Validation of Ergonomics Evaluation Method Based on Eye Tracking Technology in Unmanned Aerial System

  • Yanyan Wang
  • Bo Gu
  • Xiaochao Guo
  • Duanqin Xiong
  • Yu Bai
  • Jian Du
  • Qingfeng LiuEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 576)


Ergonomics evaluation of aircraft cockpit interface is the way to apply human-centered design philosophy. This study aims to explore Ergonomics evaluation method based on eye tracking technology which could be used in UVA control station. Methods A total of 31 operation tasks were developed and each one aimed at one function unit of the UVA system. Ergonomics evaluation by eye tracking technology and expert subjective analysis were both done to diagnose the design problems. A total of 12 male UVA pilots participated in the experiment. Results A total of 13 units were diagnosed as low level by eye tracking method, while 14 units were evaluated as low level by subjective evaluation. McNemar test results show that the difference between two methods was not significant (P > 0.05). One-way ANOVA test shows pupil diameter of low-level Ergonomics tasks was significantly longer than that of the high-level task (P < 0.05). Conclusion Combination of two methods was the practical Ergonomics evaluation method in UAV control station interface.


Ergonomics Evaluation Eye tracking Unmanned aerial vehicle 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

The study was approved by the Logistics Department for Civilian Ethics Committee of Air Force Medical Center of FMMU. All subjects who participated in the experiment were provided with and signed an informed consent form. All relevant ethical safeguards have been met with regard to subject protection.


  1. 1.
    Billings CE (1997) Aviation automation: the search for a human-centered approach. Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wiegmann D, Shappell S. Human error and crew resource management failures in Navla aviation mishaps: a review of U.S. Safety Center data, 1990–96Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wiegmann D, Shappell S, Cristina F, Pape A (2000) A human factors analysis of aviation accident data: an empirical evaluation of the FFACS framework. Aviat Space Environ Med 71:328Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wang Y, Liu Q et al (2015) Research on assessment of eye movement sensitivity index through aircraft cockpit man-machine interface based on eye movement tracking technology. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on man-machine-environment system engineering, pp 495–504Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bruneau D, Sasse MA, McCarthy JD (2002) The eyes never lie: the use of eye tracking data in HCI research. In: Proceedings of the CHI’02 workshop on physiological computing. ACM Press, NYGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang Y, Liu Q, Lou W et al (2019) Ergonomics evaluation of large screen display in cockpit based on eye-tracking technology. In: Long S, Dhillon BS (eds) Man-machine-environment system engineering, Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 527. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 347–356Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dehais F, Causse M, Pastor J (2008) Embedded eye tracker in a real aircraft: new perspectives on pilot/aircraft interaction monitoring. In: 3th international conference on research in air transportation, 6. Fairfax USGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Doyon-Poulin P, Ouellette B, Robert J-M (2014) Effects of visual clutter on pilot workload. Flight performance and gaze pattern. Mountain View. In: International conference on human-computer interaction in aerospace. California USA, 08Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang Y, Guo X, Liu Q, Yang X, Bai Y, Du J, Xiong D (2018) Eye movement characteristics research on pilots of different experience background during aircraft cockpit display image visual search task. In: S. Long and B.S. Dhillon (eds) Man-machine-environment system engineering, Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 456. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 85–94Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Causse M, Pavard B, Sénard J-M, Démonet J-F, Pastor J (2007) Emotion induction through virtual avatars and its impact on reasoning: evidence from autonomous nervous system measurements and cognitive assessment. In: Actes de la Conference VRIC’06, Laval, France, 18–20 April 2007Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Backs R, Walrath L (1992) Eye movement and pupillary response indices of mental workload during visual search of symbolic displays. Appl Ergon 243–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pomplun M, Sunkara S (2003) Pupil dilation as an indicator of cognitive workload in human-computer interaction. In: Proceedings of HCI international, vol 3. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp 542–546Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guo X, Liu Q, Xiong D, Wang Y (2019) Two-step subjective rating technique of pilot evaluation in Q–Q test for aircraft cockpit. In: Long S, Dhillon BS (eds) Man-machine-environment system engineering. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 527. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 87–96Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ross RG, Olincy A, Harris JG, Radant A, Adler LE, Compagnon N et al (1999) The effects of age on a smooth pursuit tracking task in adults with schizophrenia and normal subjects. Biol Psychiatry 46:383–391. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dowiasch S, Marx S, Einhäuser W, Bremmer F (2015) Effects of aging on eye movements in the real world. Front Hum Neurosci 9:46. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Liu Q, Wang Y, Pang J, Xiong D, Deng X, Bai Y, Guo X (2018) Study on mental attributes of aged test pilots. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, vol 456. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 77–83Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yanyan Wang
    • 1
  • Bo Gu
    • 2
  • Xiaochao Guo
    • 1
  • Duanqin Xiong
    • 1
  • Yu Bai
    • 1
  • Jian Du
    • 1
  • Qingfeng Liu
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Air Force Medical CenterFourth Military Medical UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Air Force Flight Test BureauXi’anChina

Personalised recommendations