Configural features of helmet-mounted displays to enhance pilot situation awareness

Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine

Volumn 79, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 397-407

  Jenkins, Joseph C ^a   Gallimore, Jennie J ^a  

^a Wright State University   (United States)

Author keywords

Configural displays; Emergent feature; HMD; HUD; Operator goals attitude reference; Saliency; Situation awareness

Indexed keywords

AIRCRAFT; AIRPLANE PILOT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; AWARENESS; HEAD POSITION; HEAD TILTING; HELMET; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IMAGE DISPLAY; NORMAL HUMAN; RECALL; RECOGNITION; SELECTIVE ATTENTION; TASK PERFORMANCE;

AEROSPACE MEDICINE; AIRCRAFT; AVIATION; DATA DISPLAY; HEAD PROTECTIVE DEVICES; HUMANS;

EID: 41549145236     PISSN: 00956562     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3357/ASEM.2195.2008     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Algina J, Kesselman HJ. Detecting repeated measures effects with univariate and multivariate statistics. Psychol Methods 1997; 2:208-18.
2. Barnette JF. Role of head- up display in instrument flight. Randolph AFB, TX: Instrument Flight Center; 1976. Instrument Flight Center Report No. IFC-LR-76-2.
3. Bennett KB, Flach JM. Graphical displays - implications for divided attention, focused attention, and problem-solving. Hum Factors 1992; 34:513-33.
4. Buttigieg MA, Sanderson PM. Emergent features in visual-display design for two types of failure detection tasks. Hum Factors 1991; 33:631-51.
5. Chandra D, Weintraub DJ. Design of head-up display symbology for recovery from unusual attitudes. Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium on Aviation Psychology; April 1993; Columbus, OH. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press; 1993:58-63.
6. Deaton JE, Barnes MJ, Lindsey NJ, Greene JL. The effect of windscreen bows and HUD pitch ladder format on pilot performance during simulated flight. Warminster, PA: Naval Air Development Center; 1989. Report No. NADC 89084-60.
7. nd Annual Meeting; October 24-28, 1988; Anaheim, CA. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; 1988:97-101.
8. Endsley MR. Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors 1995; 37:32-64.
9. Endsley MR. Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors 1995; 37:65-84.
10. Ercoline WC, Gillingham KK, Greene FA, Previc FH. Effects of variations in head-up display pitch-ladder representations on orientation recognition. Proceedings of the 33rd Human Factors Society Annual Meeting; October 16-20, 1989; Denver, CO. Santa Monica, CA: HFES; 1989:1401-5.
11. Fischer G, Fuchs W. Symbology for head-up and head-down applications for highly agile fighter aircraft to improve spatial awareness. In: Proceedings of AGARD Symposium on Combat Automation of Airborne Weapon Systems Man/Machine Interface: Trends and Technologies. Edinburgh, Scotland: AGARD; Oct. 1992:19-22. Report no. AGARD-CP-520.
12. Guttmann J. Evaluation of the F/A-18 head-up display for recovery from unusual attitudes. Warminster, PA: Naval Air Development Center; 1986. Report no. NADC 86157-60.
13. Hall JR, Stephens CM, Penwill JC. A review of the design and development of the RAE fast-Jet head-up display format. Bedford, England: Royal Aeronautical Establishment; 1989. Report no. RAE FM-WP 034(89).
14. Jenkins JC. Development of helmet-mounted display symbology for use as a primary flight reference. In: Lewandowski RJ, Haworth LA, Girolamo HJ, eds. Proceedings of SPIE, Helmet-Mounted Displays VIII. Bellingham, WA: SPIE; 2003.
15. Jones DG, Endsley MR. Sources of situation awareness errors in aviation. Aviat Space Environ Med 1996; 67:507-12.
16. Liggett KK, Gallimore JJ. An analysis of control reversal errors during unusual attitude recoveries using helmet-mounted display symbology. Aviat Space Environ Med 2002; 73:102-11.
17. Newman RL. Operational problems with head-up displays during instrument flight. Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory; 1980. Technical Report AFAMRL-TR-80-116.
18. Pomerantz JR, Pristach EA. Emergent features, attention, and perceptual glue in visual form perception. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1989; 15:635-49.
19. Pomerantz JR, Sager LC, Stoever RJ. Perception of wholes and of their component parts: some configural superiority effects. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1977; 3:422-35.
20. Roscoe SN. The trouble with HUDs and HMDs. Human Factors Society Bulletin 1987; 30(7):1-2.
21. Taylor RM, Selcon SJ. Situation in mind: theory, application and measurement of situation awareness. In: Gibson RD, Garland DJ, Koonce JM, eds. Proceedings of Situational Awareness in Complex Systems. Daytona Beach, FL: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Press; 1994:69-77.
22. Uhlarik J, Comerford DA. A review of situation awareness literature relevant to pilot surveillance functions. Washington, DC: Office of Aerospace Medicine; 2002. Report no. DOT/FAA/AM-02/3.
23. U.S. Department of the Air Force, Headquarters U.S. Air Force. Air force manual 11-217: instrument flight procedures. Washington DC: U.S. Air Force; 2002.
24. U.S. Department of Defense. MIL-STD-1787C, Department of Defense interface standard for aircraft display symbology. Philadelphia, PA: Defense Automated Printing Service; 2000.
25. Wickens C. The object display: principles and a review of experimental findings. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Cognitive Psychophysiology Laboratory, Dept. of Psychology; 1986. Tech. Report CPL-86-6.
26. Woods DD. The cognitive engineering of problem representations. In: Weir GRS, Alty JL, eds. Human-computer interaction and complex systems. London: Academic; 1991:169-88.