Advertisement

Examining the Effects of Different Situation Awareness on Visual Performance and Error

Conference paper
  • 1.7k Downloads
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 786)

Abstract

Pilots’ error mainly resulting from loss of situation awareness (SA) becomes a major threat to aviation safety. However, the relationship between errors and the three levels of situational awareness had been seldom stressed. This paper firstly calculated theoretical values of SA for three typical cognitive processes of information that are imperceptible, perceived, and understood on the basis of the Multi - level information trigger analysis of SA and the quantitative model of MIDAS. And based on the three different SA values were calculated, taxiing experiment was executed. SA had been considered as independent variables and pilots’ visual performance and errors were analyzed as dependent variables. One-way ANOVA was used to analyze if SA has significant effect on pilots’ error and visual performance, and correlative analysis was executed to determine if there is conclusive relationship between errors and visual performance. These results suggest that providing 100% information to a pilot does not mean zero error. In addition, the average saccade duration has a significant correlation with error rate, which can be used to as an error prediction indicator. By monitoring the pilots’ visual performance, the possibility of error can be predicted, and then occurrence of error may be avoided to improve the taxiing safety.

Keywords

Situation awareness Pilot error Visual performance Saccade duration 

References

  1. 1.
    Endsley, M.R.: Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum. Factors 37(1), 32–64 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wei, H.Y., Zhuang, D.M., Wanyan, X.R., et al.: An experimental analysis of situation awareness for cockpit display interface evaluation based on flight simulation. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 26(4), 884–889 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pengcheng, L., Li, Z., Licao, D., Xiaofang, L.: Study on operator’s SA reliability in digital NPPs. Part 1: The analysis method of operator’s errors of situation awareness. Ann. Nucl. Energy 102, 168–178 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jones, D.G., Endsley, M.R.: Investigation of situation awareness errors. In: The 8th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus OH, pp. 746–751 (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kim, S.K., Suh, S.M., Jang, G.S., et al.: Empirical research on an ecological interface design for improving situation awareness of operators in an advanced control room. Nucl. Eng. Des. 253, 226–237 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Endsley, M.R.: Situation awareness in aviation systems. Handbook of aviation human factors, pp. 257–276 (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Endsley, M.R.: Errors in situation assessment: implications for system design. In: Elzer, P.F., Kluwe, R.H., Boussoffara, B. (eds.) Human Error and System Design and Management, pp. 15–26. Springer, London (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0110451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wilke, S., Majumdar, A., Ochieng, W.Y.: Airport surface operations: a holistic framework for operations modeling and risk management. Saf. Sci. 63(3), 18–33 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Foyle, D.C., Hooey, B.L.: Human Performance Modeling in Aviation. CRC Press, New York (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Knott, B., Gannon, A., Rench, M.: Human factors in runway incursions: an international review (Technical Report No. RA-00-002). HSIAC: WPAFB, OH (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chang, Y.H., Yang, H.H., Hsiao, Y.J.: Human risk factors associated with pilots in runway excursions. Accid. Anal. Prev. 94, 227–237 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Federal Aviation Administration: FAA runway safety report: Runway incursion trends at towered airports in the United States 1998–2001. Washington, DC (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jones, D.G., Endsley, M.R.: Sources of situation awareness error in aviation. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 67, 507–512 (1996)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Endsley, M.R.: Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum. Factors 37(1), 65 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Perry, C.M., Sheik-Nainar, M.A., Segall, N.: Effects of physical workload on cognitive task performance and situation awareness. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci. 9(2), 95–113 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Merchant, S., Kwon, Y., schnell, T.: Evaluation of synthetic vision information system (SVIS) displays based on pilot performance. In: 20th Conference on IEEE Digital Avionics Systems, DASC (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sneddon, A., Mearns, K., Flin, R.: Stress, fatigue, situation awareness and safety in offshore drilling crews. Saf. Sci. 56, 80–88 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wright, M.C., Taekman, J.M., Endsley, M.R.: Objective measures of situation awareness in a simulated medical environment. Qual. Saf. Healthc. 1, 65–71 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wickens, C.D.: Situation awareness: review of Mica Endsley’s 1995 articles on situation awareness theory and measurement. Hum. Factors 50(3), 397–403 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hauland, G.: Measuring individual and team situation awareness during planning tasks in training of en route air traffic control. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 18(3), 290–304 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    van de Merwe, K., van Dijk, H., Zon, R.: Eye movements as an indicator of situation awareness in a flight simulator experiment. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 22(1), 78–95 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jacob, R.J.K., Karn, K.S.: Eye tracking in human computer interaction and usability research (section commentary). In: The Mind’s Eye Cognitive and Applied Aspects of Eye Movement Research, pp. 143–156. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mayer, R.E.: Unique contributions of eye tracking research to the study of learning with graphics. Learn. Instr. 20, 167–171 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ratwani, R.M., McCurry, J.M., Trafton, J.G.: Single operator, multiple robots: an eye movement based theoretic model of operator situation awareness. In: Proceedings of the Fifth ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Nara, Japan, pp. 235–242 (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moore, K., Gugerty, L.: Development of a novel measure of situation awareness: the case for eye movement analysis. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting, San Francisco, pp. 1650–1654 (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hooey, B.L., Gore, B.F., Wickens, C.D.: Modeling pilot situation awareness. In: Cacciabue, P., Hjälmdahl, M., Luedtke, A., Riccioli, C. (eds.) Human Modeling in Assisted Transportation, pp. 207–213. Springer, Milan (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-88-470-1821-1_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    International Civil Aviation Organization: Manual for Safety Management System Doc 9859, 2-6–2-10 (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature (outside the USA) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of AeronauticsNorthwestern Polytechnical UniversityXi’anChina
  2. 2.Institute of Human Factors and ErgonomicsShenzhen UniversityShenzhenChina
  3. 3.Key Laboratory of Optoelectronic Devices and Systems of Ministry of Education and Guangdong ProvinceShenzhen UniversityShenzhenChina

Personalised recommendations