To examine the importance of platform motion to the transfer of performance in motion simulators.
Background:
The importance of platform motion in simulators for pilot training is strongly debated. We hypothesized that the type of motion (e.g., disturbance) contributes significantly to performance differences.
Methods:
Participants used a joystick to perform a target tracking task in a pod on top of a MOOG Stewart motion platform. Five conditions compared training without motion, with correlated motion, with disturbance motion, with disturbance motion isolated to the visual display, and with both correlated and disturbance motion. The test condition involved the full motion model with both correlated and disturbance motion. We analyzed speed and accuracy across training and test as well as strategic differences in joystick control.
Results:
Training with disturbance cues produced critical behavioral differences compared to training without disturbance; motion itself was less important.
Conclusion:
Incorporation of disturbance cues is a potentially important source of variance between studies that do or do not show a benefit of motion platforms in the transfer of performance in simulators.
Application:
Potential applications of this research include the assessment of the importance of motion platforms in flight simulators, with a focus on the efficacy of incorporating disturbance cues during training.
Barnett-CowanM.HarrisL. R. (2009). Perceived timing of vestibular stimulation relative to touch, light and sound. Experimental Brain Research, 198, 221–231.
2.
BowenS. A.OakleyB. P.BarnettJ. S. (2006). Effects of motion on skill acquisition in future simulators (ARI Study Report 2006–7). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
3.
Bürki-CohenJ.BootheE. M.SojaN. N.DiSarioR. D.GoT.LongridgeT. (2000, May). Simulator fidelity: The effect of platform motion. In Proceedings of the Royal Aeronautical Society Conference on Flight Simulation—The Next Decade. London: Royal Aeronautical Society.
4.
Bürki-CohenJ.GoT. H. (2005). The effect of simulator motion cues on initial training of airline pilots. In Proceedings of the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit (AIAA 2005–6109). San Francisco, CA: AIAA.
5.
Bürki-CohenJ.GoT. H.LongbridgeT. (2001, August). Flight simulator fidelity considerations for total air line pilot training and evaluation (AIAA Paper 2001–4425). Paper presented at the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
6.
Bürki-CohenJ.SojaN. N.LongridgeT. (1998). Simulator platform motion—The need revisited. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(3), 293–317.
7.
Bürki-CohenJ.SparkoA. L.BellmanM. (2011). Flight simulator motion literature pertinent to airline-pilot recurrent training and evaluation. In Proceedings of the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit. San Francisco, CA: AIAA.
8.
CaroP. W. (1979). The relationship between flight simulator motion and training requirements. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 21(4), 493–501.
9.
de WinterJ. C. F.DodouD.MulderM. (2012). Training effectiveness of whole body flight simulator motion: A comprehensive meta-analysis. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 22(2), 164–183. doi:10.1080/10508414.2012.663247
10.
GoT. H.Bürki-CohenJ.ChungW. W.SchroederJ.SaillantG.JacobsS.LongridgeT. (2003, August). The effects of enhanced hexapod motion on airline pilot recurrent training and evaluation. In Proceedings of the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference. San Francisco, CA: AIAA.
11.
GoT. H.Bürki-CohenJ.SojaN. N. (2000, August). The effect of simulator motion on pilot training and evaluation. In Proceedings of the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference (pp. 14–17). San Francisco, CA: AIAA
12.
GraybielA.KneptonJ. (1976). Sopite syndrome: A sometimes sole manifestation of motion sickness. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 47(8), 873–882.
13.
GundryJ. (1976, April). Man and motion cues. In Third Flight Simulation Symposium. London: Royal Aeronautical Society.
14.
HolmS. (1979). A simple sequential rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.
15.
HosmanR.StassenH. (1999). Pilot’s perception in the control of aircraft motions. Control Engineering Practice, 7(11), 1421–1428.
16.
JacobsR. S.RoscoeS. N. (1975, January). Simulator cockpit motion and the transfer of initial flight training. In The Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation & Education Conference (I/ITSEC). Arlington, VA: National Training Systems Association.
17.
JohnstonP. J.CatanoV. M. (2013). Investigating the validity of previous flying experience, both actual and simulated, in predicting initial and advanced military pilot training performance. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 23(3), 227–244.
18.
KoonceJ. M. (1979). Predictive validity of flight simulators as a function of simulator motion. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 21, 215–223.
19.
LawsonB. D.MeadA. M. (1998). The sopite syndrome revisited: Drowsiness and mood changes during real or apparent motion. Acta Astronautica, 43(3), 181–192.
20.
LeeA. T.BussolariS. R. (1989). Flight simulator platform motion and air transport pilot training. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 60, 136–140.
21.
LishmanJ. R.LeeD. N. (1973). The autonomy of visual kinaesthesis. Perception, 2, 287–294.
22.
LoneM. M.CookeA. K. (2013). Pilot-model-in-the-loop simulation environment to study large aircraft dynamics. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 227, 555–568.
23.
McCauleyM. E. (2006). Do Army helicopter training simulators need motion bases? (Technical Report 1179). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
24.
McDanielW. C.ScottP. G.BrowningR. F. (1983). Contribution of platform motion simulation in SH-3 helicopter pilot training (No. TAEG-TR-153). Orlando, FL: Training Analysis and Evaluation Group (Navy).
25.
NieuwenhuizenF. M.MulderM.van PaassenM. M.BülthoffH. H. (2013). Influences of simulator motion system characteristics on pilot control behavior. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 36(3), 667–676.
26.
ProctorM. D.BauerM.LucarioT. (2007). Helicopter flight training through serious aviation gaming. The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology, 4(3), 277–294.
27.
RoessinghJ. J. (2005). Transfer of manual flying skills from PC-based simulation to actual flight-comparison of in-flight measured data and instructor ratings. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 15(1), 67–90.
28.
SalasE.BowersC. A.RhodenizerL. (1998). It is not how much you have but how you use it: Toward a rational use of simulation to support aviation training. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(3), 197–208.
29.
SparkoA. L.Bürki-CohenJ.GoT. H. (2010). Transfer of training from a full-flight simulator vs. a high level flight training device with a dynamic seat. In Proceedings of the AIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference and Exhibit (Vol. 8218). San Francisco, CA: AIAA.
30.
ValverdeH. H. (1973). A review of flight simulator transfer of training studies. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 15, 510–522.
31.
Van der PalJ. (1999). The effect of simulator motion on parameter training for F–16 pilots. Engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics: Vol. 3. Transportation systems, medical ergonomics and training. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics (pp. 267–275). Oxford, UK: Ashgate.
32.
WoodruffR. R.SmithJ. F.FullerJ. R.WeyerD. C. (1976). Full mission simulation in undergraduate pilot training: An exploratory study (AFHRL–TR–76–84). Brooks Air Force Base, TX: Air Force Human Research Laboratory.
