Comparison Study of Attention Between Training in a Simulator vs. Live-Fire Range

Abstract

This study was designed to measure if simulation can be used beyond basic marksmanship training. The results provide evidence that the training environment (i.e., live; Group One, vs. synthetic; Group Two) does not affect overall learning and dynamic and tactical skills learned are transferable in situ, supporting earlier research that simulation training can be used for novice candidates [2, 9, 10, 12].

Following discussions with both training candidates and instructors, it was thought that participants who were trained in the synthetic environment would experience greater physiological arousal (i.e., stress) because they felt their training would not have properly prepared them for the final test. However, the results did not support this assumption, and that the design of the course produced high levels of stress during each of the two tests regardless of training environment.

We found that cognitive load was increased during training on Day 2 and Day 3 but during the final day (i.e., Final Test, Day 4) that cognitive effort appeared to decrease. These results suggest considerable resources were expended to learn new skills, and that the frequency of training resulted in a level of confidence and automaticity by the final test.

These results are important for law enforcement as it provides some initial evidence that learning tactical shooting skills can be acquired without live-fire practice. The course was designed to challenge the end-user both physically and psychologically, which we were able to validate using functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIR’s) and electrocardiograph (ECG) recording devices. These findings support utilizing simulation technology for training, as it results in similar training outcomes, while reducing costs, mitigating health concerns (e.g., lead exposure, noise reduction), and it addresses access needs for a limited number of live-firearms ranges.