Effects of Motion Cues on the Training of Multi-Axis Manual Control Skills

Abstract

The study described in this paper investigated the effects of two different hexapod motion configurations on the training and transfer of training of a simultaneous roll and pitch control task. Pilots were divided between two groups which trained either under a baseline hexapod motion condition, with motion typically provided by current training simulators, or an optimized hexapod motion condition, with increased fidelity of the motion cues most relevant for the task. All pilots transferred to the same full-motion condition, representing motion experienced in flight. A cybernetic approach was used that gave insights into the development of pilots' use of visual and motion cues over the course of training and after transfer. Based on the current results, neither of the hexapod motion conditions can unambiguously be chosen as providing the best motion for training and transfer of training of the used multi-axis control task. However, the optimized hexapod motion condition did allow pilots to generate less visual lead, control with higher gains, and have better disturbance-rejection performance at the end of the training session compared to the baseline hexapod motion condition. Significant adaptations in control behavior still occurred in the transfer phase under the full-motion condition for both groups. Pilots behaved less linearly compared to previous single-axis control-task experiments; however, this did not result in smaller motion or learning effects. Motion and learning effects were more pronounced in pitch compared to roll. Finally, valuable lessons were learned that allow us to improve the adopted approach for future transfer-of-training studies.

Time-Varying Manual Control Identification in a Stall Recovery Task under Different Simulator Motion Conditions

“…They were chosen to fully cover the range of human control at regular intervals on a logarithmic scale. 20 The amplitudes of the sinusoids were determined using a second-order low-pass filter. The amplitudes of the first four sine waves were manually changed in order to keep the aircraft elevator and aileron deflections within their maximum deflections and the motion of the simulator within the boundaries of the motion envelope throughout the stall task.…”

“…For roll the variance was higher, 5.0 deg 2 , since it was found that the roll error was more difficult to perceive on the PFD. 20 To determine the phase distributions, a high number of phase sets was randomly generated. Two sets were selected that created signals with a Gaussian-like distribution and an average crest factor.…”

“…The four motion conditions were similar to the ones in Ref. 20. In the no-motion condition (N M ), the simulator was operating with the motion system engaged; however, with all motion parameters set to zero.…”

“…This study used motion configurations similar to those in a previous experiment. 20 The generic hexapod motion condition (GH) had motion similar to what current hexapod training simulators provide. The enhanced hexapod motion condition (EH) eliminated translational c.g.…”

A Simulator Comparison Study into the Effects of Motion Filter Order on Pilot Control Behavior

“…Traditionally, in order to train pilots efficiently, flight simulators are designed to present pilots with high fidelity simulation cues, 3 such as motion cues. However, even though the benefit of using motion-enabled flight simulators in the training of pilot control skills is the subject of much debate, [4][5][6][7] current pilot training requirements still focus heavily on the availability of motion in flight simulators. The focus on motion is even growing, which is illustrated by the new requirement for airline pilots to receive stall training in full-motion flight simulators starting in 2019.…”