Because of rapid developments in passive sonar technology, man-machine interface problems continue to demand human factors studies. This paper discusses display problems, operator variables, and research considerations. Data are presented from a recent study conducted by the authors comparing performance with photographic and static stimulus materials versus performance with dynamic CRT displays as the stimuli.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DruganJ. R.ParkerE. L.Detection performance with special-purpose sonar displays (U). Phase I. Singer-Libra-scope and Anacapa Sciences for Naval Ship Systems Command, March, 1972. SECRET report.
2.
DruganJ. R.ParkerE. L.Detection performance with special-purpose sonar displays (U). Phase II. Singer-Libra-scope and Anacapa Sciences for Naval Ship Systems Command, March 1974. SECRET report.
3.
MontgomeryM. B.YoungJ. M.AN/SQS-26 display analysis. Final Technical Report on Task 2, NObar-95149 Mod 9 for Naval Ship Systems Command, June 1968.
4.
O'DonnellJ. J.Classified title. Naval Air Development Center, June, 1969. CONFIDENTIAL report.
PryorC. N.ShivelyC. A.Measurement of detection times and probabilities for passive signals using both manual and automatic detection methods (U). U.S. Navy Symposium on Undersea Acoustics, post-1970. CONFIDENTIAL report.
7.
PedleyP.BQR-7 DIMUS research section II: Display optimization study. General Electric Co., Heavy Military Products Div., 1967.
8.
RasmussenR. A.Studies related to the design and use of time-bearing sonar displays. Scripps Institution of Oceanography, for Office of Naval Research. SIO Ref. 69-11, May 1969.
9.
RasmussenR. A.Effects of data quantization and display contrast on detection in intensity modulated displays. U.C.-San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, October, 1972.
