Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In armored fighting vehicles (AFVs), the vehicle commander (VC) and crew communicate through an audio system that all crew members inside the AFV can hear. This can be distracting and inconvenient, especially for effective communication between the VC and the driver.

We assessed the feasibility and usability of a tactile system for direct communication between the VC and the driver in addition to (or instead of) the existing auditory system. Field experiment results show that, with or without auditory commands, tactile cues can be utilized to direct AFV drivers during operational tasks. Hence, specific design and implementation of a tactile interface should be considered for internal communication traffic.

Keywords

military armored fighting vehicle tactile field methods test & evaluation usability

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Army Doctrine Reference Publication. (2012). Unified land operations. Washington, DC: Department of the Army.

Brooke

(1996). SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry, 189(194), 4–7.

Cohen-Lazry

Katzman

Borowsky

Oron-Gilad

(2018, June). Ipsilateral versus contralateral tactile alerts for take-over requests in highly- automated driving. Proceedings of the 6th Humanist Conference. The Hague, Netherlands.

Endsley

M. R.

Holder

L. D.

Leibrecht

B. C.

Garland

D. J.

Wampler

R. L.

Matthews

M. D.

(2000). Modeling and measuring situation awareness in the infantry operational environment. Alexandria, VA: Army Research Institute.

Giang

Santhakumaran

Masnavi

Glussich

Kline

Chui

, . . . Zelek

(2010). Multimodal interfaces. (Report No. CR 2010-051). Toronto; ON: Defence Research and Development Canada.

Gilliland

Schlegel

R. E.

(1994). Tactile stimulation of the human head for information display. Human Factors, 36(4), 700–717.

Hancock

P. A.

Lawson

Cholewiak

Elliott

L. R.

Van Erp

J. B. F.

Mortimer

B. J. P.

, . . . Redden

E. S.

(2015). Tactile cuing to augment multisensory human-machine interaction. Ergonomics in Design, 23(2), 4–9.

Jones

L. A.

Sarter

N. B.

(2008). Tactile displays: Guidance for their design and application. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50(1), 90–111.

Krausman

A. S.

White

T. L.

(2008). Detection and localization of vibrotactile signals in moving vehicles. (No. ARL-TR-4463). U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and Engineering Directorate, and Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.

10.

Meng

Gray

Spence

(2015). Dynamic vibrotactile warning signals for frontal collision avoidance: Towards the torso versus towards the head. Ergonomics, 58, 411–425.

11.

Meng

Spence

(2015). Tactile warning signals for in-vehicle systems. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 75, 333–346.

12.

Nakashima

A. M.

Borland

M. J.

Abel

S. M.

(2007). Measurement of noise and vibration in Canadian forces armoured vehicles. Industrial Health, 45(2), 318–327.

13.

O’Malley

T. J.

Hutchins

(1996). Fighting vehicles: Armoured personnel carriers & infantry fighting vehicles. Mechanicsburg, PA: Greenhill Books.

14.

Tauson

(2013). Operations on the move: Vehicle movement and soldier performance. In Designing soldier systems (pp. 151–166). CRC Press.

15.

van Erp

J. B. F.

Self

B. P

. (2008). Tactile displays for orientation, navigation and communication in air, sea, and land environments. Neuilly-sur-Seine Cedex, France: Research and Technology Organisation, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Touch-and-Go: Interior Tactile Communication in Armored Fighting Vehicles

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References