Comparative misalignment disturbance functions (MDF) have been measured for rotations between display and control axes for pure pitch, roll, and yaw misalignments in a high fidelity virtual environment. Twenty participants manually moved a virtual cursor using position control to touch 3-dimensionally, randomly presented nearby targets having a constant Fitts Index of Difficulty. Results show a peak disturbance near 120° of rotation for all axes with Roll being distinguishably more disturbed. Some reasons for observed anisotropies, nonlinearities and an equiaxial spiral feature are briefly discussed and modeled
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbeeleS.BockO. (2001) Sensorimotor adaptation to rotated visual input: different mechanisms for small versus large rotations. Exp. Brain Research, 140, 407-410.
2.
ChintamaniK. K.CaoA.EllisR.D.PandyaA.K. (2010) Improved tele- manipulator navigation during display-control misalignment using augmented reality cues. IEEE Trans. Sys. Man & Cyber.(A). Sys. & Humans, 40, 1, 29-39.
3.
CollishawS.M.HoleG. J.(2002) Is there a linear or nonlinear relationship between rotation and configural processing. Perception, 31, 287-296.
MacedoJ.A.KaberD.B.EndsleyM.R.PowanusornP.MyungS. (1998) The effect of automated compensation for incongruent axes on teleoperator performance. Human Factors, 40, 4, 541-553.
6.
EllisS. R.TylerM.KimW. S.StarkL. (1992) Three-dimensional tracking with misalignment between display and control axes. SAE Trans.: J. of Aerospace, 100-1, 985-989.
7.
EllisS.R.AdelsteinB.D. (2009) Kinesthetic compensation for sensorimotor rearrangements. J. Motor Behavior, 41, 6, 501– 518.
8.
FittsP. M.SimonC.W. (1952) Some relations between stimulus patterns and performance in a continuous dual-pursuit taskJ. Exp.Psych.,43, 428-436.
9.
JacobyR.H.AdelsteinB.D.EllisS.R. (1996) Improved temporal response in virtual environments through system hardware and software reorganization. Proc. of the SPIE, Stereoscopic displays and virtual reality systems, Vol. 2653, pp. 271-284.
10.
HillMAdelsteinB. D.EllisS.R. (2004) Achieving minimum latency in virtual environment applications. Proc. of the 2004 Image Society.
11.
MacedoJ.A.KaberD.B.EndsleyM.R.PowanusornP.MyungS. (1988) The effect of automated compensation for incongruent axes on teleoperator performance. Human Factors, 40, 4, 541-553.
12.
PoultonE.C. (1974) Tracking & manual control, Academic Press, New York.
13.
ShepardRMetzlerJ. (1971) Mental rotation of three dimensional objects. Science, 171, 972, 701-3.
14.
SheridanT (2002) Humans and automation, Wiley, San Francisco, CA,.
15.
SmithK.U.SmithW.M. (1962) Perception and Motion, Saunders, Philad.
16.
SmithT. J.HenningR.A.LiQ. (1998). Teleoperation in space modeling effects of displaced feedback and microgravity on tracking performance. SAE Tech. Report No. 981701. Warrendale, PA.
17.
WorringhamC. J.BeringerD. B. (1989). Operator orientation and compatibility in visual-motor task performance. Ergonomics, 32, 387-399.
18.
WickensC.D.KellerJ.W.SmallR.L. (2010): Left. No, Right Development of the Frame of Reference Transformation Tool (FORT). Proc. Human Factors & Ergonomics. Soc. 54th, pp. 1022-1026.
19.
YeomK.AdelsteinB.D.EllisS.R. (2012) Determining the discontinuities for three-dimensional trajectory data in teleoperation. Proc HFES, this volume.
