The acceptance of different perspectives in a synthetic vision navigation display

An experimental survey measured the acceptance of perspectives in a synthetic vision navigation display. The developed scale of 11 items was found to be reliable. It measured to what extent the concept satisfies the requirements of commercial pilots for navigation. One underlying component indicated acceptance to be unidimensional. This dimension is interpreted as the component "performance expectancy" of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). Differences in the average ratings were due to display manipulations in dimension, mode, and view. Both 2D Heading-Up views were accepted best, followed by the 3D ARC Heading-Up and the 2D ROSE North-Up view. Two other perspectives were accepted less. The characteristics in the acceptance go along with benefits and costs of principles from display design.

[1]  J. M. Cortina,et al.  What Is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and Applications , 1993 .

[2]  S R Ellis,et al.  The Effect of Perspective Geometry on Judged Direction in Spatial Information Instruments , 1986, Human factors.

[3]  A. Várhelyi,et al.  The Definition of Acceptance and Acceptability , 2018, Driver Acceptance of New Technology.

[4]  Gordon B. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View , 2003, MIS Q..

[5]  Sven Schmerwitz,et al.  Integration of a 3D perspective view in the navigation display: featuring pilot's mental model , 2015, Defense + Security Symposium.

[6]  J. Horn.  A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis , 1965, Psychometrika.

[7]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Frames of Reference for the Display of Battlefield Information: Judgment-Display Dependencies , 2000, Hum. Factors.

[8]  Stanley N. Roscoe,et al.  Airborne Displays for Flight and Navigation , 1968 .

[9]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[10]  Bernd Korn,et al.  Combining Enhanced and Synthetic Vision for Autonomous All-Weather Approach and Landing , 2009 .

[11]  Timothy J. Etherington,et al.  Synthetic Vision: Application Areas, Rationale, Implementation, and Results , 2009 .

[12]  Emeli Adell,et al.  Driver experience and acceptance of driver support systems: a case of speed adaptation , 2009 .

[13]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology , 2012, MIS Q..

[14]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  Sample Size in Factor Analysis: The Role of Model Error , 2001, Multivariate behavioral research.

[15]  B P O'Connor,et al.  SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test , 2000, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[16]  Ahmet Çakir.  Human performance on the flight deck , 2012, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[17]  W. Velicer.  Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations , 1976 .

[18]  Andry Rakotonirainy,et al.  Assessing driver acceptance of intelligent transport systems in the context of railway level crossings , 2015 .

[19]  A. Miyake,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Visuospatial Thinking , 2005 .

[20]  Yongjin Kwon,et al.  Improved Flight Technical Performance in Flight Decks Equipped With Synthetic Vision Information System Displays , 2004 .

[21]  Michael B. Cross,et al.  Chapter 1 – Google Earth Basics , 2014 .

[22]  Wayne F. Velicer,et al.  Construct Explication through Factor or Component Analysis: A Review and Evaluation of Alternative Procedures for Determining the Number of Factors or Components , 2000 .

[23]  Randall E. Bailey,et al.  Evaluating the Effects of Dimensionality in Advanced Avionic Display Concepts for Synthetic Vision Systems , 2009 .

[24]  Justin G. Hollands,et al.  Viewpoint Tethering in Complex Terrain Navigation and Awareness , 2005 .

[25]  R. MacCallum,et al.  Sample size in factor analysis. , 1999 .

[26]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  The Cambridge Handbook of Visuospatial Thinking: Design Applications of Visual Spatial Thinking: The Importance of Frame of Reference , 2005 .

[27]  Thomas Prevot,et al.  Staying Ahead of the Automation: A Vertical Situation Display Can Help , 2000 .

[28]  Daniel J. Mundfrom,et al.  Minimum Sample Size Recommendations for Conducting Factor Analyses , 2005 .

[29]  Daniela Schmid.  Fragebogenstudie zur Evaluation der Akzeptanz verschiedener Anzeigekonzepte für das Navigationsdisplay mit Synthetic Vision in der kommerziellen Luftfahrt , 2015 .