Enhanced Detection with Bimodal Sonar Displays

Abstract

Signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) required to detect narrow-band signals in white noise were compared for bimodal and single-modality sonar displays at two levels of signal uncertainty and two degrees of spatial compatibility between the auditory and visual displays. In bimodal test conditions the auditory and visual signals were equated in detectability for each subject. An adaptive, two-alternative, forced-choice procedure was used to maintain a constant percentage of correct responses. The decrement in performance with increased signal uncertainty was significantly greater for visual than for auditory displays, suggesting that auditory displays offer advantages for real-world sonar operations. Bimodal displays produced a reliable advantage in SNR required for detection over single-modality displays. Increased compatibility between the visual and auditory displays did not increase the advantage of bimodal presentation, nor did increased signal uncertainty. It was concluded that bimodal displays enhance operators' perceptual sensitivity. The magnitude of the enhancement was consistent with optimal integration of information in the two modalities.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Institute of Physics . (1978). American National Standard methods for manual puretone audiometry (ANSI 53.21–1978). New York: Author.

Brown, A. E. , and Hopkins, H. K. (1967). Interaction of the auditory and visual modalities. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 41, 1–6.

Buckner, D. and McGrath, J. J. (1963). A comparison of performance on single and dual sensory mode vigilance tasks. In D. N. Buckner and J. J. McGrath (Eds.), Vigilance: A symposium (pp. 53–69). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Colquhoun, W. P. (1975). Evaluation of auditory, visual. and dual-mode displays for prolonged sonar monitoring in repeated sessions. Human Factors, 17, 425–437.

Fidell, S. (1970). Sensory function in multi modal signal detection. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 47, 1009–1015.

Green, D. M. , and Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.

Kobus, D. A. , Russotti, J. Schlichting, C. , Haskell, S. , Carpenter, S. , and Wojtowicz, J. (1986). Multimodal detection and recognition performance of sonar operators. Human Factors, 28, 23–30.

Levitt, H. (1970). Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 49, 467–477.

Lewandowski, L. J. , and Kobus, D. A. (1989). Bimodal information processing in sonar performance. Human Performance, 2, 73–84.

10.

Loveless, N. E. , Brebner, J. , and Hamilton, P. (1970). Bisensory presentation of information. Psychological Bulletin, 73, 161–199.

11.

Luria, S. M. , and Jacobsen, A. R. (1986). The effects of bimodal presentation of stimuli and noise on target identification (Report No. 1072). Groton, CT: Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory.

12.

Nolte, L. W. , and Jaarsma, D. (1967). More on the detection of one of m orthogonal signals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 41, 497–505.

13.

Peterson, W. W. , Birdsall, T. G. , and Fox, W. C. (1954). The theory of signal detectability. IRE Transactions on Information Theory, 4, 171–212.

14.

Russotti, J. S. , Haskell, G. B. , Neal, R. , Santoro, T. P. , and Carpenter, S. M. (1985). Frequency response measurements of headsets for use in auditory sonar displays (Report No. 1066). Groton, CT: Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory.

15.

Russotti, J. S. , Santoro, T. P. , and Haskell, G. B. (1988). Proposed technique for earphone calibration. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 36, 643–650.

16.

Sperling, G. and Dosher, B. A. (1986). Strategy and optimization in human information processing. In K. R. Boff , L. Kaufman , and J. P. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance: Volume I, sensory processes and performance (pp. 2.1–2.65). New York: Wiley.