Effects of Display Magnification,Proprioceptive Cues,Control Dynamics and Trajectory Characteristics on Compensatory Tracking Performance

Abstract

An experiment was performed on the NOTS-UCLA heavy inertia tracking simulator to assess effects of display magnification, proprioceptive cues, displacement aiding, trajectory characteristics and trajectory direction on tracking performance. Particular attention was paid to interactions among these variables. The results showed that: (1) 5x magnification significantly decreased tracking error compared to tracking without magnification; (2) proprioceptive cues related to both azimuth and elevation significantly improved performance; (3) velocity plus displacement-aiding control dynamics (time constant = 0.1 sec) produced significantly lower error scores than unaided velocity control dynamics (time constant = 0.0 sec); (4) since no crossover tendencies were found, the effects of the varables appear to be independent.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Battig

W. F.

Nagel

E. H.

Brogden

W. J.

The effects of error-magnification and marker size on bidimensional compensatory tracking.

Amer. J. Psychol., 1955, 68, 585–594

Bowen

J. H.

Chernikoff

The relationships between magnification and course frequency in compensatory aided tracking. U. S. Naval Res. Lab. Rep. No. 4913, 1957

Bowen

J. H.

Chernikoff

The effects of magnification and average course velocity on compensatory tracking. U. S. Naval Res Lab. Rep. No. 5186, 1958

Chernikoff

Taylor

F. V.

Effects of course frequency and aided time constant on pursuit and compensatory tracking.

J. exp. Psychol., 1957, 53, 285–292

Chernikoff

Birmingham

H. P.

Taylor

F. V.

A comparison of pursuit and compensatory tracking under conditions of aiding and no aiding.

J. exp. Psychol., 1955, 49, 55–59

Edwards

A. E.

Experimental design in psychological research. New York: Rhinehart, 1960

Garfinkle

D. R.

Smith

R. L.

Groth

Hilde

Lyman

Performance studies on the NOTS-UCLA tracking simulator: effects of error magnification, field of view, propioceptive cues and control dynamics. Biotech. Lab. Tech. Rep. No. 20, University of Calif., Los Angeles, 1963

Gottsdanker

R. M.

Frick

J. W.

Lockard

R. B.

identifying the acceleration of visual targets.

Brit. J. Psychol., 1961, 51, 31–42

Hartman

B. O.

The effect of target frequency on compensatory tracking. U. S. Army Med. Res. Lab. Rep. No. 272, 1957

10.

Hartman

B. O.

Fitts

P. M.

Relations of stimulus and response amplitude to tracking performance,

J. exp. Psychol., 1955, 49, 82–92

11.

Howard

J. A.

Kreifeldt

J. G.

Garfinkle

D. R.

System description of the human tracking installation at the UCLA Biotechnology Laboratory. Biotech. Lab. Tech. Rep. No. 19, University of Calif., Los Angeles, 1963

12.

Lockard

R. B.

Evaluation program of tracking controller studies. U. S. Naval Ord. Test Station Tech. Note No 304-7 , China Lake, Calif., 1955

13.

Lockard

R. B.

Some pre-experimental considerations in tracking research. U. S. Naval Ord. Test Station Tech. Note No. 304-24 , China Lake, Calif., 1957

14.

McGuire

J. C.

The effect of target velocity and the area of error-tolerance circles upon performance in a two-dimensional compensatory tracking task. USAF WADC Tech Rep. No. 54-431, 1954

15.

Middleton

W. C.

Howard

J. A.

Evaluation of certain control systems with 40 mm mount and TV tracking. University of Calif. Dept. Engr. Tech. Rep. No. 59-25, Los Angeles, 1959

16.

Seidenstein

Chernikoff

Taylor

F. V.

The relationship of retinal-gain index to system performance. U. S. Naval Res. Lab. Rep. No. 5548, 1960

17.

Smith

R. L.

Garfinkle

D. R.

Groth

Hilde

Lyman

Performance studies on the NOTS-UCLA tracking simulator: independent effects of error magnification and field of view. Biotech. Lab. Tech. Rep., University of Calif., Los Angeles, 1966 (in press)