Haptic Feedback to Compensate for the Absence of Horizon Cues During Landing

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9775)

Abstract

When landing a plane, pilots could face several landing illusions that are accentuated at night or in a featureless environment. In the current study, we compare participants landing trajectories in a featureless environment with and without haptic feedback. We asked the participants to land a virtual object during featured (F+) and featureless night conditions (F−); with (H+) and without haptic feedback (H−). The results showed that the haptic feedback facilitated lateral and up-down movements. This benefit was less evident between the visual conditions suggesting that participants were relying on haptic cues during the task. This attentional shift could reduce visual illusions during night landings, where they are accentuated by the fact that experienced pilots rely mainly on visual inputs.

Keywords

Landing illusions Haptic feedback Featureless environment 

References

  1. 1.
    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
  2. 2.
    Bulkley, N.K., Dyre, B.P., Lew, R., Caufield, K.: A peripherally-located virtual instrument landing display affords more precise control of approach path during simulated landings than traditional instrument landing displays. In: Proceeding 53rd HFES (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    I. R. Moorhead, S. Holmes, and A. Furnell: Understanding multisensory integration for pilot spatial orientation. In: European Office of Aerospace Research and Development (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gibbs, R.W.: Visual spatial disorientation: revisiting the black hole illusion. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 78(8), 801–808 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mertens, H.W., Lewis, M.F.: Effect of different runway size on pilot performance during simulated night landing approaches (No. FAA-AM-81-6). FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON DC OFFICE OF AVIATION MEDICINE (1981)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nicholson, C.M., Stewart, P.C.: Effects of lighting and distraction on the black hole illusion in visual approaches. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 23(4), 319–334 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gibb, R., Schvaneveldt, R., Gray, R.: Visual misperception in aviation: glide path performance in a black hole environment. Hum. Factors: J. Hum. Fact. Ergon. Soc. 50(4), 699–711 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thompson, R.C.: The “black hole” night visual approach: calculated approach paths resulting from flying a constant visual vertical angle to level and upslope runways. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 20(1), 59–73 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Watson, D.: Illusion: The last thing needed on approach and landing in the CAA Aviation Bulletin, July 1992Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Navathe, P.D., Singh, B.: An operation definition for spatial disorientation. Aviat. Space Environ. Med. 65, 1153–1155 (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Crowley, J.S.: Human factors of night vision devices: Anecdotes from the field concerning visual illusions and other effects. USAARL REPORT No. 91-15, May 1991Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Geri, G.A., Winterbottom, M.D., Pierce, B.J.: Evaluating the spatial resolution of flight-simulator visual displays. US Air Force Research Lab. (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaiser, M.K., Gans, N.R., Dixon, W.E.: Vision-based estimation for guidance, navigation, and control of an aerial vehicle. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. 46(3), 1064–1077 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weber, B., Schatzle, S., Hulin, T., Preusche, C., Deml, B.: Evaluation of a vibrotactile feedback device for spatial guidance. In: Conference Rec. 2011 IEEE World Haptics (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    van Erp, J.B.F., Groen, E.L., Bos, J.E., van Veen, H.A.H.C.: A tactile cockpit instrument supports the control of self-motion during spatial disorientation. J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 48(2), 219–228 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Elliott, L.R., van Erp, J.B.F., Redden, E.S., Duistermaat, M.: Field-based validation of a tactile navigation device. IEEE Trans. Haptics 3(2), 78–87 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chiasson, J., McGrath, B.J., Rupert, A.H.: Enhanced situation awareness in sea, air and land environments. In: Symposium. on Spatial Disorientation in Military Vehicles (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McGrath, J., Estrada, A., Braithwaite, M.G., Raj, A.K., Rupert, A.H.: Tactile situation awareness system flight demonstration final report. USAARL Report No. 2004-10 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    McGrath, B.J.: Tactile instrument for aviation. Nav. Aerosp. Med. Res. Lab., Pensacola (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    van Erp, J.B., van Veen, H.A., Jansen, C., Dobbins, T.: Waypoint navigation with a vibrotactile waist belt. ACM Trans. Applied Perception 2(2), 106–117 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ziat, M.: Conception et implémentation d’une fonction zoom haptique sur PDAs: Expérimentations et usages. Ph.D Thesis, UTC, November 2006Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Repperger, D.W., Gilkey, R.H., Green, R., LaFleur, T., Haas, M.W.: Effects of haptic feedback and turbulence on landing performance using an immersive cave automatic virtual environment (CAVE). Percept. Mot. Skills 85, 1139–1154 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    SensAble Technologies Inc., “PHANToM OMNI,” (2015). http://www.sensable.com
  24. 24.
    Wang, J., Pan, X., Pan, X., Xue, Y., Ye, Y.: A survey of force feedback in flight safety enhancement. Procedia Eng. 29, 2303–2307 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentNorthern Michigan UniversityMarquetteUSA
  2. 2.School of Information StudiesMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations