An experiment was conducted aboard an E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft to assess the ability of spatial intercoms and active noise reduction (ANR) headsets to improve communications effectiveness for air battle managers. Eleven male participants completed four blocks of data collection using the Coordinate Response Measure under factorial combinations of spatialization, ANR, and target phrase location. Results indicate that the use of a spatial intercom led to greater intelligibility, and that ANR improved intelligibility only when used in combination with a spatial intercom. These results are discussed in terms of their applicability to current and future USAF application domains.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BoliaR. S. (2003). Spatial audio displays for air battle managers: Does visually cueing talker location improve speech intelligibility?Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, pp. 136–139.
2.
BoliaR. S. (2002). The effect of monauralized binaural displays on speech intelligibility. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111, 2434.
3.
BoliaR. S.NelsonW. T. (2003). Spatial audio displays for target acquisition and speech communications. In HettingerL. J.HaasM. W. (Eds.), Virtual and Adaptive Environments: Applications, Implications, and Human Performance Issues, pp. 187–197. Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ.
4.
BoliaR. S.NelsonW. T.EricsonM. A.SimpsonB. D. (2000). A speech corpus for multi-talker communications research. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 107, 1065–1066.
5.
BoliaR. S.NelsonW. T.MorleyR. M. (2001). Asymmetric performance in the cocktail party effect: Implications for the design of spatial audio displays. Human Factors, 43, 208–216.
BrungartD. S. (2001). Evaluation of speech intelligibility with the coordinate response measure. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109, pp. 2276–2279.
8.
BrungartD. S. (2001). Informational and energetic masking effects in the perception of two simultaneous talkers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 109, 1101–1109.
9.
FrenchN. R.SteinbergJ. C. (1947). Factors governing the intelligibility of speech sounds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 19, 90–119.
10.
HaasM. W.NelsonW. T.ReppergerD.BoliaR. S.ZachariasG. (2001). Applying adaptive control and display characteristics to future Air Force crew stations. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 11, 223–235.
11.
IrvineD. R. F. (1992). Physiology of the auditory brainstem. In PopperA. N.FayR. R. (Eds.), The Mammalian Auditory Pathway: Neurophysiology, pp. 153–231. Springer-Verlag: New York.
12.
MartinR. M.McAnallyK. I.SenovaM. A. (2001). Free field equivalent localization of virtual audio. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 49, 14–22.
13.
McAnallyK. I.BoliaR. S.MartinR. M.EberleG.BrungartD. S. (2002). Segregation of multiple talkers in the vertical plane: Implications for the design of a multiple talker display. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46th Annual Meeting, pp. 588–591.
14.
MobleyF.HallJ. A.YeagerD. (in press). E-3 inflight acoustic exposure studies and mitigation via active noise reduction headset. Tech. Rep. No. AFRL-TR-WP-20XX-XXXX. Human Effectiveness Directorate, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
15.
PellieuxL.SarafianD.ReynaudG. (1997). Evaluation de casques à réduction active de bruit: protection auditive et intelligibilité. In AGARD Conference Proceedings 596, Audio Effectiveness in Aviation, pp. 16:1–19. AGARD: Neuilly-sur-Seine.
16.
SimpsonC.KingR. (1997). Active noise reduction flight tests in military helicopters. In AGARD Conference Proceedings 596, Audio Effectiveness in Aviation, pp. 22:1–18. AGARD: Neuilly-sur-Seine.
