Humans traditionally experience a vigilance decrement over extended periods of time on reliable systems. One possible solution to aiding operators in monitoring is to use polar-star displays that will show deviations from normal in a more salient manner. The primary objectives of this experiment were to determine if polar-star displays aid in monitoring and preliminary diagnosis of the aircraft state. This experiment indicated that the polar-star display does indeed aid operators in detecting and diagnosing system events. Subjects were able to notice system events earlier and they subjectively reported the polar-star display helped them in monitoring, noticing an event, and diagnosing an event. Therefore, these results indicate that the polar-star display used for monitoring and preliminary diagnosis improves performance in these areas for system related events.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbbottT. S. (1989). Task-Oriented Display Design: Concept and Example (NASA-TM No. 101685). Hampton: NASA Langley Research Center.
2.
AbbottT. S. (1990). A Simulation Evaluation of the Engine Monitoring and Control System Display (NASA-TP No. 2960). Hampton: NASA Langley Research Center.
3.
BarnettB. J.WickensC. D. (1988). Display Proximity in Multicue Information Integration: The Benefits of Boxes. Human Factors, 30(1), 15–24.
4.
BartoloneA. P.TrujilloA. C. (2002). Glass-Cockpit Pilot Subjective Ratings of Predictive Information, Collocation, and Mission Status Graphics: An Analysis and Summary of the Future Focus of Flight Deck Research Survey (NASA-TM 211419): NASA Langley Research Center.
5.
ButtigiegM. A.SandersonP. M. (1991). Emergent Features in Visual Display Design for Two Types of Failure Detection Tasks. Human Factors, 33(6), 631–651.
6.
ByersJ. C.BittnerA. C.HillS. G. (1989). Traditional and Raw Task Load Index (TLX) Correlations: Are Paired Comparisons Necessary?. Advances in Industrial Ergonomics and Safety, 481–485.
7.
Cessna (1996). FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual: Model 750 Citation X (6 ed.). Wichita, KA: Cessna Aircraft Company.
8.
CooperL. A. (1980). Recent Themes in Visual Information Processing: A Selected Overview. In Attention and Performance (8 ed., pp. 319–345).
9.
DanchakM. M. (1981). Techniques for Displaying Multivariate Data on Cathode Ray Tubes with Applications to Nuclear Process Control.
10.
DinadisN.VicenteK. J. (1999). Designing Functional Visualizations for Aircraft Systems Status Displays. IJAP, 9(3), 29.
11.
DonaldC. (2001). Vigilance. In NoyesJ.BransbyM. (Eds.), People in Control: Human Factors in Control Room Design (pp. 315). UK: The Institute of Electrical Engineers.
12.
EndsleyM. R. (1995a). Measurement of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 65–84.
13.
EndsleyM. R. (1995b). Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 32–64.
14.
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. 21). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
15.
FlightSafety International. (1999). Citation X Pilot Training Manual. Flushing, NY: FlightSafety International, Inc.
16.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of a NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research. In HancockP. S.MeshkatiN. (Eds.), Human Mental Workload (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.
17.
HarveyL. O.Jr.MichonJ. A. (1974). Detectability of Relative Motion as a Function of Exposure Duration, Angular Separation, and Background. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103(2), 317–325.
18.
HawkinsF. H. (1993). Human Factors in Flight (2 ed.). Brookfield, VT: Ashgate Publishing Co.
19.
Honeywell (1997). Primus 2000 Integrated Avionics Flight Control System for the Citation X: Pilot's Manual. Phoenix, AZ: Business and Commuter Avionics Systems, Honeywell.
20.
JacobR. J. K. (1978). Facial Representation of Multivariate Data. In WangP. C. C. (Ed.), Graphical Representation of Multivariate Data (pp. 143–168). Washington, D.C.: Naval Research Laboratory.
21.
JacobR. J. K.EgethH. E. (1976). The Face as a Data Display. Human Factors, 18(2), 189–200.
22.
JonesP. M.WickensC. D.DeutschS. J. (1990). The Display of Multivariate Information: An Experimental Study of an Information Integration Task. Human Performance, 3(1), 1–17.
23.
MahaffeyD. L.HorstR. L.MunsonR. C. (1986). Behavioral Comparison of the Efficacy of Bar Graphs and Polar Graphics for Displays of System Status. Paper presented at the IEEE.
24.
SandersM. S.McCormickE. J. (1987). Human Factors in Engineering and Design (6 ed.): McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.
25.
SPSS Inc. (2002). SPSS for Windows (Version 11.5): SPSS Inc.
26.
TrujilloA. C. (2002). Vertex Movement for Mission Status Graphics: A Polar-Star Display (No. NASA-TM 211414): NASA Langley Research Center.
27.
TrujilloA. C.SchutteP. C. (1999). Non-Traditional Displays for Mission Monitoring. Paper presented at the American Nuclear Society 1999 Winter Meeting and Embedded Topical Meetings.
28.
WickensC. D.HollandsJ. G. (2000). Engineering Psychology and Human Performance (Third ed.).
