18th annual conference on manual control.pdf - Acgsc.org

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the subject. Little surpriseelement since subject knew locationof pole. emergencycase - the obstructingpole was unknown to the subject. It was always either a 52 or a 32 metre preview.Most severe of the manoeuvresalthough it was not a completesurpriseas subjectswould anticipatean event. At the completionof the trainingphase all subjectswere competentin handlingeither the automobileor the simulatorfor the varying tasks. The productionruns requiredsubjectsto perform in a random order the fixed obstaclecase, the emergencycase, and another case during which no pole fallingevent took place. Thus the final scenariofor the production runs was one of driving along a roadway,with the potentialfor an emergencyto occur, or an obstructinghazard might be constantlypresent, or no event at all occurs. ANALYSISand RESULTS Data was recordedat the rate of 10 Hz in the automobileand 20 Hz in the simulatorfor a total of 30 seconds during each run. This interval was centered around the time that the vehicle'scentre of gravity (C of G) passed the obstructingpole. Sample plots for a typical32 metre previewof the emergency type are given in figure 6. The manoeuvrewas one that requiredgoing from an establishedpath in the right lane to the left lane in order to avoid strikingthe obstacle. Lane positionis the lateral positionof vehicle'sC of G with respect to the roadwaycentre line. Positive being to the right. Heading angle was with respectto the centre line as well, with the clockwisesense as viewed from above being positive. A positivesteeringwheel angle causes a positveyaw rate in the same sense as the heading angle. The verticalbar on the time axis at approximatelythe 13 secondsmark representsthe time when the obstructing pole began its fall. Performanceparametersfor the collision avoidancemanoeuvrewere calculatedfrom the recordedtime historiesfor each run. These parameters,with their definitionsare listed in table 2. Table 3 containsparametervalues averagedover all subjectsfor the emergency manoeuvresperformedduring productionruns. Analysisof the data was done using the TTEST procedureof the StatisticalAnalysisSystem (SAS). Differencesin the analysiswere requiredto be significantto the level p
performanceduring productionruns was comparedfor the same types of runs employed during the transferof learning. It was found (table 4, with conditionequal to .../PRODUCTION)that although the two groups were similar with respect to their performancein the automobile,Group 2 which started trainingin the automobile,exhibiteda more sluggishresponsein the simulatorthan did Group 1. This is evidencedby longer steering wheelrise, delay, peak, and damping times. Significantand substantial effects (table4, with conditionequal to .../TRANSFER)not disqualified by this anomalitystill indicatethat transferof learningdid occur. Group 2 had a 20% longer responsetime and a 14% greater steeringwheel angle peak in the automobilefor the 52 metre preview case than did Group 1 which had prior trainingin the simulator. Group 2 exhibiteda greater number of steeringwheel reversalsin the simulatorthan did Group 1 for both the 52 and 32 metre preview cases. AbsoluteSimilitude Comparingthe subjectsperformancein both the automobileand the simulatorfor all the productionrun experimentalcases yielded the followingresults (see table 5). With respect to vehiclemotion, the simulator exhibiteda 20% greater maximum heading angle deviation for all cases. The distanceover the center line was also greater for the simulatorin all but the right emergencymanoeuvres. The differencewas about 65 cm which representedquite a substantialdeviation (65%) from the automobileequivalent. Steeringwheel activityshowed differencesas well. The number of reversalswas 30% greater for the simulator,but only for right manoeuvres. The rise, delay and peak times were all greater for the subjectsin the simulatorfor the 32 metre preview cases, althoughthe simple responsetime, or time to react to the initialappearanceof the obstructingpole was not significantlydifferentbetween the automobile and simulator. RelativeSimilitude Table 6 lists the differencesin performancebetween the varying experimentalcases. The Designatedvs Fixed and Emergency vs Fixed comparisonsdo not includetime parameters(T RES...T DAMP) because in the fixed obstructioncase the pole is always down and doesn't have an associatedtrigger time thereby rending these parameter indeterminate. The Designatedvs Emergency and 52m vs 32m preview comparisonsdo include all the performanceparameters. The Designatedvs Fixed case exhibited a 30% greater path deviationand a 26% greater heading angle deflectionfor the designatedobstaclecase. This differenceobserved for the automobilewas not present for the simulator. This same trend occured for the Emergency vs Fixed comparison in which the emergencyobstaclecase exhibiteda 30% greater path deviation and a 20% greater heading angle deflection. Comparingthe designatedand emergencycases yielded only a single significantdifference. The responsetime to the falling obstaclewas 35% I _?,2.
Page 1 and 2:
AFWAL-TR'83-3021 PROCEEDINGS OFTHEE
Page 3 and 4:
UNCLASS I FI ED SECURITY CLASSIFiCA
Page 6 and 7:
CONFERENCE CHAIRMAN : FrankL. Georg
Page 8 and 9:
Eleventh Annual Conference on Manua
Page 10 and 11:
CONTENTS(Cont' d) PAGE 6. A FUZZY M
Page 12 and 13:
CONTENTS(Concluded) PAGE 4. DEXTERO
Page 14 and 15:
AN INFORMATIONTHEORETICMODELOF THE
Page 16 and 17:
RISK AND DECISION PROCESSES IN MANU
Page 18 and 19:
In order to investigate manual cont
Page 20 and 21:
may represent particularly efficien
Page 22 and 23:
Results are summarized in Fig.7: In
Page 24 and 25:
TABLE 1 "..,_BORDER- ABOV_ ' BELOW
Page 26 and 27:
0.25, !/% 0.25 " I)'I I 1 1 ' I -5.
Page 28 and 29:
FIG .6 PERFORMANCE OPERATING CURVE
Page 30 and 31:
TIMEDOMAIN IDENTIFICATIONOFPILOT DY
Page 32 and 33:
The human limitationsmodeled includ
Page 34 and 35:
RATING FROM SIMULATION I I , I I I
Page 36 and 37:
The identificationmethod proposed i
Page 38 and 39:
With regard to the remainingterms i
Page 40 and 41:
The algorithm is as follows: 1) Sel
Page 42 and 43:
CLASSICALRESULTS Up(S) " ' - YP Yc
Page 44 and 45:
EXAMPLE PLANT: = 11,7 S ec(s) 3,67
Page 46 and 47:
m m oo --_ ::_ ---I oo o
Page 48 and 49:
Conversely, the "corrected" set use
Page 50 and 51:
Although improvedmethods are curren
Page 52 and 53:
A TEST OF FITTS' LAW IN TWO DIMENSI
Page 54 and 55:
INTRODUCTION We have undertaken a m
Page 56 and 57:
ecomes smaller as the tonic pupil s
Page 58 and 59:
i i i • 1 .......................
Page 60 and 61:
FIGURE 3 : Test conditions for pupi
Page 63 and 64:
k_ (A) : [,'J o_:. \ -80- [_J [....
Page 65 and 66:
DISCUSSION Before attempting anothe
Page 67 and 68:
Edinger-Westphal nucleus. CONCLUSIO
Page 69 and 70:
COMPUTATIONALPROBLEMSIN HUMAN OPERA
Page 71 and 72:
These time series analysismethods h
Page 73 and 74:
The parametersn and m were chosen u
Page 75 and 76:
models with m > I, m = 1 is chosen
Page 77 and 78:
SAMPLING INTERVAL 0.1 SEC Fig. 3-a
Page 79 and 80:
where H(z) is the transfer function
Page 81 and 82:
TABLE 1. TRANSFERFUNCTION.MODEL:WIT
Page 83 and 84:
Although the time series analysis i
Page 85 and 86:
(10) Jex, H. R., and Allen, R. W.,
Page 87 and 88:
CL{ANGES IN HUMAN JOINT COMPLIANCE
Page 89 and 90:
esponse, but what that might be rem
Page 91 and 92:
esulting angular position and stret
Page 93 and 94:
mechanical consequences of the myot
Page 95 and 96:
Merton, P.A. Speculations on the se
Page 97 and 98:
p_ 10.0 FREQUENCY (HZ) 1.0 II111 "o
Page 99 and 100:
...... E RJR042/056 ANGLE TA EMG SO
Page 101 and 102:
aooT I- jU >_ EO '__ o i// V_. - \m
Page 103 and 104:
-100 300 AO UJ GLG589 .J O Z -100 J
Page 105 and 106:
- 22 MIN CO um UJ • - -500 JLEO 3
Page 107 and 108:
RECORD f (hZ) _ J B K CONTROL 1 1.8
Page 109 and 110:
ABSTRACT for 18th
Page 111 and 112:
4). For example,in order to optimal
Page 113 and 114:
For example, when system error and
Page 115 and 116:
REFERENCES I. Birmingham, H.P,, and
Page 117 and 118:
Ar ea 2 / A1 Area 2_ -A2 -A1 X Theo
Page 119 and 120:
determinedboth by his interfacewith
Page 121 and 122:
Procedure The subject sat before th
Page 123 and 124:
e used in designingdiscrete-timetas
Page 125 and 126:
Factor Beta-weight Beta-weight Cour
Page 127 and 128:
SUSTAINEDTURN POSITIONING EXTENDING
Page 129 and 130: DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Page 131 and 132: performed all nine conditions. Ther
Page 133 and 134: REFERENCES Moray, N. 1979. Mental W
Page 135 and 136: |'0 _L_ o.S, K _/.s K/5" K/S_ - - -
Page 137 and 138: RATING CONSISTENCY AND COMPONENT SA
Page 139 and 140: also mounted on the left arm of the
Page 141 and 142: necessitating continued attention b
Page 143 and 144: 4_4 4_4141 4_4_0 00 OVERALLWORKLQAD
Page 145 and 146: whereas increasing the bandwidth fr
Page 147 and 148: Figure 3. He.an ratings and signifi
Page 149 and 150: Figure 4.. Hean ratings and signifi
Page 151 and 152: Figure 5. Mean ratings and signific
Page 153 and 154: ._ o ,.,_m F-_rt o :1 ,-q x €:._
Page 155 and 156: Level (_-.585, E
Page 157 and 158: ing related to Overall Workload or
Page 159 and 160: Steinlnger, K. Subjective ratings o
Page 161 and 162: discriminable changes in the score
Page 163 and 164: RESULTS The computed scores for eac
Page 165 and 166: In general, the results of the expe
Page 167 and 168: TABLE 2 Workload Assessment Techniq
Page 169 and 170: TABLE 4 Logical Classification of T
Page 171 and 172: 1.0 1 Q.S N z_ = -O,S = _€ -1,0 L
Page 173 and 174: SESSION3: SIMULATIONAND MODELBASEDA
Page 175 and 176: _ation For Time DelaysIn FlightSimu
Page 177 and 178: AN AUTOMOBILEAND SIMULATORCOMPARISO
Page 179: particularilycritical during the ac
Page 183 and 184: using roadway cues from the left la
Page 185 and 186: epresentingan automobilefor a later
Page 187 and 188: PerformanceParameters D OVER C - T
Page 189 and 190: TRANSFEROF LEARNING GROUP 1 (SIMULA
Page 191 and 192: 5.25m l.Tm _- --- I / _ I I ! i i 0
Page 193 and 194: FIGURE4 INSTRUMENTEDVEHICLEDURING O
Page 195 and 196: AN OPTIMAL CONTROL MODEL ANALYSIS O
Page 197 and 198: current standards) could result in
Page 199 and 200: ft/sec and 1.42 ft/sec, respectivel
Page 201 and 202: Table i. PERCEPTUAL THRESHOLDS* Var
Page 203 and 204: m Variable "Maximum" Allowable Devi
Page 205 and 206: given in Table 4. Also shown in the
Page 207 and 208: Table 5. MODEL PREDICTIONS FOR DIFF
Page 209 and 210: ii A io o _ 9 Delay = 133 ms i .,-4
Page 211 and 212: i0 _. Delay = 133 ms o 1.4 I .,,4 _
Page 213 and 214: sensitivity of the OCM to increases
Page 215 and 216: [6] Ricard, G.L., R.V. Parrish, B.R
Page 217 and 218: Air Force Aerospace Medical Researc
Page 219 and 220: III. TASK ANALYSIS USING SAINT In o
Page 221 and 222: equired to detect the target, The c
Page 223 and 224: Examination of histograms of these
Page 225 and 226: EXP: SClII COND 19 (FLYBY 1, EW, EC
Page 227 and 228: conditions corresponding to particu
Page 229 and 230: o 0 _ oD _ • eo olo ooee ee I I I
Page 231 and 232:
• oeo_ eeee eoJo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Page 233 and 234:
REFERENCES I. Kleinman, D.L. and To
Page 235 and 236:
screen according to a pre-defined t
Page 237 and 238:
error signal. The error signal repr
Page 239 and 240:
Similarly Fig. 11 ,12, and 13 prese
Page 241 and 242:
.OO3- ,0_. .O01 Figure 6. Tracking
Page 243 and 244:
(sNnaoot) _._aoa.LV 6U_M paxk:l ,aO
Page 245 and 246:
2_ T v TRACK AZIMUTH ANGULAR RATECO
Page 247 and 248:
itl ,ii11 i _l,lJl]illJ_ , i,'i , .
Page 249 and 250:
manual control data to determine th
Page 251 and 252:
elative cost penalty on control-rat
Page 253 and 254:
pilot parameters. Conversely, a mat
Page 255 and 256:
these changes to parameters that ar
Page 257 and 258:
TABLE 2 Significance Test of Practi
Page 259 and 260:
TABLE 3 Effects of Practice on Pilo
Page 261 and 262:
variable(s) of interest. After para
Page 263 and 264:
subjects, trained initially fixed-b
Page 265 and 266:
A MODERNAPPROACHTO PILOTVEHICLEANAL
Page 267 and 268:
Unfortunately,the methodology suffe
Page 269 and 270:
DISTURBANCES lqw _ I ! i I MOTOR LA
Page 271 and 272:
By validatingthat the OCM can be us
Page 273 and 274:
SESSION4: MODELBASEDDESIGNAND CONTR
Page 275 and 276:
VALIDATION OF AN ADVANCED COCKPIT D
Page 277 and 278:
experimental program was conducted
Page 279 and 280:
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 _2U° 3
Page 281 and 282:
is repeatedfor several values of co
Page 283 and 284:
assumption. Indeed, including the Y
Page 285 and 286:
Display System Synthesis STATUS DIS
Page 287 and 288:
THREE _IMENSIONAL PERSPECTIVE TUNNE
Page 289 and 290:
Implementation of the flight direct
Page 291 and 292:
Using these numerical results, the
Page 293 and 294:
which will not be addressed at this
Page 295 and 296:
move towards the observer, but the
Page 297 and 298:
absolute levels of control performa
Page 299 and 300:
REFERENCES (continued) i0. Grunwald
Page 301 and 302:
and healthand safety data are accur
Page 303 and 304:
DESIGN ISSUES IN EMERGING AUTOMATIO
Page 305 and 306:
complacent. The second issueisa dir
Page 307 and 308:
_ ' ': _ _: _:_i ¸ i_:_ ,:>_:_ _ '
Page 309 and 310:
One of the difficulties of the mult
Page 311 and 312:
overview, the other, detailed views
Page 313 and 314:
Figures 8 and 9 depict displayedinf
Page 315 and 316:
REFERENCES Ackoff,RusselL.,"Managem
Page 317 and 318:
HUMAN - COMPUTER DIALOGUE FRAGMENT
Page 320 and 321:
FTGURE 4 3i3
Page 322 and 323:
FIGURE 6 ENTRY_CONTROL INFORMATION
Page 324 and 325:
HIERARCHICINTEGRATEDINFORHATIONDISP
Page 326 and 327:
GROUPEDPRIMITIVESINTEGRATEDDISPLAY
Page 328 and 329:
of functions to be displayed; (3) t
Page 330 and 331:
APPARATUS The mode selection task w
Page 332 and 333:
CONCLUSIONSAND RECOMMENDATIONS The
Page 334 and 335:
AN ANALYSIS OF CONTROL RESPONSES AS
Page 336 and 337:
The data suggest the need for rethi
Page 338 and 339:
The ideal flight display is one tha
Page 340 and 341:
140 WIND- SHEAR z 12_0 CP \ k 0_ I0
Page 342 and 343:
.6 ELEVATOR POWER SPECTRAL ANALYSIS
Page 344:
left hand) on the right side of the
Page 347 and 348:
the presentation of the stimulus wi
Page 349 and 350:
at the bottom/center of the oscillo
Page 351 and 352:
References Hartzell, E. J., Dunbar,
Page 353 and 354:
typically located near the top of t
Page 355 and 356:
7.1 ¸ It can be argued ni'ng,: e,x
Page 357 and 358:
effect control. The two hands are p
Page 359 and 360:
amplitude (A) and the narrowest tar
Page 361 and 362:
Figure 5. The subject station with
Page 363 and 364:
equal to 0.5 degrees per second ove
Page 365 and 366:
CYCLIC MT IPSI CONT l m 1,155 1.387
Page 367 and 368:
in the contralateral condition for
Page 369 and 370:
slopes for the two conditions are s
Page 371 and 372:
References 1. Fitts, P.M. & Seeger,
Page 373 and 374:
CHARACTERISTICS OF A COMPENSATORY M
Page 375 and 376:
of a subject via two sets of wet el
Page 377 and 378:
experimental system contained an ad
Page 379 and 380:
signals which are band-limitedat la
Page 381 and 382:
are equal to McRuer and Elkind's av
Page 383 and 384:
23. K. Tanie, S. Tachi, K. Komoriya
Page 385 and 386:
I0 _ -...../..._ n, o.5 v_ x/,,,.._
Page 387 and 388:
-(9- Fc=0.3 Hz Pl=10ms -_- Fc=0.5 H
Page 389 and 390:
Fc=0.3Hz Fc=0.5Hz 10 Fc=0.8Hz 201 "
Page 391 and 392:
e 20 20 em 10 •m ------ ------._.
Page 393 and 394:
SESSION5: HUMAN-MACHINESYSTEMSAND C
Page 395 and 396:
3. Model mimic techniques use a fai
Page 397 and 398:
SOURCEHEAD PENDULUM _ LO\ I?_(_ =TC
Page 399 and 400:
This Configuration Space with its C
Page 401 and 402:
Y 6 Xo-- _ --_'-e s× C [BY,, to ,.
Page 403 and 404:
In either the analytic or projectiv
Page 405 and 406:
no longer holds. \ \ \ \\ \ \ ! \
Page 407 and 408:
geometric machine with many moving
Page 409 and 410:
Yo P w_ _ _ _7p t / , °p # # ; / i
Page 411 and 412:
B. Minimum Information Storage Traj
Page 413 and 414:
Each machine degree of freedom, as
Page 415 and 416:
AXIS I FALSE ALARM" IAL ZONE TRUE C
Page 417 and 418:
3. Kreifeldt,J., Kiel, R., Richichi
Page 419 and 420:
PERCEPTUAL SCALING OF MOMENT OF INE
Page 421 and 422:
DATA ANALYSIS Starting at the cente
Page 423 and 424:
REFERENCES I. Kreifeldt,John G. and
Page 425 and 426:
DEXTEROUS MANIPULATOR LABORATORY PR
Page 427 and 428:
deviation appears to increase for T
Page 429 and 430:
Fig. 2 Manipulator Task Board 424
Page 431 and 432:
A DIRECTMEAN CTV MEAN • 3.3 TO 1
Page 433 and 434:
which occur in the AFTI/F-16. In fi
Page 435 and 436:
Table I - Newman-Keuls Multiple Com
Page 437 and 438:
,_ Teta!Score MJ TrackingRelated _=
Page 439 and 440:
(b co I 10 ;K FEED THROUGH H (Degre
Page 441 and 442:
l, 4 Fo _.CE ST LC._,< l,d O,_ Figu
Page 443:
i 1.:2 b l sPi..A¢ 9_.1"-!, EklT C
Page 446 and 447:
proportional or preselected fixed r
Page 448 and 449:
three microswitches. To latch safel
Page 450 and 451:
Claw Control Three methods were imp
Page 452 and 453:
C) Sensor display and visual access
Page 454 and 455:
Note that the most time consuming s
Page 456 and 457:
Table I. Time Performance Data of P
Page 458 and 459:
CONTROL -_ BIAS POSITION BUTTON INP
Page 460 and 461:
L_ Figure 3. Cylinderand Box Module
Page 462 and 463:
A C B Figure 5. Latching Mechanism
Page 464 and 465:
Ca) (b) (c) U"l Figure7. BerthingSe
Page 471 and 472:
HELICOPTER INTEGRATED CONTROLLER RE
Page 473 and 474:
METHOD Subjects. Subjects will be n
Page 475 and 476:
illustrated in Figure 2. Subjects w
Page 477 and 478:
amp. amp. amp. 4._ rrl _ -.4 --E [_
Page 479 and 480:
TENTATIVE CRITERIA FOR CONTROLLERS
Page 481 and 482:
simulator. Most soldiers who comple
Page 483:
makes a mistake and is otherwise si
Page 486 and 487:
The major future effort, other than
Page 488 and 489:
FACTORSAFFECTINGIN-TRAIL FOLLOWINGU
Page 491 and 492:
DISPLAY CONSIDERATIONS Location Our
Page 493 and 494:
The three types of spacing cues ill
Page 495 and 496:
that it tends to smooth out speed v
Page 497 and 498:
symbology section, can also shed so
Page 499 and 500:
If we apply the 50-second,5-percent
Page 501 and 502:
REFERENCES I. Abbott, Terence S.; M
Page 503 and 504:
TRAFFIC [ SELECTION CDTI ] SENSOR "
Page 505 and 506:
cZ) P_ Figure6.- Conventionalcockpi
Page 507 and 508:
\ 8_ Jacoxwaypoint"'_z_ JAC /kS_IG
Page 509:
Figure I0.- Advanced cockpit CDTI f
Page 512 and 513:
300 r--- ,,. f 250- _/_j' _ GROUNDS
Page 514 and 515:
CHARACTERISTICSOF LEADAIRCRAFT STEA
Page 516 and 517:
_ ' i ' ' ' 300- GROUNDSPEED, 250-
Page 518 and 519:
An informal analysis of projective
Page 520 and 521:
on the metric line at the end of th
Page 522 and 523:
Special thanks to Fumei "Amy" Wu of
Page 524 and 525:
fig. 2 Tag Placement I _ EYE -_ ' E
Page 526 and 527:
d.ing A'I"C.,c:harts, maps, weather
Page 528 and 529:
- I _£2__ , r .I // !-Tr-\ \ \
Page 530 and 531:
_'_Lm _ 030 . d 195 0S6 Figure 2: A
Page 532 and 533:
Four instrument-rated general aviat
Page 534 and 535:
TABLE I: Separation Violations that
Page 536 and 537:
statist.ic:al analysis. Averages fo
Page 538 and 539:
than without for" the pilots of the
Page 540 and 541:
Figure 4 depicts the frequency of s
Page 542 and 543:
Simulator Pilot Opinion At the conc
Page 544 and 545:
communications with the addition of
Page 546 and 547:
cared that the addition of CDTI int
Page 548 and 549:
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL OF SIMULATED AI
Page 550 and 551:
joystick for the control yoke and a
Page 552 and 553:
shown by a hexagon if the aircraft
Page 554 and 555:
The number of seconds between an ai
Page 556 and 557:
LIST OF AUTHORS 553
Page 558:
AUTHORS CONCLUDED J. L. Lewis 440 E
show all

18th annual conference on manual control.pdf - Acgsc.org

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?