The Effects of Field-of-View on Pilot Head Movement during Low Level Flight

Gallimore, Jennie J.; Brannon, Nathan Gregory; Patterson, Frederick R.

doi:10.1177/154193129804200103

Cited by 14 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With small fieldsof-view (20º) target tracking is done almost entirely with head movements. Gallimore, Brannon, and Patterson (1998) examined the effects of reduced field-of-view on pilot head movements in simulated flight conditions. They found that yaw and downward pitch head movements increased as field-of-view decreased.…”

Section: Effects Of Field-of-view Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Handling qualities comparison of panoramic night vision goggles and 46-deg. night vision goggles

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Night Vision Goggles allow the user to see in extremely low illumination levels but the visual information provided by Night Vision Goggles has a limited field-of-view that diminishes handling-qualities in the night flying environment. Panoramic Night Vision Goggles were designed to correct this problem by providing a 100º horizontal field-of-view which is larger than currently used Night Vision Goggles. However, in the first generation Panoramic Night Vision Goggle, the improved field of view came at the cost of diminished resolution, contrast and central overlap area when compared to conventional Night Vision Goggles. This paper describes an evaluation that was conducted in the variable stability NRC Bell-205 helicopter to examine the influence on system handling qualities of the Panoramic Night Vision Goggles and a 46º field-of-view UK Night Vision Goggle. Five pilots flew the ADS-33D hover, sidestep and pirouette manoeuvres in simulated night conditions with the UK Night Vision Goggle and the Panoramic Night Vision Goggle. Both subjective and objective measures of task performance were obtained. Handling-qualities ratings showed the pirouette was performed better with the Panoramic Night Vision Goggles. This was the only manoeuvre where there was a clear-cut handling qualities improvement when using the Panoramic Night Vision Goggles. Other manoeuvres such as the sidestep and hover did not show definitive handling qualities rating differences between the two Night Vision Goggle types. The flight test results were interpreted in terms of the design trade-offs of the two night vision systems, with regard to the different acuity, binocular overlaps and fieldsof-view.

show abstract

Section: Effects Of Field-of-view Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Handling qualities comparison of panoramic night vision goggles and 46-deg. night vision goggles

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A more recent Air Force experiment in a dome simulator indicates a significant head roll displacement, referred to as the opto-kinetic collic reflex, during aircraft angle of bank (i.e., turning) regardless of effective field of view (Gallimore, Brannon, & Patterson, 1998). Venturino and Wells (1990) and Gallimore et al (1998) showed that during small angle of bank, head pitch and yaw displacement did increase with decreasing field of view due to pilot need for cockpit instrument information. Unfortunately, this was only a subjective analysis based on videotapes and the analysis of variance (ANOVA) results only showed average magnitude of the head movement and not frequency information.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Subjective mental workload experiments also indicate that field of view is important for heading perception (Richman, Stanfield, & Dyre, 1998). A more recent Air Force experiment in a dome simulator indicates a significant head roll displacement, referred to as the opto-kinetic collic reflex, during aircraft angle of bank (i.e., turning) regardless of effective field of view (Gallimore, Brannon, & Patterson, 1998). Venturino and Wells (1990) and Gallimore et al (1998) showed that during small angle of bank, head pitch and yaw displacement did increase with decreasing field of view due to pilot need for cockpit instrument information.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Field of View Effects on Pilot Performance in Flight

Covelli

Rolland

Proctor

et al. 2010

The International Journal of Aviation Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For flight training, head-worn displays represent low-cost, wide field of regard, deployable systems when compared to traditional simulation facilities. However, current head-worn systems provide limited effective fields of view. Wide field of view alternatives promise to increase transfer of training effectiveness through enhanced situation awareness. To test this proposition, this experiment manipulated the pilot's effective field of view and examined subsequent flight performance, which was measured primarily by runway alignment error and vertical track error. Results indicated a significant and quantifiable change in visual scan pattern, head movement, and flight control performance as the effective field of view was sequentially decreased. As field of view decreased, the average visual scan pattern changed to focus less out the window and more on the instruments inside the cockpit. The head range of movement significantly increased below an 80°horizontal × 54°vertical effective field of view as well as significantly decreasing runway alignment and vertical track performance, which occurred below 120°horizontal × 81°v ertical effective field of view.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, head yaw movements were significantly different between each of the three FoV conditions with movements increasing as FoV decreased. As the authors note, frequent head movements may contribute to spatial disorientation (Gallimore et al, 1998). Gibbs et al (1996) reported similar findings from an experiment that examined performance in a simulated F-18 target tracking and pursuit task.…”

Section: Restricted Field Of View and Flight Performancementioning

confidence: 78%

“…One strategy to compensate for reduced FoV is to make larger and more frequent head movements to access important visual information. Gallimore, Brannon, and Patterson (1998) tested this compensatory strategy directly by examining pilot head movement at various angles of bank in three FoV conditions (40°, 60°, and 100°) using a F-15 flight simulator. Results indicated that pilots pitched their head significantly more at lower bank angles in the 40° condition than in the 100° FoV condition.…”

Section: Restricted Field Of View and Flight Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Out of Sight, Out of Mind? The Effect of Visual Field of View Restrictions on Working Memory

Pasma¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual field of view (FoV) restrictions have been found to impair performance on a variety of tasks, including estimating distances, locomotion, target tracking, and the development of spatial representations, as well as in specific domains such as aviation.Explanations for these impairments have largely focused on the restrictions to the physical environment and lack of peripheral information available to the user. The goal of this thesis was to provide a more complete account of these performance impairments by examining whether restrictions to the visual field affected working memory, a cognitive component responsible for the maintenance, integration, and retrieval of visual information.Three experiments were conducted in which the impact of restricted FoV on memory for simple geons was examined. In Experiment 1, restricting FoV was shown to decrease performance on a Geon Memory Task (GMT). Experiment 2 established the relative difficulties of four secondary tasks commonly used in dual-task paradigms (counting, counting/tapping, spatial tapping, and random tapping) to tax individual working memory components and used as secondary working memory tasks in Experiment 3. Experiment 3 examined the relationship between FoV, working memory, and performance on the GMT using a dual-task paradigm. Results from Experiment 3 were consistent with those of Experiment 1 and further supported the hypothesis that FoV negatively affects phonological and visuo-spatial working memory. The central executive was not negatively affected by FoV restrictions. The present findings suggest a more complete account of the impact of FoV restrictions than the lack of peripheral information alone and offer important contributions to the working memory literature.iii

show abstract

The Effects of Field-of-View on Pilot Head Movement during Low Level Flight

Cited by 14 publications

References 2 publications

Handling qualities comparison of panoramic night vision goggles and 46-deg. night vision goggles

Handling qualities comparison of panoramic night vision goggles and 46-deg. night vision goggles

Field of View Effects on Pilot Performance in Flight

Out of Sight, Out of Mind? The Effect of Visual Field of View Restrictions on Working Memory

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About