Handling Uni- and Multimodal Threat Cueing with Simultaneous Radio Calls in a Combat Vehicle Setting
We investigated uni- and multimodal cueing of horizontally distributed threat directions in an experiment requiring each of twelve participants to turn a simulated combat vehicle towards the cued threat as quickly and accurate as possible, while identifying simultaneously presented radio call information. Four display conditions of cued threat directions were investigated; 2D visual, 3D audio, tactile, and combined cueing of 2D visual, 3D audio, and tactile. During the unimodal visual and tactile indications of threat directions an alerting mono sound also was presented. This alerting sound function was naturally present for the unimodal 3D audio and multimodal conditions, with the 3D audio simultaneously alerting for and cueing direction to the threat. The results show no differences between conditions in identification of radio call information. In contrast, the 3D audio generated greater errors in localization of threat direction compared to both 2D visual and multimodal cueing. Reaction times to threats were also slower with both the 3D audio and 2D visual compared to the tactile and the multimodal, respectively. In conclusion, the results might reflect some of the benefits in employing multimodal displays for certain operator environments and tasks.
KeywordsDisplay technologies Multimodal Combat Vehicle Simulation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Carlander, O., Eriksson, L.: Uni- and bimodal threat cueing with vibrotactile and 3D audio technologies in a combat vehicle. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting, pp. 16–20. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA (2006)Google Scholar
- 2.Wickens, C.D., Hollands, J.G.: Engineering psychology and human performance. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ (2000)Google Scholar
- 3.Spence, C., McDonald, J.: The cross-modal consequences of the exogenous spatial orienting of attention. In: Calvert, G.A., Spence, C., Stein, B.E. (eds.) The handbook of multisensory processes, pp. 3–25. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2004)Google Scholar
- 5.Yanagida, Y., Kawato, S., Noma, H., Tetsutani, N., Tomono, A.: A Nose-Tracked, Personal Olfactory Display. In: Proccedings of the Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques 30th Conference, San Diego, CA: SIGGRAPH (July 27-31, 2003)Google Scholar
- 6.Eriksson, L., Carlander, O., Borgvall, J., Dahlman, J., Lif, P.: Operator site 2004-2005. Linköping: FOI (2005)Google Scholar
- 8.McGrath, B.J., Estrada, A., Braithwaite, M.G., Raj, A.K., Rupert, A.H.: Tactile situation awareness system flight demonstration final report. Report No. 2004-10, the US Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory (2004)Google Scholar
- 9.Rupert, A.H., Guedry, F.E., Reshke, M.F.: The use of a tactile interface to convey position and motion perceptions. In: Virtual Interfaces: Research and Applications (AGARD CP-478: pp. 21.1–21.5). Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development (1994)Google Scholar
- 10.van Erp, J.B.F., Veltman, J.A., Van Veen, H.A.H.C., Oving, A.B.: Tactile torso display as countermeasure to reduce night vision goggles induced drift. In: Proceedings of NATO RTO Human Factors & Medicine Pan el Symposium on Spatial Disorientation in Military Vehicles: Causes, Consequences and Cures (AC/323[HFM-085]TP/42, pp. 49.1–49.8). Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, Research and Technology Organisation (2002)Google Scholar
- 11.Eriksson, L., van Erp, J., Carlander, O., Levin, B., van Veen, H., Veltman, H.: Vibrotactile and visual threat cueing with high G threat intercept in dynamic flight simulation. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50th Annual Meeting, pp. 1547–1551. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA (2006)Google Scholar
- 13.Carlander, O., Eriksson, L., Kindström, M.: Horizontal localisation accuracy with COTS and professional 3D audio display technologies. In: Proceedings of the IEA 2006 conference, The Netherlands: International Ergonomics Society (2006)Google Scholar