The Visual Technology Research Simulator was used for a quasi-transfer-of-training study in which 32 military pilots were taught to deliver bombs from a 30-deg dive. Scene content had a strong and consistent effect on performance and on differential transfer. A landscape scene that contained buildings, roads, and rectangular fields was better than a schematic grid pattern for both training and transfer. Scene variety in training did not benefit transfer, and there is a distinct possibility that it can interfere with early learning. Augmented feedback proved to be a potent instructional variable, but one that showed complex effects. It helped inexperienced pilots with their dive pitch control, and it helped the more experienced pilots with their longitudinal bombing error. The data presented here have strong implications for design and use of flight training simulators in that they indicate the importance of scene content and augmented feedback as training variables.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Archer, E. J., Kent, G. W., and Mote, F. A. (1956). Effect of long-term practice and time-on-target information feedback on a complex training task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51, 103–112.
2.
Duncan, C. P. (1958). Transfer after training with single versus multiple tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 63–72.
3.
Gibson, E. J. (1969). Principles of perceptual learning and development. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
4.
Holding, D. H. (1976). An approximate transfer surface. Journal of Motor Behavior, 8, 1–9.
5.
Hughes, R. G., Paulsen, J., Brooks, R., and Jones, W. (1979). Visual cue manipulation in a simulated air-to surface weapon delivery task. In Proceedings of 1st Inter service Industrial Training Equipment Conference (Tech. Report IH-316, pp. 95-102). Orlando: Naval Training Equipment Center.
6.
Karlin, L. (1960). Psychological study of motor skills: Phase 1 (Tech. Report 558-L). Port Washington, NY: Naval Training Device Center.
7.
Lesgold, A. M. (1983). Acquiring expertise (Tech. Report UPITT/LRDC/ONRJPDS-5). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center.
8.
Lewis, D., McAllister, D. E., and Adams, J. A. (1951). Facilitation and interference in performance on the modified Mashburn apparatus: I. The effects of varying the amount of original learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41, 247–260.
9.
Lewis, D., McAllister, D. E., and Bechtoldt, H. P. (1953a). Correlational analysis of the learning and relearning of four different tasks on the modified Mashburn apparatus. Journal of Psychology, 36, 83–109.
10.
Lewis, D., McAllister, D. E., and Bechtoldt, H. P. (1953b). Correlational study of performance during successive phases of practice on the standard and revised tasks on the SAM complex coordinator. Journal of Psychology, 36, 111–126.
11.
Lewis, D., and Miles, G. H. (1956). Retroactive interference in performance on the star discrimeter as a function of amount of interpolated learning. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 6, 295–298.
12.
Lewis, D., and Shephard, A. H. (1950). Devices for studying associative interference in psychomotor performance: I. The modified Mashburn apparatus. Journal of Psychology, 24, 35–46.
13.
Lintern, G. (1978). Transfer of landing skill after training with supplementary visual cues (Tech. Report Eng-Psy-78-3/AFOSR-78-2). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Psychology.
14.
Lintern, G. (1980). Transfer of landing skill after training with supplementary visual cues. Human Factors, 22, 81–88.
15.
Lintern, G. (1985). A perceptual learning approach to skill transfer for manual control. Orlando: Naval Training Equipment Center.
16.
Lintern, G., and Roscoe, S. N. (1980). Visual cue augmentation in contact flight simulation. In S. N. Roscoe, Aviation psychology (pp. 227–238). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
17.
Lintern, G., Sheppard, D., McKenna, C., Thomley, K. E., Nolan, M., Wightman, D. C., and Chambers, W. (in press). Simulator design and instructional features for air-to-ground attack: Transfer study. Orlando: Naval Training Equipment Center.
18.
Lintern, G., Thomley, K. E., Nelson, B. E., and Roscoe, S. N. (1984). Content, variety, and augmentation of simulated visual scenes for teaching air-to-ground attack (Tech. Report NAVTRAEQUIPCEN81-C-0105-3). Orlando: Naval Training Equipment Center.
19.
Micheli, G. S. (1966). Augmenting feedback and transfer of training (Tech. Report IH-41). Orlando: Naval Training Device Center.
20.
Morrisctt, I. J., and Hovland, C. I. (1959). A comparison of three varieties of training in human problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58, 52–55.
21.
Payne, T.A., Dougherty, D. J., Hasler, S.G., Skeen, J. R., Brown, E. L., and Williams, A. C., Jr. (1954). Improving landing performance using a contact landing trainer (Tech. Report SPECDEVCEN 71-16-11). Port Washington, NY: U.S. Office of Naval Research, Special Devices Center.
22.
Pew, R. W. (1966). Acquisition of hierarchical control over the temporal organization of a skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 764–771.
23.
Pew, R. W. (1974). Human perceptual-motor performance. In B. H. Kantowitz (Ed.), Human information processing: Tutorials in performance and cognition (pp. 1-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
24.
Roscoe, S. N. (1980). Aviation psychology. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
25.
Schneider, W., and Fisk, A. D. (1982). Attention theory and mechanisms for skilled performance (Tech. Report HARL-ONR-8201). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Psychology Department.
26.
Shapiro, D. C., and Schmidt, R. A. (1982). The schema theory: Recent evidence and developmental implications. In J. A. S. Kelso and J. E. Clark (Eds.), The development of movement control and coordination (pp. 111-150). New York: Wiley.
27.
Shiffrin, R. M., and Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.
28.
Westra, D. P. (1982). Simulator design features for carrier landing: In-simulator transfer of training (Tech. Report NAVTRAEQUIPCEN 81-C-0105-1). Orlando: Naval Training Equipment Center.
29.
Westra, D. P. (1983). Simulator design features for air-to ground bombing I: Perfonnance experiment I. (Tech. Report NAVTRAEQUIPCEN 81-C-0105-4). Orlando: Naval Training Equipment Center.
30.
Westra, D. P., Simon, C. W., Collyer, S. C., and Chambers, W. S. (1982). Simulator design features for carrier landings: Performance experiments (Tech. Report NAVTRAEQUIPCEN 78-C-0060-7). Orlando: Naval Training Equipment Center.
31.
Wightman, D. C. (1983). Part-task training strategies in simulated carrier landing final approach training (Tech. Report IH-347). Orlando: Naval Training Equipment Center.
