University of Huddersfield Repository Friendly Fire in a Simulated Firearms Task

Factors such as poor visibility, lack of situation awareness, and bad communication have been shown to contribute to friendly fire incidents. However, to the authors’ knowledge, an individual’s ability to inhibit their motor response of shooting when a non-target is presented has not been investigated. This phenomenon has been modeled empirically using the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART; Robertson, Manly, Andrade, Baddeley, & Yiend, 1997) computer task. The SART is generally a high Go/low No-Go detection task whereby participants respond to numerous neutral stimuli and withhold to rare targets. In the current investigation, we further investigate the SART using a simulated small arms scenario to test whether lack of motor response inhibition can be modeled in a more ecologically valid environment. Additionally, we were interested in how error rates were impacted in low Go/high No-Go versions of the task. Thirteen university students completed a computer and simulated small arms scenario in a SART and low Go condition. Both the computer and small arms scenario revealed similar speedaccuracy trade-offs indicating participants’ inability to halt their pre-potent responses to targets even in a more ecologically valid environment. The SART may be used in future studies to model friendly fire scenarios.

[1]  S. Hart,et al.  Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research , 1988 .

[2]  W. Helton,et al.  Global interference and spatial uncertainty in the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) , 2010, Consciousness and Cognition.

[3]  Richard P. DeShon,et al.  Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. , 2002, Psychological methods.

[4]  Timothy Michael Kogler,et al.  The Effects of Degraded Vision and Automatic Combat Identification Reliability on Infantry Friendly Fire Engagements , 2003 .

[5]  William S Helton,et al.  Impulsive responding and the sustained attention to response task , 2009, Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology.

[6]  Frank L. Greitzer,et al.  Training Strategies to Mitigate Expectancy-Induced Response Bias in Combat Identification: A Research Agenda , 2008 .

[7]  Linda G. Pierce,et al.  Predicting Misuse and Disuse of Combat Identification Systems , 2001 .

[8]  William S. Helton,et al.  What basic–applied issue? , 2011 .

[9]  I. Robertson,et al.  `Oops!': Performance correlates of everyday attentional failures in traumatic brain injured and normal subjects , 1997, Neuropsychologia.

[10]  Larry Doton.  Integrating Technology to Reduce Fratricide , 1996 .

[11]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse , 1997, Hum. Factors.

[12]  Robert E. Rasmussen.  The Wrong Target: The Problem of Mistargeting Resulting in Fratricide and Civilian Casualties , 2007 .

[13]  W. Helton,et al.  Speed-Accuracy Tradeoffs and the Role of Emotional Stimuli on the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) , 2009 .