An aircraft simulator, with a closed-loop computer-generated visual display, was used to teach flight-naive subjects to land. A control training condition in which subjects learned to land with reference to a skeletal airport scene consisting of a horizon, runway, centerline, and aiming bar was tested against training with constantly augmented feedback, adaptively augmented feedback, and a flightpath tracking display. A simulator-to-simulator adaptively of training design showed that adaptively trained subjects performed best in a transfer task that was identical to the control group's training condition. Several subjects attempted six landings in a light airplane after they had completed their experimental work in the simulator. They performed better than another group of subjects that had not had any landing practice in the simulator.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Artwick, B. A.A versatile computer-generated dynamic flight display. Savoy, Illinois: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Aviation Research Laboratory, Technical Report ARL-76-S/ONR-76-1, 1976.
2.
Bilodeau, E. A.Some effects of various degrees of supple mental information given at two levels of practice upon the acquisition of a complex motor skill. Brooks AFB: U.S. Air Force Human Resources Research Center, Research Bulletin 52-15, 1952.
3.
Brown, E. L., Matheny, W. G., and Flexman, R. E.Evaluation of the school Link as an aid to teaching ground reference maneuvers. Port Washington, New York: Office of Naval Research, Special Devices Center, Technical Report SDC 71-16-8, 1950.
4.
Creelman, J. A.Evaluation of approach training procedures. Pensacola. Florida: U.S. Naval School of Aviation Medicine, Report Number 2, 1955.
5.
Eisele, J. E., Williges, R. C., and Roscoe, S. N.The isolation of minimum sets of visual image cues sufficient for spatial orientation during aircraft landing approaches. Savoy, Illinois: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Aviation Research Laboratory. Technical Report ARL-76-16/ONR-76-3, 1976.
6.
Gilson, R. D. and Ventola, R. W.Tactual commands for pilot flare training. Proceedings of the twelfth annual conference on manual control. Washington, D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Technical Memorandum TM X-73, 170, 1976.
7.
Goldstein, M. and Rittenhouse, C. H.Knowledge of results in the acquisition and transfer of a gunnery skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1954, 48, 187–196.
8.
Gordon, N. B. and Gottlieb, M. J.Effect of supplemental visual cues on rotary pursuit. Journal of Experimental Psychology.1967, 15, 566–568.
9.
Hopkins, C. O.Studies of attitude-director indicator steering signal dynamics. Culver City, California: Hughes Aircraft Company, Reference 4112. 7/92, 1957.
10.
Karlin, L.Effects of delay and mode of presentation of extra cues on pursuit-rotor performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1965, 70, 438–440.
11.
Karlin, L. and Mortimer, R. G.Effect of verbal. visual, and auditory augmenting cues on learning a complex motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 65, 75–79.
12.
Kelley, C. R.What is adaptive training?Human Factors, 1969, 11, 547–556.
13.
Kincade, R. G. A differential influence of augmented feedback on learning and on performance. Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio: U.S. Air Force AMRL Technical Documentary Report 63-12, 1963.
14.
Lintern, G. and Gopher, D.Adaptive training of perceptual motor skills: issues, results and future directions. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 1978, 10, 521–551.
15.
Morin, R. E. and Gagne, R. M.Pedestal Sight Manipulation Test performance as influenced by variations in type and amount of psychological feedback. U.S. Air Force Human Resources Research Center, Research Note P and MS 51-7, 1951.
16.
Ornstein, G. N., Nichols, I. A., and Flexman, R. E.Evaluation of a contact flight simulator when used in an Air Force primary pilot training program: Part II. Effectiveness of training on component skills. Goodfellow Air Force Base. Texas: Air Force Personnel and Training Research Center, Basic Pilot Research Laboratory, Report AFPTRC-TR-54-110, 1954.
17.
Payne, R. B. and Richardson, E. T.Effects of classically differentiated supplementary feedback cues on tracking skill. Journal of Motor Behavior.1972, 4, 257–261.
18.
Payne, T. A., Dougherty, D. J., Hasler, S. G., Skeen, J. R., Brown, E. L., and Williams, A. C., Jr.Improving landing performance using a contact landing trainer. Port Washington, New York: Office of Naval Research, Special Devices Center, Technical Report SDC-71-16-11, 1954.
19.
Reynolds, B. and Adams, J. A.Motor performance as a function of click reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1953, 45, 315–320.
20.
Roscoe, S. N., Hasler, S. G., and Dougherty, D. J.Flight by periscope: Making takeoffs and landings; the influence of image magnification, practice, and various conditions of flight. Human Factors, 1966. 8, 13–40.
21.
Smith, R. L., Pence, G. G., Queen, J. E., and Wulfeck, J. W.Effect of a predictor instrument on learning to land a simulated jet trainer. Inglewood. California: Dunlap and Associates, Inc., 1974.
22.
Smode, A. F.Learning and performance in a tracking task under two levels of achievement motivation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1958, 56, 297–304.
23.
Stockbridge, H. W. C. and Chambers, B.Aiming, transfer of training, and knowledge of results. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1958, 42, 148–153.
24.
Von Buseck, C. R.Augmented feedback in a simulated driving task. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1965.
25.
Williams, A. C. and Briggs, G. E.On-target versus offtarget information and the acquisition of tracking skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1962, 64, 519–525.
