Head position and frame of reference in flight the opto kinetic cervical reflex
Download
1 / 56

Head Position and Frame of Reference in Flight: The Opto-kinetic Cervical Reflex - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 40 Views
  • Uploaded on

Head Position and Frame of Reference in Flight: The Opto-kinetic Cervical Reflex. Jennie J. Gallimore, Ph.D. June 24, 2009 NASA Langley. Topics. Spatial Disorientation Attitude Indicator OKCR Research Considerations for Cockpit Displays Other On Going Research at WSU.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Head Position and Frame of Reference in Flight: The Opto-kinetic Cervical Reflex' - gezana


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Head position and frame of reference in flight the opto kinetic cervical reflex

Head Position and Frame of Reference in Flight: The Opto-kinetic Cervical Reflex

Jennie J. Gallimore, Ph.D.

June 24, 2009

NASA Langley


Topics
Topics Opto-kinetic Cervical Reflex

  • Spatial Disorientation

  • Attitude Indicator

  • OKCR Research

  • Considerations for Cockpit Displays

  • Other On Going Research at WSU


Spatial disorientation
Spatial Disorientation Opto-kinetic Cervical Reflex

  • The inability of the flight crew to correctly perceive attitude, altitude, or airspeed of the aircraft in relationship to the earth and other points of reference.

  • SD has been categorized into three types.

  • Type I unrecognized (where most mishaps are classified)

  • Type II recognized

  • Type III incapacitating


Spatial disorientation accidents
Spatial Disorientation Accidents Opto-kinetic Cervical Reflex

  • US Air Force 1991-2000, 20.2% of accidents, 60 lives, 1.4 billion dollars [Davenport00].

  • US Army reported 27% [Kuipers90].

  • US Navy and Marine Corp, 26%, 101 accidents [Johnson00]

    • Three times as many lives were lost for SD related mishaps compared to non-SD related mishaps.

    • Mishap data also indicate that pilots who experience SD are very experienced, and the mishap rate has not decreased in the last 20 years.


First flight instrument
First Flight Instrument? Opto-kinetic Cervical Reflex

Wright 1909 Military FlyerSlip Ribbon (first flight instrument)


First mechanical flight instrument
First Mechanical Flight Instrument Opto-kinetic Cervical Reflex

  • Sperry’s bank and turn indicator, 1918

  • Worked best in clear weather


First blind sortie
First “Blind” Sortie Opto-kinetic Cervical Reflex

  • Sep 24th 1929 under direction of Guggenheim in NY (Mitchel Field)

  • First ‘Blind’ sortie, takeoff to landing

  • First use of artificial horizon, Kollsman altimeter, and directional gyro


Attitude indicator
Attitude Indicator Opto-kinetic Cervical Reflex

Level flight

20-degree turn


Attitude indicator example
Attitude Indicator Example Opto-kinetic Cervical Reflex

  • Real World

    • Plane moves

    • Horizon remains static

  • Indicated World

    • Plane remains static

    • Horizon moves

    • Indicator reverses reality

  • Dangerous if visual reference

  • is lost

    • Pilot disorientation

    • Control reversal errors


Opto kinetic cervical reflex okcr
Opto-Kinetic Cervical Reflex (OKCR) Opto-kinetic Cervical Reflex

  • Pilots align their heads toward the horizon during Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) flight.

  • Pilots do not tilt their heads during Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC) flight.

  • Visual to Instrument transition can cause reversal errors.


Head tilt
Head Tilt Opto-kinetic Cervical Reflex

  • Patterson (1989) noticed that pilots align their heads with the horizon.

  • If they are aligning their heads with the aircraft then the view from the windscreen is a fixed horizon (not moving).


Opto-Kinetic Cervical Reflex (In-flight) Opto-kinetic Cervical Reflex

Horizon Line

with 73 degrees

of bank angle

F/A-18 aircraft (Blue Angel)

73 degrees of bank (VMC, +Gz Turn).

OKCR Head tilt = 31degrees away from the Gz axis.


Wsu research investigating head tilt
WSU Research Opto-kinetic Cervical ReflexInvestigating Head Tilt

  • Patterson (1995, 1997)

  • Smith et al (1997)

  • Merryman et al (1997)

  • Gallimore et al (1999, 2000)

  • Liggett & Gallimore (2001)

  • Gallimore, Liggett & Patterson (2001)

  • Others since


Okcr studies
OKCR Studies Opto-kinetic Cervical Reflex


Horizon roll vs head roll for low level route
Horizon Roll Vs. Head Roll for Low-Level Route Opto-kinetic Cervical Reflex

Patterson et al.



Merryman smith
Merryman & Smith Opto-kinetic Cervical Reflex


Results head tilt with respect to aircraft bank during low level route gallimore et al 1999
Results: Opto-kinetic Cervical ReflexHead tilt with respect to aircraft bank during low-level routeGallimore, et al (1999)


Okcr results
OKCR Results Opto-kinetic Cervical Reflex


Okcr as a function of task and field of view
OKCR as a function of task Opto-kinetic Cervical Reflexand field of view


Reversal error
Reversal Error Opto-kinetic Cervical Reflex

  • Tendency for pilots to mistake motion of the artificial horizon as a relative motion of the wings.

  • Pilots roll or pitch the aircraft in opposite direction.

  • Researchers who have documented this error

    • Fitts and Jones (1947)

    • Johnson and Roscoe (1972)

    • Roscoe and Williges (1975)

    • Roscoe (1986) - Boeing 747 accident


Sensory-Spatial Conflict and Control Reversal Error (Patterson et al findings)

Control reversal error during IMC “out” to “in” visual transition.

  • Experienced U.S. military rated pilots commit 25-65% reversal errors.

  • Likelihood of reversal errors by general aviation pilots is probably even greater.

  • A reversal error can lead to flight into terrain or a graveyard spiral.

  • This is likely what happened to the pilot of Air India and to John F. Kennedy, Jr.

    References on reversal errors:

    Patterson, et al, 1997

    Braithwaite,et al, 1998

    Gallimore, et al., (1999)

    Liggett & Gallimore (in press)


Number and magnitude of reversal errors gallimore et al findings
Number and Magnitude of Reversal Errors (Patterson et al findings)Gallimore, et al findings

40 Degrees

60 Degrees

100 Degrees

9 errors out of 24

8 errors out of 24

6 errors out of 24

1(.04%)

5(20.83%)

4(17.39%)

VMC

5(20.83%)

4(17.39%)

4(17.39%)

IMC

Average reversal

error magnitude

9.34 o

Combined

Average reversal

error magnitude

28.96 o

Average reversal

error magnitude

9.30 o


Transitions
Transitions (Patterson et al findings)

What happens during the transition from visual to instruments?

  • The pilot’s view of the cockpit suddenly becomes stationary as his view of the display’s artificial horizon begins moving.

  • Pilots must instantly reverse their orientation strategy.

  • Pilots sensory-spatial compatibility between the control stick motion and visual feed back.


Summary
Summary (Patterson et al findings)

  • Pilots reflexively tilt heads toward horizon during VMC roll maneuvers.

  • Head movement acts to stabilize retinal image.

  • Generated by motion on retina, not vestibular.

  • Stabilized horizon is the primary visual cue.

  • Peripherally viewed cockpit structures secondary cues.

  • Secondary cues move with airframe.

  • Control movement compatible with secondary cues.


Summary cont
Summary (Cont.) (Patterson et al findings)

  • Beyond 40 degrees of aircraft roll there is a decrease in head displacement, so pilots can not stabilize the horizon.

  • Horizon acceleration, stabilization of secondary cues.

  • Sudden switch may lead to false perceptions.

  • When transitioning from visual to instruments

    • motion reversal b/w outside and inside visual cues

    • control display incompatibility

    • need to switch cognitive model


How does okcr affect current display technologies
How does OKCR affect current display technologies? (Patterson et al findings)

  • Head down Attitude Indicator

    • Reversal errors

  • HUD

    • Head may tilt out of the HUD eye box and pilot may not see a pull up X.


HUD (Patterson et al findings)

  • The Head Up Display (HUD) presents symbols to the pilot, displaying them over the real world.


Hud symbology is conformal
HUD Symbology is Conformal (Patterson et al findings)


Hud symbology
HUD Symbology (Patterson et al findings)


How does okcr affect current display technologies cont
How does OKCR affect current display technologies? (cont) (Patterson et al findings)

  • NVG

    • HUD symbology on the NVG. Head movements are not tracked. As pilot changes head position, display horizon line is no longer conformal to the real horizon.

    • Pilots see HUD information designed for fixed on-axis aircraft viewing regardless of head position. Pilots may not realize they are not flying in the direction they are looking.


Research issues
Research Issues (Patterson et al findings)

  • What frames of reference are important for a pilot to maintain orientation?

    • World - world is fixed and everything moves within it.

    • Aircraft - aircraft is fixed and everything moves around it.

    • Pilot - pilot is fixed and everything moves in relation to him.


Research issues1
Research Issues (Patterson et al findings)

  • What symbology is appropriate for HMDs?

    • HUD symbology is being considered for use on HMDs.

    • HUD symbology is being used on NVGs.

  • How do sensory reflexes affect perceived frame of reference?

    • OKCR, under VMC pilots align their head with the horizon.


Research issues2
Research Issues (Patterson et al findings)

  • How do visual frames of reference interact with vestibular and proprioceptive inputs to provide the pilot with an "awareness" of their orientation?

  • What contributing cognitive factors affect spatial orientation?

  • How will HMD attitude symbology affect frames of reference in VMC and IMC?

  • How will transitions be impacted?

  • How can we detect when a pilot is spatially disoriented?


Research issues for hmd symbology design
Research Issues for HMD Symbology Design (Patterson et al findings)

  • What spatial sensory reflexes and visual illusions influence pilot’s perception of frame of reference?

  • Will cognitive capture affect pilots perceptions of frame of reference? Will cognitive capture result in more transitions between symbology and the real world?

  • When pilots transition between a perceived stationary horizon (real world cues) to a moving symbol horizon on the HMD, do they perceive the horizon symbol as stationary?

  • What type of symbology will help provide the perception of a stationary horizon?


Research issues for hmd symbology design1
Research Issues for HMD Symbology Design (Patterson et al findings)

  • If HMD symbology is used for attitude information as well as targeting, how will switching between these tasks affect frame of reference?

  • Will pilots have a greater risk of spatial disorientation if they look off-axis more often?

  • How will secondary flight cues be affected by use of HMDs?

  • What current or new measures should be employed to determine if a pilot is spatially disoriented?


Hmd research and the okcr
HMD Research and the OKCR (Patterson et al findings)

Experiment I

  • Test adequacy of Mil-Std HUD symbology presented on a see-through HMD during various tasks.

    • VMC flight task

      • Pilots were instructed to bank at specific angles, rather than to bank around a waypoint.

    • 12 Subjects

    • HMD Kaiser Pro – Binocular HMD, 40o circular FOV, 100% overlap, 1280 x 1024 resolution.


Hmd research and the okcr1
HMD Research and the OKCR (Patterson et al findings)

Experiment II

  • Investigate visual cues in an immersed HMD simulation system using HUD symbology.

    • VMC Flight task

    • Varied resolution (640 x 480 & 800 x 600), HUD symbol size (small and large)

    • Pilots instructed to follow a yellow track line over Pensacola, FL

    • 6 subjects

    • Virtual Research V8 HMD system, 48o H x 32o V, 100% overlap


Hmd research and the okcr2
HMD Research and the OKCR (Patterson et al findings)

Experiment III

  • Investigate the effects of non-congruent motion on performance in an immersive HMD system.

    • VMC flight task flown on land and on Navy mind sweeper in Pensacola Bay.

    • Pilots instructed to follow a yellow track line over Pensacola, FL

    • 9 subjects

    • Sony i-glasses , 24o H x 18o V, 100% overlap, 789 x 230 Resolution


Hmd results
HMD Results (Patterson et al findings)


Okcr differences
OKCR Differences (Patterson et al findings)

  • Different visual scenes/cues cause difference in pilot OKCR response

    • Reducing FOV

    • Manipulating altitude

  • Amount of head tilt depends on amount of retinal movement.

  • Reduction in peripheral vision may play a role

  • Reducing FOV may reduce how compelling the visual horizon appears


Okcr differences1
OKCR Differences (Patterson et al findings)

  • Immersive HMD simulation studies did not provide any secondary visual cues (cockpit structures).

    • Do pilots reduce head movements when they lack a stabilizing cue?

  • If experiencing simulator sickness may reduce head movements.


Control reversal errors hmd liggett and gallimore findings
Control Reversal Errors HMD (Patterson et al findings)Liggett and Gallimore findings

  • Overall CRE rate 28%, similar to previous studies.

  • Magnitude range: 6 degrees to 201 degrees

  • A conformal horizon symbol did not reduce CREs.

  • Because we know they were not tilting in IMC, they still had to change frames of reference from world to aircraft.


Control reversal errors hmd liggett and gallimore findings1
Control Reversal Errors HMD (Patterson et al findings)Liggett and Gallimore findings

  • Dependent measure: Altitude Change

    • Significant difference

      • CRE group average: 3382 ft MSL

      • No CRE group average: 1810 ft MSL

  • Pilots with CREs obviously confused.

  • Focusing on pitch and bank information in central part of symbology.

  • Fail to scan airspeed and altitude information.


1. Recognition of pilot spatial awareness strategies (Patterson et al findings)

3. Avoidance and recognition

of Visual Illusions (perspective illusion)

2. Avoidance and recognition

of spatial disorientation

(VMC-IMC form/ reversal error)

4. Design of flightdeck displays


Spatial disorientation factor perspective moon illusion
Spatial disorientation factor (Patterson et al findings)Perspective (moon) illusion


Example perspective illusion
Example: Perspective Illusion (Patterson et al findings)


References aviation research
References Aviation Research (Patterson et al findings)

  • Jenkins, J. C., and Gallimore, J.J. (2008). Configural display design features to promote pilot situation awareness in helmet-mounted displays. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 79, 397-407

  • Stephens, M., Gallimore, J., and Albery, W. (2002) Spectral Analysis of Electroencephalographic Response to Spatial Disorientation. Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology: Dayton OH. (pp. 1131-1136).

  • Liggett, K.K. and Gallimore, J.J. (2002). The effects of frame of reference and HMD symbology on control reversal errors. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine;73:102-111.

  • Gallimore, J.J., Liggett, K.K. and Patterson, F.R. (2001). The Opto-Kinetic Cervical Reflex in Flight Simulation. Proceedings of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Modeling and Simulation Conference and Exhibit, Aug 6-9, 2001, Montreal, Canada, Paper No: 2001-4191: pp 1-7. * Best Paper.


References aviation research1
References Aviation Research (Patterson et al findings)

  • Liggett, K. and Gallimore, J.J. (2001) The OKCR and Pilot Performance During Transitions Between Meteorological Conditions Using HMD Attitude Symbology. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting, (pp. 115-119) Santa Monica. CA HFES.

  • Gallimore, J.J., Patterson, F.R., Brannon, N.G., and Nalepka, J.P. (2000). The opto-kinetic cervical reflex during formation flight. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine 2000;71:812-821

  • Gallimore J. J., Brannon, N. G., Patterson, F.R., and Nalepka, J.P. (1999). Effects of FOV and aircraft bank on pilot head movement and reversal errors during simulated flight. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 70(12):1152-60.

  • Gallimore, J.J., Brannon, N.G., and Patterson F.R. (1998). The Effects of Field-of-View on Pilot Head Movement During Low Level Flight. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL (pp. 6-10). Patterson F. R., Cacioppo, A.

  • J., Gallimore, J.J., Hinman, G.E., and Nalepka, J.P. (1997). Aviation spatial orientation in relationship to head position and attitude interpretation. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, 68(6), 463-471.


Other research
Other Research (Patterson et al findings)

  • A Predictive Model Of Cognitive Performance Under Acceleration Stress

    • Submitted to Aviation, Space, Environmental Medicine, June 09

  • Three-Dimensional Technology for Space Operation Applications

  • Multi-modal Displays for Portraying Meta-Info to Support Net-Centric C2

  • Process Control Displays

  • Virtual Patients

  • Collaborative Computer Agents with Personality


Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements (Patterson et al findings)

CDR Frederick Patterson, Ph.D.,

Retired

Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory

United States Navy


Thank you

Thank You (Patterson et al findings)


ad