Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

High-resolution visual displays have been designed for flight simulation so that observers may judge the aspect angle of aircraft at far distances. The present experiment compares two display devices as untrained observers judge the spatial orientation of two target aircraft: F-15 and F-16 jets. The display devices are a prototype direct-write microlaser projector and an SXGA-format CRT display. Observers' accuracy of aircraft identification is better with the laser projector, and recognition response times are faster. A simple rule was found to fit the observers' response times; it is expressed in terms of a statistic on the autocorrelation of black-and-white silhouette images of aircraft. Observers' estimates of aspect are biased by the laser projector, whereas observers' estimates of aspect are accurate on average with the SXGA display. This bias in estimation of aspect may be attributable to variations in line brightness introduced by the laser projector. Actual or potential applications of this research include the evaluation of high-resolution visual displays for the training of basic fighter maneuvers with military jet pilots.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alam, M. S. (Ed.). (1999). Selected papers on optical pattern recognition using joint transform correlation. Bellingham, WA: SPIE Optical Engineering.

Ashworth, A. R., III , & Dror, I. E. (2000). Object identification as a function of discriminability and learning presentations: The effect of stimulus similarity and canonical frame alignment on aircraft identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6 2, 148–157.

Bergstedt, R. Flores, R. , Takeuchi, E. , & Highnote, S. (1999). Display and evaluation of a direct-write microlaser-based projection display (Tech. Report DCIEM CR 1999-056). Toronto: Defence Research & Development Canada.

Brown, L. (1984). Orientation range requirements for aerial combat tasks (Tech. Report AFHRL-TP-84-37). Mesa, AZ: Operations Training Division, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.

Fink, C. G. , Bergstedt, R. , Flint, G. , Hargis, D. , & Peppler, P. W. (1997). Microlaser-based projection display for simulation (Tech. Report AL/HR-TP-1997-0002). Mesa, AZ: Armstrong Laboratory, Human Resources Directorate.

Greenhouse, S. W. , & Geisser, S. (1959). On methods in the analysis of profile data. Psychometrika, 24 2, 95–112.

Hamilton, P. V., & Monaco, W. A. (1986, Winter). Improving air-to-air target detection. Wings of Gold, pp. 46--48.

Lindholm, J. M. (1992). Perceptual effects of spatiotemporal sampling. In M. A. Karim (Eds.), Electro-optical displays (pp. 787–807). New York: Marcel Dekker.

Lindholm, J. M. (2001). Multibeam and multipanel displays: Some perceptual effects of scan architecture. Journal of the Society for Information Display, 9 2, 125–133.

10.

Macmillan, N. A. , & Creelman, C. D. (1991). Detection theory: A user's guide. New York: Cambridge University Press.

11.

Mardia, K. V. (1972). Statistics of directional data. London: Academic.

12.

Mardia, K. V. , Kent, J. T. , & Bibby, J. M. (1979). Multivariate analysis. London: Academic.

13.

Niall, K. K. (1997). "Mental rotation," pictured rotation, and tandem rotation in depth. Acta Psychologica, 95, 31–83.

14.

Pratt, W. K. (2001). Digital image processing. New York: Wiley.

15.

Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 510–532.

16.

Shepard, R. N. , & Cooper, L. A. (1982). Mental images and their transformations. Cambridge: MIT Press.

17.

Smith, G. & Atchison, D. A. (1997). The eye and visual optical instruments. New York: Cambridge University Press.

18.

Takeuchi, Y. , & Nakanishi, H. (1998). How far can we see the target? Aubert-Foerster law and visual search in the open air. Reports of Aeromedical Laboratory, 37 4, 17–23. (Tokyo, Japan: JASF Aeromedical Laboratory.)

19.

Warner, H. D. , Serfoss, G. L. , & Hubbard, D. C. (1993). Visual cue requirements for target orientation assessment in air combat simulation (Tech. Report AL-TR-1993-0021 of the Armstrong Laboratory, U.S. Air Force Materiel Command). Dayton, OH: University of Dayton Research Institute.

Laser Projection versus a CRT Display in the Visual Perception of Aircraft Aspect

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References