Now You See It, Now You Don’t: A Change Blindness Assessment of Flight Display Complexity and Pilot Performance
Abstract
Synthetic Vision Systems (SVS) provide a revolutionary new technology for modern aircraft flight decks, changing the way pilots see the world by merging a high-resolution representation of their immediate terrain and surroundings underneath the traditional primary flight instruments. Despite its operational benefits, there may be challenges to the effective use of SVS and little research has focused on pilot performance measures. Using custom designed flight display images and a novel Flicker Paradigm, an experiment was designed to measure pilot response time to visual cues on both SVS and conventional electronic displays and also for different levels of pilot experience. Results indicated that change detection was impaired with the SVS display across the pilot ranks. Pilots were typically seven seconds slower and made more errors using the SVS display, supporting other research that suggests that the background complexity of SVS hampers the speed and accuracy of identifying visual cues. Contrary to what was expected, first officers performed both quicker and more accurately than captains. Perhaps this signals the first signs of a new crop of pilots who have been trained using 21st century synthetic and electronic flight displays in today’s light training aircraft.
Keywords
Avionics Synthetic vision systems Change blindness Pilot performance Flicker paradigmNotes
Funding
This research was part of an MSc Thesis and therefore not formally funded. The authors acknowledge the support of Zetta Jet Flight Department, specifically Eric Rastler Chief Pilot, for granting approval to conduct the research using company personnel.
References
- 1.Endsley, M.: Towards a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum. Factors 37(1), 32–64 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 2.Endsley, M., Jones, D.: Designing for Situation Awareness: An Approach to User Centred Design, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2016)Google Scholar
- 3.Foyle, D.C., Kaiser, M.K., Johnson, W.W.: Visual cues in low-level flight: implications for pilotage, training, simulation, and enhanced/synthetic vision systems. In: American Helicopter Society 48th Annual Forum, vol. 1, pp. 253–260 (1992)Google Scholar
- 4.Wilmhelmson, R.B., Jewett, B.F., Shaw, C., Wicker, L.J., Arrott, M., Bushell, C.B., Bajuk, M., Thingvold, J., Yost, J.B.: A study of the evolution of a numerically modelled severe storm. Int. J. Supercomput. Appl. 4(2), 20–36 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Medjal, S., McCauley, E., Beringer, D.: Human Factors Design Guidelines for Multifunction Displays. U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Aerospace Medicine: Washington (2001) Google Scholar
- 6.Priznell III, L., Kramer, L., Bailey, R., Arthur, J., Williams, S., McNabb, J.: Augmentation of Cognition and Perception Through Advanced Synthetic Vision Technology. NASA Langley, Hampton (2005)Google Scholar
- 7.Theunissen, E.: Integrated Design of a Man-Machine Interface for 4-D Navigation. Delft University Press, The Netherlands (1997)Google Scholar
- 8.Deutsch, S., Pew, R.: Examining new flight deck technology using human performance modeling. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting, pp. 108–112. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Wolfe, J.: What can 1 million trials tell us about visual search? Psychol. Sci. 9(1), 33–39 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Caroux, L., LeBigot, L., Vibert, N.: Impact of the motion and visual complexity of the background on players’ performance in video game-like displays. Ergonomics 56(12), 1863–1876 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Neisser, U., Becklen, R.: Selective looking: attending to visually specified events. Cogn. Psychol. 7, 480–494 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Fischer, E., Haines, R.F., Price, T.A.: Cognitive Issues in Head-Up Displays, NASA Technical Paper 1711. NASA Ames Research Centre, Moffett Field (1980)Google Scholar
- 13.Stedmon, A.W., Kalawsky, R.S., Hill, K., Cook, C.A.: Old theories, new technologies: cumulative clutter effects using augmented reality. In: IEEE International Conference on Information Visualisation 1999: International Conference on Computer Visualisation, 14–16 July, London, U.K. (1999)Google Scholar
- 14.Wolfe, J.: Visual attention. In: De Valois, K.K. (ed.) Seeing, 2nd edn, pp. 335–386. Academic Press, San Diego (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Grissinger, M.: Inattentional blindness: what captures your attention? Pharm. Ther. 37(10), 542–555 (2012)Google Scholar
- 16.Simons, D.: Current approaches to change blindness. Vis. Cogn. 7(1–3), 1–15 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Rensink, R.: The dynamic representation of scenes. Vis. Cogn. 7, 17–42 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Rensink, R., O’Regan, J.K., Clark, J.: To see or not to see: the need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychol. Sci. 8(5), 368–373 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Simons, D., Levin, D.: Failure to detect changes to people during a real-world interaction. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 5(4), 644–649 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Henderson, J., Hollingworth, A.: Global transsaccadic change blindness during scene perception. Psychol. Sci. 14(5), 493–497 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Caroux, L., LeBigot, L., Vibert, N.: Impairment of shooting performance by background complexity and motion. Exp. Psychol. 62(2), 98–109 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Wolfe, J., Oliva, A., Horowitz, T.S., Butcher, S.J., Bompas, A.: Segmentation of objects from backgrounds in visual search tasks. Vis. Res. 42, 2985–3004 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.DEFSTAN 00-25: Human Factors for Designers of Equipment. Crown Copyright: Ministry of Defence Directorate of Standardization, Glasgow (1992)Google Scholar
- 24.Mumaw, R., Sarter, N., Wickens, C.: Analysis of pilots’ monitoring and performance on an automated flight deck. In: 11th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Ohio State (2001)Google Scholar
- 25.Rensink, R.: When good observers go bad: change blindness, inattentional blindness and visual experience. Psyche: Interdisc. J. Res. Conscious. 6(9) (2000). http://cogprints.org/1050/3/psyche-6-09-rensink.pdf. GoogleScholar. Accessed 09 Feb 2018
- 26.Rensink, R.: Visual search for change: a probe into the nature of attentional processing. Vis. Cogn. 7, 345–376 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Fitts, P.M., Posner, M.I.: Human Performance. Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., Belmont (1967)Google Scholar
- 28.Ericsson, K., Lehmann, A.: Expert and exceptional performance: evidence of maximal adaption to task constraints. Ann. Psychol. Rev. 47, 272–305 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Durlach, P.: Change blindness and its implications for complex monitoring and control systems design and operator training. Hum.-Comput. Inter. 19, 423–451 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Pattison, M., Stedmon, A.W.: Inclusive design and human factors: designing mobile phones for older users. PsychNology J. 4(3), 267–284 (2006)Google Scholar