Time course of visual extrapolation accuracy.

In two experiments, we examined the extrapolation of a constant-velocity motion along a fixed circular path in the frontal plane. A target moved over an arc of 90 deg and then disappeared. Observers were to assume that the motion continued at the original velocity. After a variable time, a line appeared at another point on the circle to mark the end of the (invisible) 'motion'. Observers decided whether or not the target would have passed this end line, and gave a pass/no-pass response. In Experiment 1, a time course was established for the observed loss in accuracy with increasing duration of invisible motion. Two models of accuracy loss were constructed and tested. Both models assume that (1) extrapolation is performed by 'tracking' the position of the hidden target, and (2) there is no systematic velocity error in tracking, only random variation in tracker velocity. Both models predicted changes in hit and false alarm rates well, except in a condition where response asymmetries were present. In Experiment 2, the hypothesis that observers were tracking the hidden target was assessed by presenting a moving distractor during part of the trial. The presence of the distractor reduced performance under some conditions, suggesting that target tracking was occasionally disrupted. Grossly unequal distributions of pass/no-pass responses were observed for the fastest (8 deg/sec) and slowest (4 deg/sec) target velocities. However, the variable tracker models, using the parameter values from the first experiment, made accurate predictions for the 6 deg/sec condition, in which response distribution was nearly equal. Thus, there may be no need to posit systematic velocity error in motion tracking during extrapolation. The time course of accuracy decline can be accounted for by random variation in tracker velocity when response bias is absent.

Tools for assessing situational awareness in an operational fighter environment.

Three Situational Awareness Rating Scales (SARS) were developed to measure pilot performance in an operational fighter environment. These instruments rated situational awareness (SA) from three perspectives: supervisors, peers, and self-report. SARS data were gathered from 205 mission-ready USAF F-15C pilots from 8 operational squadrons. Reliabilities of the SARS were quite high, as measured by their internal consistency (0.95 to 0.99) and inter-rater agreement (0.88 to 0.97). Correlations between the supervisory and peer SARS were strongly positive (0.89 to 0.92), while correlations with the self-report SARS were positive, but smaller (0.45 to 0.57). A composite SA score was developed from the supervisory and peer SARS using a principal components analysis. The resulting score was found to be highly related to previous flight experience and current flight qualification. A prediction equation derived from available background and experience factors accounted for 73% of its variance. Implications for use of the composite SA score as a criterion measure are discussed.

Programs and prospects in aircrew performance measurement.

This article provides a historical perspective on research in the area of aircrew performance measurement within AFHRL. The development efforts within the Division are traced, beginning with some of the early work using the T-37 Advanced Simulator for Undergraduate Pilot Training and its later transition to the A-10 and F-16. The attempt to develop a C-5 performance measurement capability for use in operational training is also presented. Current efforts include the development of a measurement test bed facility for the Simulator for Air-to-Air Combat and the Air Combat Maneuvering instrumentation and the extension of such work into the low-level surface attack domain. Future development of the Air Combat Assessment and the Debriefing System is presented.