The Effects of Increased Visual Information on Cognitive Workload in a Helicopter Simulator.

OBJECTIVE To test the effects of enhanced display information ("symbology") on cognitive workload in a simulated helicopter environment, using the detection response task (DRT). BACKGROUND Workload in highly demanding environments can be influenced by the amount of information given to the operator and consequently it is important to limit potential overload. METHODS Participants (highly trained military pilots) completed simulated helicopter flights, which varied in visual conditions and the amount of information given. During these flights, participants also completed a DRT as a measure of cognitive workload. RESULTS With more visual information available, pilots' landing accuracy was improved across environmental conditions. The DRT is sensitive to changes in cognitive workload, with workload differences shown between environmental conditions. Increasing symbology appeared to have a minor effect on workload, with an interaction effect of symbology and environmental condition showing that symbology appeared to moderate workload. CONCLUSION The DRT is a useful workload measure in simulated helicopter settings. The level of symbology-moderated pilot workload. The increased level of symbology appeared to assist pilots' flight behavior and landing ability. Results indicate that increased symbology has benefits in more difficult scenarios. APPLICATIONS The DRT is an easily implemented and effective measure of cognitive workload in a variety of settings. In the current experiment, the DRT captures the increased workload induced by varying the environmental conditions, and provides evidence for the use of increased symbology to assist pilots.

[1]  Gerald P. Krueger,et al.  Aviator performance in week-long extended flight operations in a helicopter simulator , 1985 .

[2]  Tom Lodewyckx,et al.  Bayesian Versus Frequentist Inference , 2008 .

[3]  Barry H. Kantowitz,et al.  Human workload in aviation , 1988 .

[4]  Li Hsieh,et al.  The Tactile Detection Response Task: Preliminary Validation for Measuring the Attentional Effects of Cognitive Load , 2017 .

[5]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Flight Simulator Training Effectiveness: A Meta-Analysis , 1992 .

[6]  Jodi Forlizzi,et al.  Psycho-physiological measures for assessing cognitive load , 2010, UbiComp.

[7]  Christian König,et al.  First results of LiDAR-aided helicopter approaches during NATO DVE-mitigation trials , 2019 .

[8]  Keith Nesbitt,et al.  Assessing Game Interface Workload and Usability: A Cognitive Science Perspective , 2019, ACSW.

[9]  L. M. M.-T..  Theory of Probability , 1929, Nature.

[10]  D. Strayer,et al.  Supertaskers: Profiles in extraordinary multitasking ability , 2010, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[11]  David L Strayer,et al.  The Smartphone and the Driver’s Cognitive Workload: A Comparison of Apple, Google, and Microsoft’s Intelligent Personal Assistants , 2015, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[12]  Miriam Reiner,et al.  EEG-based cognitive load of processing events in 3D virtual worlds is lower than processing events in 2D displays. , 2017, International journal of psychophysiology : official journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology.

[13]  David L. Strayer,et al.  Measuring Cognitive Distraction in the Automobile , 2013 .

[14]  J. Townsend,et al.  Workload capacity spaces: A unified methodology for response time measures of efficiency as workload is varied , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[15]  David L. Strayer,et al.  Extending the Detection Response Task to Simultaneously Measure Cognitive and Visual Task Demands , 2016 .

[16]  Gary Burnett,et al.  Defining Driver Distraction , 2005 .

[17]  William J Horrey,et al.  Visual and Cognitive Demands of CarPlay, Android Auto, and Five Native Infotainment Systems , 2019, Hum. Factors.

[18]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Situation Awareness and Workload in Aviation , 2002 .

[19]  Daniel M. Johnson,et al.  Effective affective user interface design in games , 2003, Ergonomics.

[20]  David L. Strayer,et al.  Talking to your car can drive you to distraction , 2016, Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications.

[21]  David L. Strayer,et al.  Driven to Distraction: Dual-Task Studies of Simulated Driving and Conversing on a Cellular Telephone , 2001, Psychological science.

[22]  Joel M. Cooper,et al.  Measuring Cognitive Distraction in the Automobile III: A Comparison of Ten 2015 In-Vehicle Information Systems , 2015 .

[23]  David L. Strayer,et al.  Cognitive Workload Using Interactive Voice Messaging Systems , 2016 .

[24]  Pontus Larsson,et al.  Comparison of Static and Driving Simulator Venues for the Tactile Detection Response Task , 2017 .

[25]  Karlene K. Ball,et al.  Speed-of-Processing and Driving Simulator Training Result in Improved Driving Performance , 2003, Hum. Factors.

[26]  Eero Väyrynen,et al.  Effect of cognitive load on speech prosody in aviation: Evidence from military simulator flights. , 2011, Applied ergonomics.

[27]  David L. Strayer,et al.  Effects of Simulator Practice and Real-World Experience on Cell-Phone—Related Driver Distraction , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[28]  Tobias Schafhitzel,et al.  Sensor-enhanced 3D conformal cueing for safe and reliable HC operation in DVE in all flight phases , 2014, Defense + Security Symposium.

[29]  Manne Hannula,et al.  Comparison between artificial neural network and multilinear regression models in an evaluation of cognitive workload in a flight simulator , 2008, Comput. Biol. Medicine.

[30]  David L. Strayer,et al.  Assessing Cognitive Distraction in the Automobile , 2015, Hum. Factors.

[31]  Wolfgang Rosenstiel,et al.  Cognitive state monitoring and the design of adaptive instruction in digital environments: lessons learned from cognitive workload assessment using a passive brain-computer interface approach , 2014, Front. Neurosci..

[32]  William Nelson.  Use of Circular Error Probability in Target Detection , 1988 .