. Applied Ergonomics, 40, 597–607.
8.
BoltonM. L.BassE. J.ComstockJ. R. (2007). Spatial awareness in synthetic vision systems: Using spatial and temporal judgments to evaluate texture and field of view. Human Factors, 49, 961–974.
9.
BrooksB. M.AttreeE. A.RoseF. D.CliffordB. R.LeadbetterA. (1999). The specify of memory enhancement during interaction with a virtual environment. Memory, 7(1), 65–78.
10.
CarassaA.GeminianiG.MorgantiF.VarottoD. (2002). Active and passive spatial learning in a complex virtual environment: The effect of efficient exploration. Cognitive Processing, 3–4, 65–81.
11.
DarkenR. P. (1995, May). Wayfinding in large-scale virtual world. Paper presented at the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO.
12.
DarkenR. P.PetersonB. (2002). Spatial orientation, wayfinding, and representation. In StanneyK. (Ed.), Handbook of virtual environments: Design, implementation, and applications (pp. 493–518). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
DownsR. M.SteaD. (1973). Cognitive maps and spatial behavior: Process and products. In DownsR. M.SteaD. (Eds.), Image and environment (pp. 8–26). Chicago, IL: Aldine.
14.
FarrellM. J.ArnoldP.PettiferS.AdamsJ.GrahamT.MacManamonM. (2003). Transfer of route learning from virtual to real environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 219–227.
15.
GaunetF.VidalM.KemenyA.BerthozA. (2001). Active, passive and snapshot exploration in a virtual environment: Influence on scene memory, reorientation and path memory. Cognitive Brain Research, 11, 409–420.
16.
GauthierM. S.ParushA.MacudaT.TangD.CraigG.JenningsS. (2008). The impact of night vision goggles on way-finding performance and the acquisition of spatial knowledge. Human Factors, 50, 311–321.
17.
GluckM. (1990). Making sense of human wayfinding: A review of cognitive and linguistic knowledge for personal navigation with a new research direction. Unpublished manuscript, Myke Gluck School of Information Studies, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
18.
HughesM. F.GlaabL. J. (2007). Terrain portrayal for synthetic vision systems head-down displays evaluation results (NASA TP-2007-214864). Washington, DC: NASA.
19.
IshikawaT.MontelloD. R. (2006). Spatial knowledge acquisition from direct experience in the environment: Individual differences in the development of metric knowledge and the integration of separately learned places. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 93–129.
20.
KennedyR. S.LaneN. E.BerbaumK. S.LilienthalM. G. (1993). Simulator sickness questionnaire: An enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 203–230.
21.
KhatwaR.RoelenA. (1998). An analysis of controlled-flight-into-terrain (CFIT) accidents of commercial operators, 1988 through 1994. Flight Safety Digest, 17, 166–212.
22.
LoomisJ. M.KlatzkyR. L.GolledgeR. G.CicinelliJ. G.PellegrinoJ. W.PhyllisA. F. (1993). Nonvisual navigation by blind and sighted: Assessment of path integration ability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 73–91.
23.
LorenzB.Kuritz-KaiserA.SchmerwitzS.TöbbenH. (2006). Improving spatial awareness in the aircraft cockpit: Partially supporting evidence for the concept of scene-linking. Cognitive Processing, 7(Suppl. 1), 149–149.
24.
McCannR. S.AndreA. D.BegaultD.FoyleD. C.WenzelE. (1997, September). Enhancing taxi performance under low visibility: Are moving maps enough. Paper presented at the 41st annual meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA.
25.
McGraw-Hill. (2003). Dictionary of scientific and technical terms, 6E. New York, NY: Author.
26.
McNamaraT. P.RumpB.WernerS. (2003). Egocentric and geocentric frames of reference in memory of large-scale space. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 589–595.
27.
MontelloD. R. (1998). A new framework for understanding the acquisition of spatial knowledge in large-scale environment. In EgenhoferM. J.GolledgeR. G. (Eds.), Spatial and temporal reasoning in geographic information systems (pp. 143–154). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
28.
MontelloD. R. (2005). Navigation. In MiyakeA.ShahP. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking (pp. 257–294). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29.
MorrisC. D.BransfordJ. D.FranksJ. J. (1977). Levels of processing versus transfer appropriate processing. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 16, 519–533.
30.
PéruchP.WilsonP. (2004). Active versus passive learning and testing in a complex outside built environment. Cognitive Processing, 5, 218–227.
31.
PrinzelL. J.ComstockJ. R.GlaabL. J.KramerL. J.ArthurJ. J.BarryJ. S. (2004). The efficacy of head-down and head-up synthetic vision display concepts for retro- and forward-fit of commercial aircraft. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 14, 53–77.
32.
RoedigerH. L.IIIGalloD. A.GeraciL. (2002). Processing approaches to cognition: The impetus from the levels-of-processing framework. Memory, 10, 319–332.
33.
SatalichG. A. (1995). Navigation and wayfinding in virtual reality: Finding proper tools and cues to enhance navigation awareness (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Washington, Seattle.
34.
SchnellT.LemosK. (2002). Terrain sampling density, texture, and shading requirements for SVIS (Final report). Cedar Rapids, IA: Rockwell Collins.
35.
SheltonA. L.McNamaraT. P. (2001). Systems of spatial reference in human memory. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 274–310.
36.
SiegelA. W.WhiteS. H. (1975). The development of spatial representation of large-scale environments. In ReeseH. W. (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (pp. 9–55). New York, NY: Academic Press.
37.
SkeltonR. W.BukachC. M.LauranceH. E.ThomasK. G. F.JacobsW. J. (2000). Humans with traumatic brain injuries show place-learning deficits in computer-generated virtual space. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 22, 157–175.
38.
StuartG. W.HughesP. K. (2009). Towards an understanding of the effect of night vision display imagery on scene recognition. Ergonomics Open Journal, 2, 150–158.
39.
TaylorR. M. (1990). Situational awareness rating technique (SART): The development of a tool for aircrew systems design. Situational awareness in aerospace operations (AGARD-CP-478). Neuilly Sur Seine, France: NATO.
40.
ThorndykeP. W.Hayes-RothB. (1982). Differences in spatial knowledge acquired from maps and navigation. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 560–589.
41.
ToblerW. R. (1994). Bidimensional regression. Geographical Analysis, 26, 187–212.
42.
UhlarikJ.PetersonD.HeroldJ. M. (1998, January). Terrain awareness using a terrain enhanced primary flight display. Paper presented at the 42nd annual meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Chicago, IL.
43.
VidulichM. A.HughesE. R. (1991, September). Testing a subjective metric of situation awareness. Paper presented at the 35th annual meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA.
WallerD.KnappD.HuntE. (2001). Spatial representations of virtual mazes: The role of visual fidelity and individual differences. Human Factors, 43, 147–158.
46.
WalletG.SauzéonH.Arvind PalaP.LarrueF.ZhengX.N’KaouaB. (2011) Virtual/Real Transfer of Spatial Knowledge: Benefit from Visual Fidelity Provided in a Virtual Environment and Impact of Active Navigation. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14 (7-8), 417–423.
47.
WalletG.SauzéonH.RodriguesJ.N’KaouaB. (2009). Transfer of spatial knowledge from a virtual environment to reality: Impact of route complexity and subject’s strategy on the exploration mode. Journal of Virtual Reality and Broadcasting, 6, 572–574.
48.
WickensC. D. (2002a). Situation awareness and workload in aviation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 128–133.
49.
WickensC. D. (2002b). Spatial awareness biases (University of Illinois Institute of Aviation Final Technical Report ARL-02-6 NASA 02-4). Savoy, IL: Aviation Research Lab.
50.
WienerJ.BüchnerS.HölscherC. (2009). Taxonomy of human wayfinding tasks: A knowledge-based approach. Spatial Cognition & Computation, 9(2), 1–14.
51.
WillisK. S.HölscherC.WilbertzG.LiC. (2009). A comparison of spatial knowledge acquisition with maps and mobile maps. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 33, 100–110.
52.
WilsonP.PéruchP. (2002). The influence of interactivity and attention on spatial learning in a desk-top virtual environment. Current Psychology of Cognition, 21, 601–633.
53.
WolbersT.HegartyM. (2010). What determines our navigational abilities?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 138–146.
