The ability for pilots to estimate traffic location, and how such estimations should be measured, was examined within an Integrated Hazard Display context. Twelve pilots viewed static images of traffic scenarios and then estimated the outside world locations of queried traffic represented in one of three display types (2D coplanar, 3D exocentric, and split-screen) and in one of four conditions (display present/blank crossed with outside world present/blank). Overall, the 2D coplanar display best supported both vertical (compared to 3D) and lateral (compared to split-screen) traffic position estimation performance. Furthermore, although pilots were faster in estimating traffic locations when the display was blank, accuracy was greatest when both the display and outside world were available.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlexanderA. L.WickensC. D. (2002). Does workload modulate the difference between cockpit traffic display formats? In Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 1–5). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors & Ergonomics Society.
2.
DursoF. T.GronlundS. (1999). Situation awareness. In DursoF. T. (Ed.), Handbook of Applied Cognition (pp. 283–314). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
3.
EndsleyM. R. (1995). Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37 (1), 65–84.
4.
EndsleyM. R. (2000). Direct measurement of situation awareness: Validity and use of SAGAT. In EndsleyM. R.GarlandD. J. (Eds.), Situation awareness analysis and measurement (pp. 147–173). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
EndsleyM. R.GarlandD. J. (2000). Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6.
KroftP.WickensC. D. (2001). The display of multiple geographical data bases: Implications of visual attention (Technical Report ARL-01-2/NASA-01-2). Savoy, IL: Aviation Research Laboratory.
7.
McGreevyM. W.EllisS. R. (1986). The effect of perspective geometry on judged direction in spatial information instruments. Human Factors, 28 (4), 439–456.
8.
MuthardE. K.WickensC. D. (2002). Factors that mediate flight plan monitoring and errors in plan revision: An examination of planning under automated conditions (Technical Report ARL-02-11/NASA-02-8). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois, Aviation Research Laboratory.
9.
OlmosO.WickensC. D.ChudyA. (2000). Tactical displays for combat awareness: An examination of dimensionality and frame of reference concepts and the application of cognitive engineering. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 10 (3), 247–271.
10.
PrinzelL. J.ComstockJ. R.GlaabL. J.KramerL. J.ArthurJ. J. (2004). The efficacy of head-down and head-up synthetic vision display concepts for retro- and forward-fit of commercial aircraft. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 14 (1), 53–77.
11.
RateC. R.WickensC. D. (1993). Map dimensionality and frame of reference for terminal area navigation displays: Where do we go from here? (Technical Report ARL-93-5/NASA-93-1). Savoy, IL: Aviation Research Laboratory.
12.
SchnellT.KwonY.MerchantS.EtheringtonT. (2004). Improved flight technical performance in flight decks equipped with synthetic vision information system displays. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 14 (1).
13.
JohnM.St.CowenM. B.SmallmanH. S.OonkH. M. (2001). The use of 2D and 3D displays for shape-understanding versus relative-position tasks. Human Factors, 43 (1), 79–98.
14.
VerversDorneichGoodDowns, (2002). Integrating critical information on flight deck displays. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 11–15). Santa Monica, CA: HFES.
15.
WickensC. D. (2000). The when and how of using 2-D and 3-D displays for operational tasks. In Proceedings of the IEA 2000/HFES 2000 Congress. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
16.
WickensC. D.AlexanderA. L.HardyT. J. (2003). The primary flight display and its pathway guidance: Workload, performance, and situation awareness (Technical Report AHFD-03-2/NASA-03-1). Savoy, IL: Institute of Aviation, Aviation Human Factors Division.
17.
WickensC. D.LiangC. C.PrevettT.OlmosO. (1996). Electronic maps for terminal area navigation: Effects of frame of reference and dimensionality. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 6, 241–271.
18.
WickensC. D.PrevettT. (1995). Exploring the dimensions of egocentricity in aircraft navigation displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1, 110–135.
19.
WilliamsK. (2002). Impact of aviation highway-in-the-sky displays on pilot situation awareness. Human Factors, 44, 18–27.
