Objective: This work introduced judgment-based measures of spatial awareness and used them to evaluate terrain textures and fields of view (FOVs) in synthetic vision system (SVS) displays. Background: SVSs are cockpit technologies that depict computer-generated views of terrain surrounding an aircraft. In the assessment of textures and FOVs for SVSs, no studies have directly measured the three levels of spatial awareness with respect to terrain: identification of terrain, its relative spatial location, and its relative temporal location. Methods : Eighteen pilots made four judgments (relative azimuth angle, distance, height, and abeam time) regarding the location of terrain points displayed in 112 noninteractive 5-s simulations of an SVS head-down display. There were two between-subject variables (texture order and FOV order) and five within-subject variables (texture, FOV, and the terrain point's relative azimuth angle, distance, and height). Results: Texture produced significant main and interaction effects for the magnitude of error in the relative angle, distance, height, and abeam time judgments. FOV interaction effects were significant for the directional magnitude of error in the relative distance, height, and abeam time judgments. Conclusion: Spatial awareness was best facilitated by the elevation fishnet (EF), photo fishnet (PF), and photo elevation fishnet (PEF) textures. Application: This study supports the recommendation that the EF, PF, and PEF textures be further evaluated in future SVS experiments. Additionally, the judgment-based spatial awareness measures used in this experiment could be used to evaluate other display parameters and depth cues in SVSs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alexander, A.L., Wickens, C.D., & Hardy, T.J. (2005). Synthetic vision and the primary flight display: The effects of guidance symbology, display size, and field of view. Human Factors, 47, 693-707.
2.
Alm, T., Lif, P., & Öberg, M. (2003). Evaluation of monocular depth cues in 3D aircraft displays. In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (CD-ROM). Dayton: Ohio State University.
3.
Arthur, J.J., Prinzel, L.J., III, Kramer, L.J., Parrish, R.V., & Bailey, R.E. (2004). Flight simulator evaluation of synthetic vision display concepts to prevent controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) (NASA Tech. Rep. NASA/TP-2004-213008). Hampton, VA: NASA Langley Research Center.
4.
Bailey, R.E., Kramer, L.J., & Prinzel, L.J., III. (2006). Crew and display concepts evaluation for synthetic/enhanced vision systems. In 2006 Proceedings of International Society for Optical Engineering Conference on Enhanced and Synthetic Vision (pp. 62260G.1- 62260G.18). Bellingham, WA: International Society for Optical Engineering.
5.
Bailey, R.E., Parrish, R.V., Arthur, J.J., & Norman, R.M. (2002). Flight test evaluation of tactical synthetic vision display concepts in a terrain-challenged operating environment. In J. G. Verly (Ed.), Enhanced and synthetic vision 2002 (pp. 178-189). Bellingham, WA: International Society for Optical Engineering.
6.
Barfield, W., & Rosenberg, C. (1995). Judgments of azimuth and elevation as a function of monoscopic and binocular depth cues using a perspective display. Human Factors, 37, 173-181.
7.
Barfield, W., Rosenberg, C., & Furness, T.A.I. (1995). Situation awareness as a function of frame of reference, computer-graphics eye-point elevation, and geometric field of view. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 5, 233-256.
8.
Boeing Commercial Airplanes. (2006). Statistical summary of commercial jet airplane accidents: Worldwide operations 1959-2005 . Retrieved June 13, 2007, from http://www.boeing.com/news/techissues/pdf/statsum.pdf
9.
Bolton, M.L., & Bass, E.J. (2007). Spatial awareness: Comparing judgment-based and subjective measures. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (CD-ROM). Los Alamitos, CA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
10.
Bolton, M.L., & Bass, E.J. (in press). Using relative position and temporal judgments to identify biases in spatial awareness for synthetic vision systems. International Journal of Aviation Psychology.
11.
Bolton, M.L., Bass, E.J., & Comstock, J.R. (2006). Atoolsetto support the development of spatial and temporal judgment experiments for synthetic vision systems. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE Systems and Information Engineering Design Symposium (pp. 55-60). Los Alamitos, CA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
12.
Brace, N., Kemp, R., & Snelgar, R. (2003). SPSS for psychologists: A guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
Carmody, M.A. (1994). Current issues in the measurement of military aircrew performance: A consideration of the relationship between available metrics and operational concerns (Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division Tech. Rep. NAWCADWAR-94139-60). Warminster, PA: Naval Air Warfare Center.
14.
Comstock, J.R., Glaab, L.J., Prinzel, L.J., & Elliott, D.M. (2002). Can effective synthetic vision system displays be implemented on limited size display spaces? In Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (CD-ROM) . Dayton: Ohio State University .
15.
Dorighi, N.S., Grunwald, A.J., & Ellis, S.R. (1992). Perspective format for a primary flight display and its effect on pilot spatial awareness. In Proceedings of the IEEE/AIAA 11th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (pp. 307-312). Los Alamitos, CA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
16.
Fracker, M.L. (1990). Attention gradients in situation awareness. In Situational awareness in aerospace operations (AGARD-CP-478, Conference Proceedings #478, pp. 6.1-6.10). Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: NATO Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development .
17.
Gibson, J.J. (1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
18.
Glaab, L.J., & Hughes, M.F. (2003). Terrain portrayal for head-down displays flight test. In Proceedings of the 22nd Digital Avionics Systems Conference (pp. 9.E.2-1-9.E.2-15). Los Alamitos, CA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
19.
Goldstein, E.B. (2002). Sensation and perception (6th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth .
20.
Hughes, M.F., & Takallu, M.A. (2002). Terrain portrayal for head-down displays experiment . In Proceedings of the International Advanced Aviation Conference (pp. G-1-G-12). Anchorage, AK: University of Alaska.
21.
Khatwa, R., & Roelen, A. (1998). An analysis of controlled-flight-into-terrain (CFIT) accidents of commercial operators, 1988 through 1994. Flight Safety Digest, 17, 166-212.
22.
Marshak, W.P., Kuperman, G., Ramsey, E.G., & Wilson, D. (1987). Situational awareness in map displays. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting (pp. 533-535). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society .
23.
McGreevy, M.W., & Ellis, S.R. (1986). The effect of perspective geometry on judged direction in spatial information instruments. Human Factors, 28, 439-456.
24.
Parrish, R.V., Busquests, A.M., Williams, S.P., & Nold, D.E. (1994). Spatial awareness comparisons between large-screen, integrated pictorial displays and conventional EFIS displays during simulated landing approaches (NASA Tech. Paper 3467). Hampton, VA : NASA Langley Research Center.
25.
Schnell, T., & Lemos, K. (2002). Terrain sampling density and texture requirements for synthetic vision systems (Rockwell Collins Final Rep.). Cedar Rapids, IA: Rockwell Collins.
26.
Stevens, J.P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27.
Takallu, M.A., Wong, D.T., Bartolone, A.P., Hughes, M.F., & Glaab, L.J. (2004). Interaction between various terrain portrayals and guidance/tunnel symbology concepts for general aviation synthetic vision displays during a low en-route scenario. In Proceedings of the 23rd Digital Avionics Systems Conference (pp. A.B.3-1-A.B.3-12). Los Alamitos, CA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
28.
Taylor, R.M. (1990). Situational awareness rating technique (SART): The development of a tool for aircrew systems design. Situational Awareness in Aerospace Operations (AGARD-CP-478) (pp. 3/1- 3/17). Neuilly-sur-Seine , France: NATO Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development.
29.
Uhlarik, J.J., Peterson, D.A., & Herold, J.M. (1998). Terrain awareness using a terrain enhanced primary flight display. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting (pp. 102-106). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
30.
Vidulich, M.A., & Hughes, E.R. (1991). Testing a subjective metric of situation awareness . In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting (pp. 1307-1311). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
31.
Wells, M.J., Venturino, M., & Osgood, R.K. (1988). Using target replacement performance to measure spatial awareness. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting (pp. 1429-1433). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
32.
Wickens, C.D. (2002a). Situation awareness and workload in aviation . Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 128-133.
