How unintentional cues can bias threat assessments during shoot/don't-shoot simulations.

OBJECTIVE: Identify whether contextual information may unintentionally alter decision-making during lethal force training. BACKGROUND: Lethal force decisions inherently involve a threat assessment, where an individual learns to identify a threat and use force commensurate to the situation. This decision is ultimately subject to numerous cognitive influences, particularly during training where artificial factors may bias decision-making. METHOD: Participants made threat assessments for tasks that presented hostile stimuli (pointing guns) and non-hostile stimuli (holding cell phones). Experiment 1 identified issues in target design by applying scoring rings as cues to targets, whereas Experiment 2 used bullet holes to assess cues due to target reuse. Experiment 3 applied these cues equally to hostile and non-hostile stimuli to prevent a predictive relationship from forming. RESULTS: Significant cueing effects were observed in both Experiments 1 and 2. For Experiment 3, response times were not impacted by the invalid cues as participants could no longer reliably use the cue to distinguish between hostile and non-hostile stimuli. CONCLUSION: Stimulus-related factors can unintentionally create predictive relationships during lethal force training. These predictive factors are problematic because they allow participants to make threat assessments during training in a way that would never be realistic in the field. APPLICATION: Modifications should be made to hostile and non-hostile targets in equal measure to avoid creating an unintentionally predictive relationship that identifies hostile targets. In practice, scoring rings and bullet holes should be added to non-hostile stimuli to better parallel hostile stimuli.

Postural Instability and Seasickness in a Motion-Based Shooting Simulation.

BACKGROUND: Motion sickness is a problem for many; however, it is especially pressing for military personnel who need to operate in life and death environments. The current study investigated the underlying cause of motion sickness by testing postural instability theory.METHODS: Subjects experienced realistic motion profiles while performing a virtual reality shooting task and reporting any motion sickness symptoms. Postural instability was manipulated within 20 subjects across 2 conditions. In one condition, subjects could readily adapt their posture to the motion profile by adjusting their feet on the platform (Free), and in the other condition, their feet were fixed in place on the moving platform (Fixed). This Free condition decreased postural instability by allowing adjustment, while the Fixed condition increased postural instability by restricting adjustment. The same subjects completed both conditions to control for individual differences in motion sickness susceptibility.RESULTS: Overall, motion sickness was mild as measured by SSQ (M 14.41, Free; M 18.89, Fixed), and no statistically significant differences were observed between the conditions. Performance on the shooting task was reduced in accuracy by approximately 40%, although this result did not differ between conditions.DISCUSSION: The results do not support postural instability as a contributing factor in motion sickness symptomology. They also demonstrate the importance of accounting for motion when conducting training.Pettijohn KA, Pistone DV, Warner AL, Roush GJ, Biggs AT. Postural instability and seasickness in a motion-based shooting simulation. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2020; 91(9):703709.