Measuring Lethal Force Performance in the Lab: The Effects of Simulator Realism and Participant Experience

OBJECTIVE The goal of the current study was to compare two types of shooting simulators to determine which is best suited for assessing different aspects of lethal force performance. BACKGROUND Military and law enforcement personnel are often required to make decisions regarding the use of lethal force. A critical goal of both training and research endeavors surrounding lethal force is to find ways to simulate lethal force encounters to better understand behavior in those scenarios. METHOD Participants of varying degrees of experience completed both marksmanship and shoot/don't shoot scenarios on both a video game and a military-grade shooting simulator. Using signal detection theory, we assessed sensitivity as a measure of lethal force performance overall. We used hit rate to assess shooting accuracy and false alarm rate to assess decision making. RESULTS Results demonstrated that performance was correlated across simulators. Results supported the notion that shooting accuracy and decision making are independent components of performance. Individuals with firearms expertise outperformed novices on the military-grade simulator, but only with respect to shooting accuracy, not unintended casualties. Individuals with video game experience outperformed novices in the video game simulator, but again only on shooting accuracy. CONCLUSION Experience played a crucial role in the assessment of shooting accuracy on a given simulator platform; decision-making performance remained unaffected by experience level or type of simulator. APPLICATION We recommend that in expert populations or when assessing shooting accuracy, a military-grade shooting simulator be used. However, with a novice population and/or when interested in decision making in lethal force, a video game simulator is appropriate.

[1]  Aryuanto Soetedjo,et al.  Development of a cost-effective shooting simulator using laser pointer , 2011, Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Electrical Engineering and Informatics.

[2]  B. Vila,et al.  Results from experimental trials testing participant responses to White, Hispanic and Black suspects in high-fidelity deadly force judgment and decision-making simulations , 2013 .

[3]  Scott E Kerick,et al.  Event-related cortical dynamics of soldiers during shooting as a function of varied task demand. , 2007, Aviation, space, and environmental medicine.

[4]  Adam T. Biggs,et al.  Armed and attentive: Holding a weapon can bias attentional priorities in scene viewing , 2013, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[5]  William S. Helton,et al.  Friendly Fire and the Sustained Attention to Response Task , 2015, Hum. Factors.

[6]  A different kind of weapon focus: simulated training with ballistic weapons reduces change blindness , 2017, Cognitive research: principles and implications.

[7]  William S. Helton,et al.  University of Huddersfield Repository Friendly Fire in a Simulated Firearms Task , 2022 .

[8]  Joel Suss,et al.  Revealing perceptual–cognitive expertise in law enforcement: an iterative approach using verbal-report, temporal-occlusion, and option-generation methods , 2018, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[9]  A. Mark Williams,et al.  Skill-based differences in option generation in a complex task: a verbal protocol analysis , 2011, Cognitive Processing.

[10]  Wayne A. Wickelgren,et al.  Speed-accuracy tradeoff and information processing dynamics , 1977 .

[11]  T. Sheeran,et al.  Effect of Pure and Crossed Dextrality on Marksmanship Skill , 1985, Perceptual and motor skills.

[12]  Bradley D. Hatfield,et al.  Electroencephalographic Coherence During Visuomotor Performance: A Comparison of Cortico-Cortical Communication in Experts and Novices , 2009, Journal of motor behavior.

[13]  William W. Yates.  A training transfer study of the Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainer , 2004 .

[14]  Kevin R. Harris,et al.  ‘Gun! Gun! Gun!’: An exploration of law enforcement officers’ decision-making and coping under stress during actual events , 2017, Ergonomics.

[15]  Stephen M. James,et al.  Identifying psychophysiological indices of expert vs. novice performance in deadly force judgment and decision making , 2014, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[16]  C. S. Green,et al.  Action video game modifies visual selective attention , 2003, Nature.

[17]  M. Inzlicht,et al.  Neurophysiological responses to gun-shooting errors. , 2015, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[18]  Action alters object identification: wielding a gun increases the bias to see guns. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[19]  Kara J Blacker,et al.  Enhanced visual short-term memory in action video game players , 2013, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[20]  C Shawn Green,et al.  Increasing Speed of Processing With Action Video Games , 2009, Current directions in psychological science.

[21]  P. Fitts.  Cognitive aspects of information processing. 3. Set for speed versus accuracy. , 1966, Journal of experimental psychology.

[22]  Gene A. Brewer,et al.  Individual Differences in Working Memory Capacity and Shooting Behavior , 2016 .

[23]  Dar-Wei Chen,et al.  Modeling Expert Behavior in Support of an Adaptive Psychomotor Training Environment: a Marksmanship Use Case , 2017, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education.

[24]  Stephen R. Mitroff,et al.  Cognitive Training Can Reduce Civilian Casualties in a Simulated Shooting Environment , 2015, Psychological science.

[25]  C. Judd,et al.  Across the thin blue line: police officers and racial bias in the decision to shoot. , 2007, Journal of personality and social psychology.