Expectation Causes Misperception of the Attitude Indicator in Nonpilots: A Fixed-Base Simulator Experiment

被引:3
|
作者
Landman, Annemarie [1 ,2 ]
Groen, Eric L. [1 ]
van Paassen, M. M. [2 ]
Bronkhorst, Adelbert W. [1 ]
Mulder, Max [2 ]
机构
[1] TNO Soesterberg, Soesterberg, Netherlands
[2] Delft Univ Technol, Delft, Netherlands
关键词
frames of reference; spatial cognition; perceptual organization; rivalry; bistability; SPATIAL DISORIENTATION; AIRCRAFT ATTITUDE; FLIGHT; DISPLAYS; PILOTS; MOTION;
D O I
10.1177/0301006619901053
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Previous studies show that pilots sometimes make roll reversal errors (RREs) when responding to the aircraft bank angle shown on the attitude indicator (AI). This is suggestive of a perceptual ambiguity in the AI. In the current study, we investigated whether expectation contributes to such misperception. Twenty nonpilots performed tasks in a fixed-base flight simulator. Their expectation about the bank angle was manipulated with a flying task using outside view only. When flying at a bank angle, the outside view disappeared, a moving-horizon type AI was shown, and participants had to roll the wings level, trusting the AI. The AI often matched the previously flown turn. However, in some runs, it showed an opposite bank direction (Opposite condition), which was hypothesized to facilitate a misperception. In some other runs, it showed level flight (Level condition), which should not facilitate this. In a second session, participants rolled wings level without preceding flying task (Baseline condition). Participants made 11.2 times more RREs in the Opposite condition (75% error rate) compared to Baseline condition (6.7%), and 2.5 times more compared to the Level condition (30%). This indicates that RREs were in many cases caused by expectation-induced misperception of the AI bank angle.
引用
收藏
页码:155 / 168
页数:14
相关论文
共 22 条
  • [1] Prediction of simulator sickness in a fixed-base simulator
    Yoo, Y
    Lee, GCH
    [J]. ADVANCES IN OCCUPATIONAL ERGONOMICS AND SAFETY, 1999, 3 : 427 - 432
  • [2] EVALUATION OF A FIXED-BASE HOVERCRAFT SIMULATOR.
    Shindman, Howard David
    [J]. UTIAS Report (University of Toronto, Institute for Aerospace Studies), 1977, (210):
  • [3] FIXED-BASE SIMULATOR AIDING TRANSPORT COCKPIT DESIGN
    不详
    [J]. AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY, 1983, 119 (21): : 30 - 30
  • [4] Postural instability and motion sickness in a fixed-base flight simulator
    Stoffregen, TA
    Hettinger, LJ
    Haas, MW
    Roe, MM
    Smart, LJ
    [J]. HUMAN FACTORS, 2000, 42 (03) : 458 - 469
  • [5] Driving for Real or on a Fixed-Base Simulator: Is It so Different? An Explorative Study
    Milleville-Pennel, Isabelle
    Charron, Camilo
    [J]. PRESENCE-VIRTUAL AND AUGMENTED REALITY, 2015, 24 (01): : 74 - 91
  • [6] Differences between vehicle lateral displacement on the road and in a fixed-base simulator
    Blana, E
    Golias, J
    [J]. HUMAN FACTORS, 2002, 44 (02) : 303 - 313
  • [7] Quantitative analysis of steering adaptation on a high performance fixed-base driving simulator
    McGehee, DV
    Lee, JD
    Rizzo, M
    Dawson, J
    Bateman, K
    [J]. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART F-TRAFFIC PSYCHOLOGY AND BEHAVIOUR, 2004, 7 (03) : 181 - 196
  • [8] Impact of Narrower Lane Width Comparison Between Fixed-Base Simulator and Real Data
    Rosey, Florence
    Auberlet, Jean-Michel
    Moisan, Olivier
    Dupre, Guy
    [J]. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD, 2009, (2138) : 112 - 119
  • [9] The best way to assess visually induced motion sickness in a fixed-base driving simulator
    Reinhard, Rene
    Rutrecht, Hans M.
    Hengstenberg, Patricia
    Tutulmaz, Ender
    Geissler, Britta
    Hecht, Heiko
    Muttray, Axel
    [J]. TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART F-TRAFFIC PSYCHOLOGY AND BEHAVIOUR, 2017, 48 : 74 - 88
  • [10] DETERMINATION OF FIXED-BASE NATURAL FREQUENCIES OF A COMPOSITE STRUCTURE OR SUBSTRUCTURES - EXPERIMENT AND APPLICATION
    NI, C
    LAYHER, JP
    [J]. REPORT OF NRL PROGRESS, 1972, (APR): : 27 - &