The Effects of Scene Complexity on Judgements of Aimpoint during Final Approach

Abstract

To study the effect of five levels of scene complexity on performance of a final approach task, ten different animations representing combinations of scene complexity and distance intervals to threshold were modeled. For the experiment task, seven subjects were required to estimate the perceived point of impact as an extrapolation of the final approach path. The results indicated that there was a significant interaction between scene complexity and distance to the actual impact point for both horizontal and vertical components of the judgement task. In addition, increasing the level of terrain complexity lead to better performance in judgements of horizontal displacement, however, the results for vertical displacements were unclear. The relationship between errors and performance for the experiment tasks are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Armstrong

B. D.

, Difficulties with the Simulating of Aircraft Landings, Technical Report TR68116, Farnbourgh Hants, UK: Royal Aircraft Establishment, 1969.

Barfield

Rosenberg

Kraft

, The Effects of Visual Cues to Realism and Perceived Impact Point During Final Approach, Proceedings of the Human Factors Society-33nd Annual Meeting, 115–119, 1989.

Buckland

Monroe

Mehrer

, Flight Simulator Runway Visual Textural Cues for Landing, Technical Report AFHRL-TR-81, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory, Williams Air Force Base Arizona, 1980.

Carel

W. L.

, Visual Factors in the Contact Analog, Reprint No. NR1076(00), Ithaca, N.Y., Generally Electric Co., 1961.

Gibson

J. J.

, Perception of the Visual World, Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, 1950.

Haber

R. N.

, Why Low-flying Planes Crash: Perceptual and Attentional Factors in Collisions with the Ground, Human Factors Vol. 29, 519–532, 1987.

Harvey

L. O.

Michon

J. A.

, The Perception of Maneuvers of Moving Vehicles. Progress Report I. Effects of Viewing Distance and Angular Separation, Institute for Perception, Soesterberg, Netherlands, (authors copy of original report) September, 1973.

Humes

J. M.

Bauerschmidt

D.K.

, Low Light Level TV Viewfinder Simulation, Technical Report ARML-TR-79–51. Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, Air Force Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, 1968.

Kleiss

J. A.

Hubbard

D. C.

, Effect of Three-Dimensional Object Type and Density in Simulated Low-Level Flight, Proceedings of the Human Factors Society-32nd Annual Meeting, 1299–1303, 1988.

10.

Kraft

Anderson

C. D.

, Psychophysical Criteria for Visual Simulation Systems, AFHRL-TR-80–18, Williams Air Force Base, Arizona, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory, 1980.

11.

Mertens

H. W.

, Perceived Orientation of a Runway Model in Nonpilots During Simulated Night Approaches to Landing, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Institute, Office of Aviation Medicine, Washington, D.C., 1977.

12.

Reardon

K. A.

, The Effects of Nested Texture on a Landing-Judgement Task, Proceedings of the Human Factors Society-32nd Annual Meeting, 10–14, 1988.

13.

Richards

Dismukes

, Vision Research for Flight Simulation, Steering Group on Flight Simulation, Committee on Vision, Workshop on Simulation of Low-Level Flight, 1982.

14.

Roscoe

S. N.

, Flight by Periscope, Aeronautics Bulletin No. 9, University of Illinois, Chicago, 1951.

15.

Wolpert

, The Active Control of Altitude Over Differing Texture, Proceedings of the Human Factors Society-32nd Annual Meeting, 15–19, 1988.