Some handbooks and human factors design guides have recommended that a voice warning should be preceded by a tone to attract attention to the warning. As far as can be determined from a search of the literature, no experimental evidence supporting this exists. A fixed-base simulator flown by airline pilots was used to test the hypothesis that the total "system-time" to respond to a synthesized voice cockpit warning would be longer when the message was preceded by a tone because the voice itself was expected to perform both the alerting and the information transfer functions. The simulation included realistic ATC radio voice communications, synthesized engine noise, cockpit conversation, and realistic flight routes. The effect of a tone before a voice warning was to lengthen response time; that is, responses were slower with an alerting tone. Lengthening the voice warning with another word, however, did not increase response time.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aeronautical Radio, Inc. AIRINC Characteristic 577-1: Audible warning system. revised March 31, 1975. Annapolis: Author, 1975.
2.
Bate, A. J.Cockpit warning systems comparative study. Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Air Force Systems Command, Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Technical Report AMRL-TR-68-193. May. 1969.
3.
Beranek, L. L.The design of speech communication systems. Proceedings of the Institute of Radio Engineers, 1947, 35, 880–890.
4.
British Airways. Warning systems: Part I, voice warnings and Part II, a general consideration of audible warnings. Paper presented at the Twentieth Technical Conference of the International Air Transport Association, Istanbul. Novermber 10-15. 1975.
5.
Brown, J. E., Bertone, C. M., and Obermeyer, R. W.Army aircraft voice warning system study. Prepared by the Bunker-Ramo Corporation for Aberdeen Proving Ground. MD: U.S. Army Human Engineering Laboratories, U.S. Army Technical Memorandum 6-68, AMCMS Code 5122.12.43500, February, 1968.
6.
Burrows, A. A. and Ford, H. K.Sounds as warnings in aircraft. United Kingdom: Air Ministry, Royal Air Force Institute of Aviation Medicine. FPRC 966, May. 1956. Published as Burrows. A. A. Choice response in quiet and loaded channels with verbal and non-verbal auditory stimuli. Human Factors, 1962, 4, 187-191.
7.
Cherry, E. E.Some experiments on the recognition of speech with one and two ears. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.1953, 25. 975–979.
8.
Deathridge, B. H.Auditory and other sensory forms of information presentation. In Van Cott, H. P. and Kinkade, R. G. (Eds.) Human engineering guide to equipment design, rev. ed.Washington D.C.: Sponsored by the Joint Army-Navy-Air Force Steering Committee. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.
9.
Deathridge, B. H. and Evans, T. R.Binaural masking: Backward, forward, and simultaneous effects. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1969, 46.362–371.
10.
Erlick, D. E. and Hun, D. P.Evaluating audio warning displays for weapon systems. Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Wright Air Development Center. Aeromedical Laboratory, WADC Technical Report 57-222, Armed Services Technical Information Agency Document No. AD118189, April, 1957.
11.
Garner, W. R. and Miller, G. A.The masked threshold of pure tones as a function of duration. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1947, 37, 293–303.
12.
Hart, S. G. and Simpson, C. A.Effects of linguistic redundancy on synthesized cockpit warning message comprehension and concurrent time estimation. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference on Manual Control, Moffett Field, CA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Ames Research Center, NASA TMX-73. 170, May, 1976.
13.
Kemmerling, P., Geiselhart, R., Thornburn, D. E., and Cronburg, J. G.A comparison of voice and tone warning systems as a function of task loading. Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Air Force Systems Command, Aeronautical Systems Division, Deputy for Engineering, Technical Report ASD-TR-69-104, September, 1969.
14.
Kidera, G. J. and Gaskill, P. B.Hearing threshold sensitivity in airline pilots. Aerospace Medicine, 1974, 45, 780–781.
15.
Lashley, K. S.The problem of serial order in behavior. In Saporta, S. (Ed.) Psycholinguistics: A book of readings, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1961.
16.
Lilleboe, M. L.Final report: Evaluation of Astropower, Inc., auditory information display installed in the VA-3B airplane. Patuxent River, MD: U.S. Naval Air Station, Naval Air Test Center, Technical Report ST 31-22R-63, AD 831823, June, 1963.
17.
Simpson, C. A.Effects of linguistic redundancy on pilots' comprehension of synthesized speech, Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference on Manual Control, Moffett Field, CA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Ames Research Center, NASA TMX-73170, May, 1976.
18.
Simpson, C. A. and Hart, S. G.Required attention for synthesized speech perception for two levels of linguistic redundancy. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1977, 61, Suppl. 1, S7/D3.
19.
Stevens, K. N.Toward a model for speech reçognition, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1960, 32, 47–55.
20.
Stevens, S. S. and Davis, H.Hearing, its psychology and physiologyNew York: John Wiley and Sons, 1938.
21.
Stroface, J. F. and Starke, R. T.Operational test and evaluation: Verbal warning system. Langley Air Force Base, VA: U.S. Air Force, Headquarters, Tactical Air Command, Report Number TAC-TR-62-20, AD 416258, June, 1963.
22.
Tobias, L., Palmer, E. A. and O'Brien, P. J.Simulation study of the effects of fuel-conservative approaches. Journal of Aircraft, 1979, 16, 498–505.
23.
U.S. Department of Defense. Human engineering design criteria for military systems, equipment, and facilities. Washington, D.C.: Author, MIL-STD-1472B, 1974.
24.
Van Cott, H. P. and Kinkade, R. G., (Eds.) Human engineering guide to equipment design, rev. ed.Washington, D.C.: Sponsored by the Joint Army-Navy-Air Force Steering Committee, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.
