Enhancing fireteam lethality remains a key priority for the U.S. Army. Along with team dynamics, individual marksmanship performance is a core contributor to a fireteam’s lethality. When considering factors that affect marksmanship performance, an individual’s visual sensory and perceptual traits have been identified as having some of the most influential impacts, however, these insights have primarily been drawn from studies wherein participants completed individually based marksmanship tasks. From an operational perspective, Soldiers are more likely to engage in combat at the team level or higher, and thus, research investigating the effect of individual traits in the context of a team marksmanship task is warranted. The goal of this research is to evaluate individual traits by quantifying relationships between visual traits and marksmanship performance during a team marksmanship task and assess which traits are well defined between high and low performing individuals on the team. This research was completed using data from a cohort of 38 male, Infantry Soldiers who completed a simulated team shooting scenario (TSS) in teams of three at a 72-hour field exercise. Prior to the study onset, visual trait information was collected from each participant, to include dynamic visual acuity, field of view, and useful field of view data. These traits were compared to marksmanship performance gathered from the TSS task. The scenario represented an escalating firing engagement over five minutes. In this engagement, teams were situated in the center of a circle of 28 LED targets, which they were required to scan and engage when a designated hostile was displayed. During the scenario, the LED targets were dormant until activated at various times in different shapes to represent hostile or friendly targets. Weapon-attached sensor technology provided shot timing and placement data which was used to calculate team marksmanship outcomes (i.e., probability of target hits, percent of targets engaged).To explore the relationship between visual traits and marksmanship performance, a correlation analysis was conducted using baseline visual trait data and the TSS marksmanship data. Results of the analysis revealed a strong relationship between central vision processing and probability of hit (r = .32, p = .06). To assess differences in central vision processing between high and low skilled performers (high performers had a p(hit) greater than .3, N = 19), an independent t-test was conducted with marksmanship performance group as the independent variable and central vision processing accuracy as the dependent variable. Results of this analysis revealed a statistically significant difference (t(35) = 2.11, p = 0.04, d = .68), between the top half of performers (M = .92, SD = .03) and the bottom half of performers (M = .87, SD = .08). These results suggest that individuals with higher visual processing capabilities are more likely to perform better in realistic operational engagements with a dynamic setting requiring sector scanning. Findings of this study provide initial evidence that technological or training enhancements to marksmanship performance should consider addressing deficits in or augmenting central visual processing to improve probability of hit on the intended target.
Marksmanship has been a key metric in evaluating total Soldier performance. While marksmanship assessment is typically done at the individual level, marksmanship performance is heavily embedded in team tasks and battle drills. Thus, an objectively measured and operationally-based assessment is needed to characterize teamwork in marksmanship tasks, as well as evaluate its impact on team marksmanship performance. This study was a proof-of-concept trial conducted during a 72-hour mission field study, using 39 active-duty male, infantry Soldiers. Thirteen 3-person teams completed a 6-minute scenario that simulated rapidly escalating firing engagement. The teams conducted a planning session to develop strategies for mission accomplishment prior to scenario start. At mission start, the team was situated in the center of a circle of 28 target light emitting diode (LED) displays, which they were required to cover and engage. The target LED displays were in one of three states (dark, non-threat, or threat), each represented by a pattern created by the research team. The scenario was split into six ~60-80 second segments, differing in number of targets presented, target identities (non-threat or threat), as well as density of targets displayed per sector. On-weapon and body sensor data was used to calculate team marksmanship performance (i.e., probability of target hits, probability of threat targets engaged). Additional teamwork data were gathered from observer ratings of teams’ communication and coordination during the scenario, and post-session questionnaires. To evaluate the effects of scenario segment, sector strategy, and communication strategy on team marksmanship performance, two 6x2x2 mixed analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted with scenario segment as the within-subjects variable, and sector strategy (implicit or explicit) and communication strategy (plan or no plan) as the between-subjects variables. Team marksmanship performance outcomes included a team’s probability of hit, p(hit), and ratio of targets engaged, p(engage). Both marksmanship variables revealed significant main effects of segment, p<.001, where performance degraded as the scenario progressed. Additionally, p(hit) had a main effect of sector strategy, where those who used the external environment cues for sectoring (i.e., explicit) resulted in a higher probability of hit as compared to those who used teammate relative positions (i.e., implicit), p=.02. Team communication was trending towards significance, where having a communication plan resulted in lower p(hit), p=.07. For p(hit), there was also a three-way interaction between communication strategy, sector strategy, and segment, p<.01, where teams without a strategy performed more consistently in their shooting across the segments if they had an externally driven sector strategy (i.e., explicit), but performed just the same as those with a communication plan if they had an internally driven sectoring strategy (i.e., implicit). These results suggest that this methodology can not only characterize individual marksmanship skills but is beneficial to assessing team performance across operationally-based scenarios representing escalating short-term engagements and measuring the effects of team variables. However, our proof-of-concept analysis was limited by sample size and future development will strive to increase the number of teams participating. Additionally, future versions of this methodology will incorporate additional metrics of communication, physiology, and decision making.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.