Exposure to Disturbance Motion During Practice in an Analog of a Flight Task Influences Flight Control of Naive Participants

Shannon O'Malley, Amentha Rajagobal, J. Grundy, Martin v. Mohrenshildt, J. Shedden
{"title":"Exposure to Disturbance Motion During Practice in an Analog of a Flight Task Influences Flight Control of Naive Participants","authors":"Shannon O'Malley, Amentha Rajagobal, J. Grundy, Martin v. Mohrenshildt, J. Shedden","doi":"10.1080/10508414.2017.1295246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Objective: This article examines whether strategies and performance differed depending on whether naive participants were exposed to motion disturbance during practice of a tracking task. Background: Despite several decades of research, there is still debate regarding whether physical motion during flight simulation training improves later performance. Evidence suggests that presence of disturbance affects the utility of motion on transfer of training studies. Therefore, an important question is whether performance with disturbance motion (e.g., wind gusts) at test depends on whether participants practice with disturbance motion. Method: Naïve participants flew through a series of suspended rings in a motion-based simulator. Practice was with or without correlated (joystick control) and random motion (disturbance). The task was an analog of a flight task, modified to accommodate nonpilots. A quasi-transfer design included two practice blocks followed by two test blocks that incorporated both correlated and random motion. Results: No differences were detected in accuracy, but groups who practiced without disturbance made smaller joystick movements during both practice and test phases compared to those who practiced with disturbance. Conclusion: Practice without disturbance resulted in adoption of a different (possibly more efficient) joystick control strategy compared to practice with disturbance. The results suggest that during training, some control elements should be learned under relatively easy conditions, subsequently increasing in difficulty (e.g., add disturbance) at an optimal point in training.","PeriodicalId":83071,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of aviation psychology","volume":"26 1","pages":"63 - 74"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10508414.2017.1295246","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of aviation psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10508414.2017.1295246","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective: This article examines whether strategies and performance differed depending on whether naive participants were exposed to motion disturbance during practice of a tracking task. Background: Despite several decades of research, there is still debate regarding whether physical motion during flight simulation training improves later performance. Evidence suggests that presence of disturbance affects the utility of motion on transfer of training studies. Therefore, an important question is whether performance with disturbance motion (e.g., wind gusts) at test depends on whether participants practice with disturbance motion. Method: Naïve participants flew through a series of suspended rings in a motion-based simulator. Practice was with or without correlated (joystick control) and random motion (disturbance). The task was an analog of a flight task, modified to accommodate nonpilots. A quasi-transfer design included two practice blocks followed by two test blocks that incorporated both correlated and random motion. Results: No differences were detected in accuracy, but groups who practiced without disturbance made smaller joystick movements during both practice and test phases compared to those who practiced with disturbance. Conclusion: Practice without disturbance resulted in adoption of a different (possibly more efficient) joystick control strategy compared to practice with disturbance. The results suggest that during training, some control elements should be learned under relatively easy conditions, subsequently increasing in difficulty (e.g., add disturbance) at an optimal point in training.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在模拟飞行任务练习中暴露于干扰运动会影响幼稚参与者的飞行控制
摘要目的:本文探讨了在跟踪任务的练习中,幼稚的参与者是否暴露于运动障碍中,其策略和表现是否会有所不同。背景:尽管经过几十年的研究,关于飞行模拟训练中的物理运动是否能提高后来的表现,仍然存在争议。有证据表明,干扰的存在会影响运动在训练迁移研究中的效用。因此,一个重要的问题是,测试中干扰运动(如阵风)的表现是否取决于参与者是否使用干扰运动进行练习。方法:Naïve参与者在一个基于运动的模拟器中飞过一系列悬挂的环。练习有或没有相关(操纵杆控制)和随机运动(干扰)。这个任务类似于飞行任务,经过修改以适应非飞行员。准迁移设计包括两个练习块,然后是两个包含相关运动和随机运动的测试块。结果:在准确性上没有发现差异,但是在没有干扰的情况下练习的组在练习和测试阶段的操纵杆运动都比有干扰的组要小。结论:与有干扰的练习相比,无干扰的练习导致采用不同的(可能更有效的)操纵杆控制策略。结果表明,在训练过程中,一些控制元素应该在相对容易的条件下学习,然后在训练的最佳点增加难度(例如添加干扰)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
EOV Editorial Board Gaze Behavior and Visual Attention: A Review of Eye Tracking Studies in Aviation The International Journal of Aviation Psychology Reviewers 2016 Exposure to Disturbance Motion During Practice in an Analog of a Flight Task Influences Flight Control of Naive Participants Investigating Non-Technical Skills in Scottish and English Aircraft Maintenance Teams Using a Mixed Methodology of Interviews and a Questionnaire
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1