Objective: This study explores operators' ability to use a multidimensional, nonveridical control display. Background: Veridical displays represent realistic scenes. State space displays represent nonveridical n-dimensional information based on informative coordinate axes plus variable features such as color and shading. Empirical investigation of state space displays is relatively new to human factors research. Method: Twelve licensed general aviation pilots flew flight scenarios, trying to deviate as little as possible from a preassigned course while still maintaining standard en route separation from traffic. Flight performance using only a veridical cockpit display of traffic information (CDTI) was compared with performance using the CDTI augmented by a 4-D nonveridical state space collision avoidance system (CDTI+4CAS). Results: Using moderate traffic density and complex traffic geometry, the CDTI+4CAS condition showed performance superiority over the baseline CDTI-only condition for five of five dependent measures of maneuver efficiency, four of four measures of maneuver safety, and six of nine measures of user workload. Conclusion: Results suggest that nonveridical information display may enhance operator performance on a control task involving simultaneous processing of multidimensional information. Application: Nonveridical information displays have potential application wherever human control of multidimensional processes is involved.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Azuma, R., Neely, H., III, Daily, M., & Correa, M. (1999). Visualization of conflicts and resolution in a "free flight" scenario. In Proceedings of IEEE Visualization `99 (pp. 433-436). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society Press.
2.
Brudnicki, D.L., &McFarland,A.L. (1997). User Request Evaluation Tool (URET) conflict probe performance and benefits assessment (Rep. MP97W0000112). McLean, VA: MITRE.
3.
Canton, R., Refai, M., Johnson, W.W., & Battiste, V. (2005). Development and integration of human-centered conflict detection and resolution tools for airborne autonomous operations. In Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 115-120). Columbus: Ohio University Press.
4.
Chan, W., Bach, R., & Walton, J. (2000, August). Improving and validating CTAS performance models. Paper presented at the AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, Denver, CO.
5.
Federal Aviation Administration. (2006). Order 7110.65R air traffic control. Washington, DC: Author.
6.
Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
7.
Granada, S., Dao, A.Q., Wong, D., Johnson, W.W., & Battiste, V. (2005). Development and integration of a human-centered volumetric cockpit situation display for distributed air-ground operations . In Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 279-284). Columbus: Ohio University Press.
8.
Green, S.M., & Vivona, R.A. (2001, August). En route descent advisor concept for arrival metering. Paper presented at the Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, Montreal, Canada.
9.
Hilburn, B., & Flynn, G. (2005). Modeling cognitive complexity in air traffic control . Human Factors and Aerospace Safety, 5, 169-182.
10.
Hollander, M., & Wolfe, D.A. (1999). Nonparametric statistical methods (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
11.
Johnson, W.W., Battiste, V., & Holland, S. (1999). A cockpit display designed to enable limited flight deck separation responsibility. SAE Transactions, Journal of Aerospace, 108, 1041-1062.
12.
Knecht, W.R. (2007). Testing a nonveridical aircraft collision avoidance system: Experiment 1. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 7, 60-82.
13.
Knecht, W.R., & Hancock, P.A. (1999). Separation maintenance in high-stress free flight using a time-to-contact-based cockpit display of traffic information. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 43rd Annual Meeting (pp. 16-20). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
14.
Knecht, W.R., & Smith, K. (2001). The manoeuvre space In D. Harris (Ed.), Engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics: Vol. 5. Aerospace and transportation systems (pp. 197-202). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
15.
Köhler, W. (1969). The task of Gestalt psychology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
16.
Krozel, J. (2000). Free flight research issues and literature search . Los Gatos, CA: Seagull Technology .
17.
Kuchar, J.K., & Yang, L.C. (2000). A review of conflict detection and resolution modeling methods. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 1, 179-89.
18.
Naikar, N. (1998). Perspective displays: A review of human factors issues (Tech. Rep. DSTO-TR-0630). Melbourne, Australia: DSTO Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory. Retrieved May 5, 2008, from http://www.dsto.defence.gov.au/publications/2069/DSTO-TR-0630.pdf
19.
Operations Research and Analysis. (1998). The impact of national airspace systems modernization on aircraft emissions (Tech. Rep. DOT/FAA/SD-400-98/1). Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration.
20.
Pekela, W.D., & Hilburn, B. (1998, September). Air traffic controller strategies in resolving free flight traffic conflicts: The effect of enhanced controller displays for situation awareness. Paper presented at the AIAA and SAE World Aviation Conference, Anaheim, CA.
21.
Poulton, E.C. (1982). Influential companions: Effects of one strategy on another in the within-subjects designs of cognitive psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 673-690.
22.
Radio Technical Corporation of America. (1995 , January). Report of the RTCA Board ofDirectors'Select Committee on Free Flight. Washington, DC: Author.
23.
Thomas, L.C., & Wickens, C.D. (2005). Display dimensionality and conflict geometry effects on maneuver preferences for resolving inflight conflicts. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Annual Meeting (pp. 40-44). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
24.
Treisman, A. (1986). Features and objects in visual processing. Scientific American, 255, 114-125.
25.
Tufte, E.R. (1983). The visual display of quantitative information . Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
26.
Tufte, E.R. (1997). Visual explanations: Images and quantities, evidence and narrative. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
27.
Van Dam, S.B.J., Appleton, R., Mulder, M., & van Paassen, M.M. (2006, September). Comparison of two interfaces for supporting pilots in airborne self-separation tasks. Paper presented at the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction in Aeronautics, Seattle, WA.
28.
van Gent, R.N.H.W., Hoekstra, J.M., & Ruigrok, R.C.J. (1998, May). Free flight with airborne separation assurance: A man-in-the-loop simulation study. Paper presented at the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction in Aeronautics, Montreal, Canada.
29.
Wertheimer, M. (1959). Productive thinking. New York : Harper & Row. (Original work published 1920.)
30.
Xing, J., & Manning, C. (2005). Complexity and automation displays of air traffic control: Literature review and analysis (Tech. Rep. DOT/ FAA/AM-0514). Washington, DC: FederalAviationAdministration.
