An evaluation of unisensory and multisensory adaptive flight-path navigation displays

The present study assessed the use of unimodal (auditory or visual) and multimodal (audio-visual) adaptive interfaces to aid military pilots in the performance of a precision-navigation flight task when they were confronted with additional information-processing loads. A standard navigation interface was supplemented by adaptive interfaces consisting of either a head-up display based flight director, a 3D virtual audio interface, or a combination of the two. The adaptive interfaces provided information about how to return to the pathway when off course. Using an advanced flight simulator, pilots attempted two navigation scenarios: (A) maintain proper course under normal flight conditions and (B) return to course after their aircraft's position has been perturbed. Pilots flew in the presence or absence of an additional information-processing task presented in either the visual or auditory modality. The additional information-processing tasks were equated in terms of perceived mental workload as indexed by the NASA-TLX.; Twelve experienced military pilots (11 men and 1 woman), naive to the purpose of the experiment, participated in the study. They were recruited from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and had a mean of 2812 hrs. of flight experience. Four navigational interface configurations, the standard visual navigation interface alone (SV), SV plus adaptive visual, SV plus adaptive auditory, and SV plus adaptive visual-auditory composite were combined factorially with three concurrent tasks (CT), the no CT, the visual CT, and the auditory CT, a completely repeated measures design. The adaptive navigation displays were activated whenever the aircraft was more than 450 ft off course.; In the normal flight scenario, the adaptive interfaces did not bolster navigation performance in comparison to the standard interface. It is conceivable that the pilots performed quite adequately using the familiar generic interface under normal flight conditions and hence showed no added benefit of the adaptive interfaces.; In the return-to-course scenario, the relative advantages of the three adaptive interfaces were dependent upon the nature of the CT in a complex way. In the absence of a CT, recovery heading performance was superior with the adaptive visual and adaptive composite interfaces compared to the adaptive auditory interface. In the context of a visual CT, recovery when using the adaptive composite interface was superior to that when using the adaptive visual interface. Post-experimental inquiry indicated that when faced with a visual CT, the pilots used the auditory component of the multimodal guidance display to detect gross heading errors and the visual component to make more fine-grained heading adjustments. In the context of the auditory CT, navigation performance using the adaptive visual interface tended to be superior to that when using the adaptive auditory interface.; Neither CT performance nor NASA-TLX workload level was influenced differentially by the interface configurations. Thus, the potential benefits associated with the proposed interfaces appear to be unaccompanied by negative side effects involving CT interference and workload.; The adaptive interface configurations were altered without any direct input from the pilot. Thus, it was feared that pilots might reject the activation of interfaces independent of their control. However, pilots' debriefing comments about the efficacy of the adaptive interface approach were very positive. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)...