)
reviewed some of the reasons why NASA Ames invests in human factors R&D:20 May 2002
Trip Report
Department of Defense
Human Factors Engineering Technical Advisory Group (DOD HFE TAG) Meeting #47 – April 29th- 2nd May 2002
The 47th meeting of the DoD HFE TAG held in San Diego, California. The meeting was chaired by Dr. James Geddie, Army Research Laboratory Field Element, Ft. Hood, TX. Approximately 100 people attended the meeting, representing the US Army, US Navy, US Air Force, OSD, DISA/DTIC, DARPA, NAIC, Sandia National Laboratory, NASA, FAA, and several human factors-related technical societies and industry associations.
Four items are attached:
· Background of the DoD HFE TAG, attachment (1)
· TAG-47 meeting schedule, attachment (2).
· TAG-47 attendees, attachment (3)
· Current DoD HFE TAG Operating Board, attachment (4).
Plenary Session Presentations:
The DoD HFE TAG Chair for the 47th meeting, Dr. James C. Geddie, welcomed attendees to the meeting and reviewed the theme: C4ISR: Enabling the Information Dominance Transformation
Overview of Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center San Diego
Mr. Tom LaPuzza and Mr. Ed Bettina, Public Affairs Officer, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, San Diego provided a brief overview of the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SSC) and its core research and development areas. The SSC employees about 3,300 personnel and its annual budget is approximately $1.341 billion, with about 65% flowing through to industry. Modeling and Simulation is a major thrust of the center within which the following represent significant areas of concentration:
· Information dominance
o Focused sensing and data acquisition
o Information dissemination
o Integrated undersea surveillance
· Dynamic Interoperable Connectivity
o Top-side antenna design
· Automated Communications Management systems
o Universal information access
o Command, control, intelligence systems
o Tactical data links (lead for Link-16; Link-16 now on submarines)
· Information security
o Information Operations center of the future – Working Battle lab
o Data fusion and analysis
o Global positioning system
o Global command and control system-maritime (GCCS-M)
· Distributed collaboration
o Automated digital network systems
o Human systems technology
o DD-21 Multi-Modal workstation
· Meteorology
· Fleet Marine Mammal support
· Robotics
Supporting Human Decision-making in Complex Systems
Dr. Terry Allard, Chief, Human Factors Research & Technology Division, Information
Sciences & Technology Directorate, Ames Research Center (
)
reviewed some of the reasons why NASA Ames invests in human factors R&D:
· Human ingenuity makes systems resilient
· Automation doesn’t eliminate human factors issues.
· Human variability includes human error.
· Usability and comprehensibility are essential elements of any manned system.
· People make the key calls, supported by decision aids.
· People will remain accountable in future systems.
· Oceans of data must be transformed into information usable by human decision-makers.
The key areas of research at Ames are:
· Individual and team decision-making in operational contexts.
· Predictive models of Human System Integration.
· Advance multi-modal interaction.
· Proactive management of system risk. Minimizing risk by identifying potential problems and mitigating them before they materialize. They are doing lots of data mining, examining incident reports. They are identifying patterns from multiple sources of existing data (verbal, radar, and flight data recordings). The Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS) has more than 500,000 reports in it, gathered over the past 50 years. Based on this work, on the average of 200 alerts are issued annually. They are also considering starting up a “security reporting/alerting system.”
· Human Error. Memory errors, plan continuation errors, and flight deck/communication errors are being investigated.
· Fatigue. Fatigue is being monitored using Percent eye closure (PERCLOS) metric (Boeing, Dr. Kurt Graeber, is the customer for this activity).
· Oculometrics. Human information processing is being investigated by the use of unobtrusive measurement of eye movements.
· Three-Dimensional Sound.
The areas where problems occur are thought to be:
· Operator (e.g., fatigue, workload)
· Collaboration (e.g., aircraft-to-aircraft, flight deck)
· Human Computer Interface (e.g., interfaces, procedures)
· System-wide Issues (e.g., maintenance, air traffic control)
Overview of HF efforts at NHRC
CDR Karl Van Orden, Director of Science and Technology, Naval Health Research Center
(
) provided an overview of San Diego’s Naval Regional Health
Center. In the Pensacola element, Dr. Angus Rupert has developed an advanced vibro-tactile
suit to assist aircrew in difficult flying tasks. Another project is the Human-Centered
Computing Cockpit Display, which has been shown to provide improved altitude control and
lower workload in high turbulence flight conditions. LT Jeff Dyche is investigating “watch
standing;” he is developing data to show that the traditional “12 on, 6 off” schedule is not
optimal in terms of circadian rhythm compatibility and human performance. LT Katie Shobe is
investigating workload on submarines; she is exploring new submarine C2 systems and new
sensors, with a special focus on Officer of the Deck (OOD) knowledge organization.
In San Diego, portable ultrasound imaging is being investigated as a medical device. They are also investigating isometric strength, with an application being people/jobs involving the loading and unloading of boxes. They are also investigating activity correlates of drowsiness and workload. There are three lines of investigation into extreme environments:
· Study of human performance and heat tolerance in high temperature environments,
· Human tolerance of cold/high altitude environments
· Shock absorbing seat for Special Boat Squadron One.
Dr. Joe McDaniel (WPAFB) provided a brief tribute to Jerry Chaikin, a long time support of the TAG, a Member Emeritus, and long time leader in the area of human factors standardization. Jerry passed away on October 20th, 2001. He is sorely missed by human factors professionals around the world and by the TAG participants in particular.
Human Factors Process Innovations for the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) System Battle Management Command & Control (formerly National Missile Defense)
Dr. Thomas M. Cook, Army Research Laboratory, Human Research & Engineering
Directorate, FT Huachuca (
) indicated that the command and
control Operator Interface Review Team (C2OIRT) at Ft. Huachuca is staffed by prime
contractor and Joint Project Office (JPO) personnel. Responsibilities include applying HFE
expertise to issues and evaluation of displays via objective experiment. Operator task lists
assist in system representation and network-based task modeling (Micro Saint) for is used
system evaluation.
The JSF Human-Machine Interface Program - A Contractor's Challenge
Dr. Randy Aust, Manager, JSF Air System Human-Machine Interface Team, Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics (
) described the JSF human factors team. The JSF human
factors organization (at level 1 in the BBS structure) is helping to develop, produce and sustain
the United States’ affordable, next generation fighter. This will be a 12-13 year program effort.
The JSF crew station will employ an 8” x 20” contiguous display, innovative STOVL controls,
3-D audio and voice control, integrated life support, a next-generation escape system (vectored
thrust and auto-ejection). The contract guarantees system availability and training. The human
factors effort targets the following “customers” – operators (pilots), trainers, maintainers and
builders (factory).
Distributed Decision Making: A Team Feedback System from a Software Approach in the Command Center, Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center, NORAD
Capt Timothy Goodroe, US Air Force, Course Director, Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center
(
) and Mr. Glen Gese
(
). Capt. Goodroe’s organization is charged with providing
all of the training of Cheyenne Mountain personnel. This includes communications, crew
coordination and SA, or Crew Resource Management. Capt. Goodroe contends poor crew
resource management accounts for 45% of all crew errors at “the mountain.” It is a major
cause of team failure. Mostly, the problems are with communications and loss of situational
awareness. The number of problems increases with:
· Higher crew workload,
· Working with unfamiliar crews
· Working with “pro-shifters” (occasional workers)
Carnegie-Mellon University is monitoring all of the crew activities in the mountain. They have been given unprecedented access to crews, facilities and managers.
COTS Collaboration Technology: Supporting New C4ISR Environments
Dr. George Seymour, Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SSC), San Diego
(
) has been investigating the emergence of collaborative tools. He
has developed a database over the past six months that already contains nearly 500 different
software-based collaboration tools (e.g., such as instant messaging, groupware, Sprint/Lucent
3rd generation cellular devices). This area is “exploding” with new tools every week.
Approximately 10% of these tools are but their instability and or lack of longevity in the
marketplace make most of them a poor choice. Dr. Seymour believes that maintaining
connectivity is becoming as important or more important than the actual content exchanged
over networks. The social networks developed and their related knowledge and skills greatly
increase the value of any content exchanged.
A Session with Dr. Foster on Challenges to the HFE-TAG
Dr. Robert E. Foster, Director, BioSystems, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(ODUSD), ODDR&E (
) hosts the bi-annual Technology area Review and
Assessments (TARA) in the following areas: Human Systems Interface, Bio-Systems, Civil
Engineering, Environmental Quality, Chemical/Biological Defense, Combating Terrorism and
Explosives & De-Militarization. “Transformation” is an area of major emphasis in the Science
and Technology (S&T) community today. Of the six areas important to transformation, three
are impacted by HSI; they are Knowledge Systems, Future Combat System (FCS), and DD(X)
(formerly DD-21). Dr. Foster’s office sponsored a workshop at M.I.T. in July 2001 on Human
Systems/Information Systems Collaboration. This workshop looked at issues with the
acquisition process/cycle, C4ISR development cycle and social & interpersonal (e.g.,
education, culture, language, communications, trust, perceived value) issues. With regard to
cultural issues, narrowing of differences between how HS and IS communities define “success”
may help better align their efforts (the marketplace definition of software now is that it must be
both functional and useful). He anticipates that there will be additional workshops on the
following selected areas:
· Decision-Aiding
· Agent-based software
· 3-D audio
· Acoustics
Dr. Foster indicated that the DoD HFE TAG could provide assistance in the following areas:
· A “Best Practices” guideline for C4ISR – a human utility assessment and science-based methods and metrics
· HFE Lessons Learned
· Documentation/quantification of HFE impact
· Contributions to improvement of the JWCO (Joint War fighter Capability Objective)
· Make visible to a broader community HFE core competencies and a directory of expertise (nodes of expertise and a directory of experts).
Sub-Group Meetings Attended at the DoD HFE TAG:
Design: Tools and Techniques. Mr. Lester Jee, Office of the PM, Crusader Project,
(
) chaired this SubTAG meeting. The first speaker was Ms. Teresa K.
Alley, DISA/MATRIS, who presented Directory of Design Support Methods. Ms. Alley
indicated that a re-design is in the works. There will be fewer fields in order to enable more
flexible narratives and new indexing categories and codes. There will also be a new DDSM
database and the web site is also being re-designed. A full 100% of the records will be
updated.
The second speaker was Dr. Mike Biferno, representing the Boeing Company and SAE,
(
) who presented Digital Ergonomic Design Tool (DEDT)
Technology. The objective is to evaluate available tools and industry’s needs. The study will
be conducted for the National Research council (NRC) over 18 months. The two goals are:
· Describe the current state-of-the-art for digital ergonomic design tool technology, and,
·Produce roadmaps for digital ergonomic design tool technology improvement.
The study is currently “on hold” for two reasons. First, the US Government did not fully support the new proposed ergonomic standard, and, September 11th has caused funds to be diverted to other initiatives. It was suggested that other agencies, such as the Defense Modeling and Simulation Office, might be interested in helping to underwrite such a study.
Human Factors Engineering/Human Systems Integration: Management and Applications. The first speaker was Dr. Wally Wulfeck, ONR, who presented Capable Manpower. (No notes available) The second speaker was Mr. Jerome Dunn, Office of Naval Research, who presented Navy Acquisition Intern Program. This intern program provides 2.5 years of rotational assignments and focused development for promising college graduates. It provides for rapid promotion (GS 07 entry, GS 12 exit). Salaries are centrally funded so the agencies to which the interns are assigned are not responsible for providing funds. Each rotational assignment is from two to four months in duration. The program guarantees that each intern will be hired by the agency to which the intern first applied for work. Pursuit of advanced degrees is encouraged and funded. Rapid promotion ensures job use of leadership and experiences gained in the program. If interested in further information about the program, please consult: www.navyintern.cms.navy.mil.
The third speaker was LCDR Dylan Schmorrow, Ph.D. from ONR (
)
who presented VIRTE – Virtual Technologies and Environments. This project is
investigating the application of immersive (virtual) technologies for the following customers:
AAAV, MV-22 and LCAC. These program systems all involve expeditionary warfare and will
be fielded in approximately 2004. The challenge is to develop “leap-ahead” human immersive
technologies for Naval training. These technologies are to supplement/complement live
training using virtual and war-gaming simulations. It will be used to train warriors for dealing
with increasing complexity and chaos. The next area to be addressed is Military Operations in
Urban terrain (MOUT). There appears to be significant potential for savings of cost and
training time with virtual technology.
The goals of this work are to:
· Expand the knowledge base,
· Incorporate understanding of human behavior theory into systems
· Leverage commercial technologies
· Evolve capabilities.
The fourth speaker was Dr. Jennifer Narkevicius, ARINC (
),
who made a presentation on Human Interface in C4ISR. She reported on work she is doing as
a part of the Navy’s “Analysis of Alternatives” to determine the follow-on system to the EA6B
tactical jamming system. Some of the issues being examined are: 1 vs. 2 crew, whether or not
tasks can be distributed across platforms, what role can automation play in the most difficult
scenarios, what issues contribute to making a mission stressful and what the key automation
issues are. Her approach involved reviewing many existing program documents, interviewing
users, consulting with industry, conferring with the Institute for Defense Analysis IDA) on the
JSF program and collaborating with other organizations. It has been determined that rule-based
automation is too brittle to be of significant use. The most robust approach to automation is
making an intelligent agent that can serve the crew as advisor/consultant. To determine where
automation could be gainfully employed, functions were allocated according to established
rules (e.g., Fitts list) and decisions were made that good candidates are tasks that could be
accomplished by humans in seconds or tens of seconds (short and log ends of the continuum
excluded: sub-second and minutes/days). Automation will not remove the human from the
system. Follow-on work will involve performing a risk analysis (workload vs. automation) and
using the results as a framework to proceed on addressing the crew size issue.
Human factors was “in early” on this project. The main reasons for this was:
·Involvement by OSD
·Navy lead was an enlightened EA-6B ECMO
·Navy lead realized crew issues would be significant
·Navy lead had personal experience in the crew systems and human factors areas.
The last speaker was Dr. Sandra Hart, NASA Ames, who provided an “Update on MIDAS.”
She reviewed the most recent applications of MIDAS to the BV-22 and 747-400 programs. The MIDAS human operator model represents the following dimensions:
·Cognitive memory – uses an existing database
·Vision, audition and proprioception. Vision is 160 degrees peripheral with 2.5 degrees foveal. Vision performs detection, recognition and identification functions. Auditory function performs detection and comprehension.
·Decision-making uses procedures input by the model operator
·Attention uses the Wickens model
·Workload uses the McCracken/Aldridge model
·Situational Awareness uses a model by J. Schively (SIMSAM)
·Output behavior is represented using the JACK model (or a simple eye/hand visualization)
·Equipment model is in MIDAS. (improvements could be made here)
·Vehicle Model is a simple model or operator supplied
·Simulation System offers many different views of the simulation
·User interface is powerful and easy to use.
Dr. Hart indicated that MIDAS 2.0 is nearing completion and that beta testing is underway. She indicated that the GUI interface is much improved. It runs on a Silicon Graphics machine.
Human Factors In Extreme Environments. Mr. Cletis Booher, NASA Johnson
Space Center (
) chaired the meeting. The first presentation was
on: Situational Understanding in Dynamic and Novel Environments, by Dr. John Warner,
US Army Research Lab, Ft. Huachuca (
). The object of the work is
to assist in decision-making. There is a wide range of unpredictable threats in new military
missions (peace keeping, homeland security, etc.). Because operational environments are more
complex and dynamic, they are more difficult to understand. Today’s troops are not dealing
with force-on-force situations. More and different types of information are required and the
information is not always unambiguous. There is a need for rapid knowledge building and a
high level of adaptability. There are three types of decision support (see Figure 1):
·Simulation Support: DSS provides tools to explore key relationships to optimize decision-making
·Integration Support: DSS directly augments the knowledge base and attentional flow.
·Representational support: DSS facilitates visualizing and structuring the situation.
Adaptive knowledge building is what we want. This allows us to: rapidly make sense of the world, transfer the picture to others, and make wise (but idiosyncratic) decisions in the face of imperfect and incomplete information. These all-important skills are called “story-building” and “story-telling.” Story building is searching for relationships and finding ways to connect them to what you know (objective is to build the “big picture). Story telling is the transmittal of understanding to others in a way that relationships clear and predictions can be made. Stories are very powerful because:
· They integrate knowledge, data, expectations and even feelings into a single mental simulation that can be used to make predications and evaluations.
· They provide an experience-based elaboration of data that is organized based on previous experience to delineate theme, character and motivation.
· They are easily passed on, shared and incorporated by others.
· They need not represent ground truth to be effective but they must be “good enough”- coherence is important (they need to make sense).
· They allow rapid building of knowledge for the purpose of predicting behavior even when experience and knowledge are limited. This can lead to rapid understanding.
Assumptions relating to this approach are:
· Real world decision-making requires that we can make the situation coherent. If a situation makes sense, you can infer and make predictions.
· People trust people who tell coherent and useful stories.
· The greater the amount of uncertainty, the more important it is to aid a decision maker in building a good story.
Future research will test the assumptions. One of the issues to be investigated is how to best present information to support story telling. Another area of interest is in situations where story telling is not effective. Pilot studies are currently underway.
The next speaker, Mr. Chuck Henry, Pacific Science & Engineering Group (
) made a presentation on Human Factors Lessons Learned at the National
training Center. They examined the adequacy of current hydration policy and practice at Ft.
Irwin, a semi- tropical desert that is similar to Afghanistan except at lower altitude. The human
thirst drive is inadequate so there must be a drinking policy. The old required drinking policy
was to avoid alcohol and to drink more than you feel you needed. The rule of thumb was
normal consumption is a quart a day but when in combat, a gallon a day. The current regulation
is that each soldier must drink 8 quarts a day. The guideline is 5 gallons a day! Normally, a
person loses 2 liters/day but in the desert a soldier loses 3-liters/day minimum. Investigators
also found that as soldiers (even experienced ones) became more and more dehydrated during
training operations, their accident rate increased (‘dumb,” avoidable accidents).
The third speaker was Dr. Sheryl L. Bishop, Univ. of Texas Medical Branch, who presented Evaluating Teams in Extreme Environments: Deep Caving, Polar and Desert Expeditions.
Dr Bishop’s primary areas of interest are selection, isolation/confinement effects, group interaction and individual/crew performance. She is examining three extreme expeditions. The first was a Deep diving expedition to extend the exploration of the Hualta Cave System in Mexico. The caves are at a depth of 1,639 meters. The divers spent 44 days exploring in total darkness. The expedition began with 15 divers and ended with only four. Psychological profiles were completed prior to the dive. The second case was a Norwegian Winter-Over in Antarctica by four men. The third case involved men and women surviving the Australian Outback for six days. Men’s and women’s groups had very different approaches to leadership.
Human Factors Standardization (HFS) Mr. Alan Poston, FAA, chaired the meeting
(
). Following an introduction of the attendees, the SubTAG proceeded
through its agenda. The first speaker was Ms. Dawn Woods, US Army Natick Labs,
(
) who spoke on Using Boundary Manikins to Assess
Accommodation of a Prototype Parachute Harness. Ms. Woods provides human factors
support to the Advanced Tactical Parachute System (ATPS). ATPS will replace the old T-10
parachute and harness. She used boundary manikins (representing the extremes of different
body sizes and morphologies).
The second speaker was LCDR Dylan Schmorrow, DARPA (
), who
spoke on War fighting Concepts to Future Weapon System Designs (WARCON), which is
currently moving into phase III. The weapons handling area was chosen as an independent
variable in order to look at impacts on sortie generation. War-gaming output was reviewed and
the constraints imposed by aircraft carrier designs (current designs) were examined. It was
determined that the number of sorties generated was constrained by: a) the number of people
assembling weapons and b) the time it takes to assemble the weapons. The impact of these
constraints was quantified and areas of improvement were studied.
The next speaker was Dr. Glen Osga (
), SPAWAR Systems Center,
spoke on the Iterative Human Computer Interface Design Process. Dr. Osga presented a
related paper at the HS/IS workshop at M.I.T. in July 2001. He implemented a task-centered
design approach on the Multi-Modal Watch-Station system (see Figure 2.) He advocates
developing a common view of the design for both the software and human factors people.
a. MIL-STD-1472F. It was reported that MIL-STD-1472F conversion to an Interface Standard might still be possible. The Army has a current waiver (allowing application of the Mil-std as a requirement) that will remain in force until September 2002. The Navy also has a waiver in place that will be in effect until August 7th, 2003. The USAF has no waiver in effect. Mr. Alan Poston indicated that he would recommend changing MIL-STD-1472F to an interface standard to the Defense Standardization Office. Dr. Joe McDaniel made a short presentation on paragraph 5.6 of the mil-standard. He reported that human performance is task specific; body size alone is not sufficient to address functional accommodation. Accommodating the central 90% is not a good approach because design constraints change as a function of the male/female split. (See Figure 3.)
b. MIL-STD-1787: Version “D” has been released.
c. MIL-STD-882D: The update to extend safety metrics to three dimensions is still in the works.
d. MIL-H-46855: Mr. Lou Adams, GEIA (
), discussed the nearly
complete effort to convert this cancelled mil-spec to EIA Bulletin HEB1, entitled “Human
Engineering-Principles and Practices.”
e. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES)/ISO/TC159: HFES 100, “Human Factors Engineering of Computer Workstations” is being updated (first update since 1988). It has been released as a trial use standard-not to exceed three years. The previous version addressed only one reference posture (upright seated). This version addresses four postures (upright seated, reclined seated, declined seated, and standing). New methodologies of combining existing anthropometric dimensions were used. As a result, more accurate specifications were developed for relevant workspace dimensions. The previous version addressed keyboards as the only input device. This version includes a discussion of non-keyboard input devices. Similarly, the display section has been expanded to cover both color and flat-panel displays.
f. Joint Services Specification Guide: The 2001 version on air vehicle has been published. It available on Distribution Statement D – “DoD and DoD Contractors only: contains critical technology.”
g. NASA MSIS: Mr. Cletis Booher indicated that NASA-STD-3000 is now an ISO document
(17399). He also provided an update on the MSIS effort, which is now developing
exploration class mission requirements. This class includes multi-year exploration
missions. A database (HFE requirements, draft future requirements, emerging research and
technology, action items, research publications and contact information) is being assembled
using the Dynamic Object Oriented Requirements System (DOORS). Clete can be
contacted at (281) 483-8951 or
. Ms. Teresa Alley reminded
attendees that the TAG/HFS SubTAG website provides access to a variety of specs,
standards and handbooks.
h. Data Item Descriptions (DIDs): The GEIA G-45 human factors committee will not adopt the DIDs on HE Test Plan or HE Test Report. Marcie Langelier (Navy) will resubmit some of the existing DIDs to Lakehurst (standardization office) for approval. Alan Poston will alert the Army standardization office that the Navy is pursuing reactivation of selected DIDs.
i. AD-1410: Dr. Jennifer Narkovicius (ARINC, INC) will look into its status. There is some interest in making this a tri-service guidance document.
j. Index of Non-Government Standards: Alan Poston has revalidated approximately 90% of the 1998 index. He will send the current list to Faith chandler and Steve Merriman to complete the validation. Faith Chandler indicated that she might be able to assign an intern to the task. The target is to have the index revalidated and ready for issue at the next TAG meeting.
k. Gateway: Mr. Tom Metzler indicated that an upcoming HSIAC Gateway publication (third or fourth quarter of 2002) would feature articles on human factors standards.
Nominations are being solicited for TS/I SubTAG chair elect. Per the charter, nominations for chair elect are to be made at fall meetings on even years. The new chair elect also will be voted on at the fall meeting.
Human Factors in Telemedicine and Biomedical Technologies. (not attended)
Controls and Displays. LT. Chris Hart chaired the meeting. The first presentation was
on Symbology and Display Layout for Navy Combat Information Center (CIC)
Situational Awareness Tasks by Mr. John Winters, Basic Commerce and Industries
(
). Mr. Winters briefly reviewed some of the things we already
know about portraying contacts and tracks on displays (such as color coding helps recognition,
3D realistic icons are preferred) and what we don’t know (such as the benefits of 3-D icons
with high symbol densities). Mr. Winters described an experiment conducted at BCI that
compared color Naval Tactical Data System (NTDS) symbology, MIL-STD-2525B (filled)
symbology and realistic 3-D icons (with drop lines to indicate altitude). They varied symbol
readout locations (typical of “amplified data”) in a fixed location and adjacent to the contact.
Displays consisted of 300 contact and point symbols. No display manipulation was allowed.
Forty-five subjects participated in the experiment. Four different tasks were used; search of
friendly aircraft targets, locate neutral tanker aircraft, identify commercial aircraft below 25K
ft. and identify a specific type of air track -count the number of threat fighter aircraft. In terms
of performance (time and error) the following results were determined:
1. Air search: MIL-STD-2525B symbology best.
2. Surface search: MIL-STD-2525B symbology and NTDS best.
3. Identify Commercial Air < 25 K ft: 3D and MIL-STD-2525 better.
4. Recognize air tracks: MIL-STD-2525B best (40% faster performance).
Text readout location: No difference with high display density. The location adjacent to contacts was a list of seven items on an opaque background (covered TACPLOT).
Conclusions reached were as follows:
1. High contact/track density may reduce the benefit of 3D symbols.
2. No difference between 2D and 3D symbol performance.
3. Harder to hook air tracks using 3D symbols
4. Amplifying information on 2525B symbols significantly reduce response time.
5. Despite a preference for readouts adjacent to contacts, no performance differences.
The next speaker, LCDR Dylan Schmorrow, PhD., DARPA (
),
made a presentation on Tomorrow’s Human Computer Interface from Vision to
Reality. The goal of research sponsored by DARPA in this area is to develop systems
that “know what they are doing.” These systems are closed loop- human computational
systems wherein the computer anticipates actions, predicts and augments the human’s
performance. The system will use operator psychophysiological states (e.g., body
sensing, brain imaging, external head monitoring, eye measurements) and mission
context as inputs to aid in providing decision support. All human communication
channels will be used (e.g., visual, audio, proprioceptive, haptic, verbal, spatial,
temporal). The program will run in four phases:
1. Phase I: Real-time cognitive state detection
2. Phase II: Smart display, real-time cognitive state manipulation
3. Phase III: Autonomous state manipulation
4. Phase IV: Operational demonstration and transition
The next speaker, Heath Ruff, Sytronics, Inc. (
), made a
presentation on Multi-sensory Interfaces for Unmanned air Vehicles (UAV). The
UAV issues addressed in this presentation were crew coordination, limited situational
awareness and sub-optimal controllers. These factors cause the operator to continually
be “behind the vehicle,” and suffer from decreased situational awareness. Sytronics is
investigating recent mishaps and problems reported by the MAJCOMS, such as:
insufficient manpower, poor SA, poor real-time control, limited visual display area, and
the need to open multiple windows to effect required control. Currently it takes one or
more operators to control one UAV. Lots of different skills are required to do this. The
need is for an approach that allows a single operator to handle one or more UAVs
simultaneously. Some of the areas of research include: multi-modal interfaces (3D
audio, helmet mounted display (HMD), synthetic cues, improved symbology, voice
control, perspective displays, global/local improved SA and improved feedback). The
baseline comparative system being used is a Predator control station (pilot and sensor
operator). Their up-coming study will be incorporate several advances and determining
their impacts:
1. Cueing between operators
2. Haptic cues (turbulence feedback via stick) for landing phase
3. HMD for sensor operator
4. Tactile feedback
5. Decision aiding
Human Modeling and Simulation. (not attended)
Sustained/Continuous Operations (SUSOPS/CONOPS). (not attended)
System Safety/Health Hazards/Survivability. Mr. Ben Gibson,
AMEDDC&S (
) chaired the meeting. Nominees are
being sought for SubTAG chair elect. The first presentation was by Dr. Robert A.
Fleming, Space and Warfare Systems Center, Code 24402
(
). The presentation was A “Tag and Release” Approach
to Information Exchange in Crises/Disaster Situations. Successful crisis situation
handling requires collaborative decision-making, public (shared) information and
private information. When people have to share information, decision-making suffers
significantly. People do not seem to like to share their information. Also, people don’t
place equal weight on other people’s information. Dr. Fleming is investigating methods
of improving collaborative decision-making under stressful conditions. Since cognitive
overload seems to be a major component of crisis situations, collaborative technologies
must be easy to use or they won’t be used at all.
The next speaker was Dr. Richard Kopke, Director of the Defense Spatial Orientation Center, Naval Medical Center, San Diego (