Tactical Display for Soldiers

Human Factors Considerations

Panel on Human Factors in the Design of Tactical Display Systems for the Individual Soldier

Committee on Human Factors

Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education

National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.
1997



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
--> Tactical Display for Soldiers Human Factors Considerations Panel on Human Factors in the Design of Tactical Display Systems for the Individual Soldier Committee on Human Factors Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education National Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1997

OCR for page R1
--> NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20418 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The work of the Panel on Human Factors in the Design of Tactical Display Systems for the Individual Soldier is supported by Department of the Army Contract No. DAAD05-92-C-0087 issued by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory. The views, opinions, and findings contained in this report are those of the authors(s) and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy, or decision, unless so designated by other official documentation. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data National Research Council (U.S.). Panel on Human Factors in the Design of Tactical Display Systems for the Individual Soldier. Tactical display for Soldiers : human factors considerations / Panel on Human Factors in the Design of Tactical Display Systems for the Individual Soldier, Committee on Human Factors, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-309-05638-1 1. Helmet-mounted displays. 2. United States Army. Infantry—Equipment. 3. Human engineering. I. Title. UG489.N38 1997 623.4'6—dc21 96-39712 CIP Additional copies of this report are available from National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue NW, Box 285, Washington, DC 20055. 800-624-6242 or 202-334-3313 in the Washington metropolitan area. http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 1997 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
--> PANEL ON HUMAN FACTORS IN THE DESIGN OF TACTICAL DISPLAY SYSTEMS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL SOLDIER WILLIAM O. BLACKWOOD (Chair), Hay Management Consultants, Inc., Arlington, Virginia TIMOTHY R. ANDERSON, Armstrong Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio C. THOMAS BENNETT, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley JOHN R. CORSON, Consultant, Williamsburg, Virginia MICA R. ENDSLEY, Department of Industrial Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock PETER A. HANCOCK, Human Factors Research Laboratory, University of Minnesota JULIAN HOCHBERG (emeritus), Department of Psychology, Columbia University JAMES E. HOFFMAN, Department of Psychology, University of Delaware RONALD V. KRUK, CAE Electronics, Ltd., Saint Laurent, Quebec, Canada ANNE S. MAVOR, Study Director JERRY S. KIDD, Senior Staff Officer CINDY S. PRINCE, Senior Project Assistant

OCR for page R1
--> COMMITTEE ON HUMAN FACTORS WILLIAM B. ROUSE (Chair), Enterprise Support Systems, Norcross, Georgia TERRY CONNOLLY, Department of Management and Policy, College of Business and Public Administration, University of Arizona, Tucson PAUL S. GOODMAN, Center for Management of Technology, Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon University ROBERT L. HELMREICH, National Aeronautics and Space Administration/University of Texas Aerospace Crew Research Project, Austin WILLIAM C. HOWELL, American Psychological Association Science Directorate, Washington, DC ROBERTA L. KLATZKY, Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University TOM B. LEAMON, Liberty Mutual Research Center, Hopkinton, MA ANN MAJCHRZAK, Human Factors Department, Institute of Safety and Systems Management, University of Southern California DAVID C. NAGEL, AT&T Laboratories, Basking Ridge, NJ BENJAMIN SCHNEIDER, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland LAWRENCE W. STARK, School of Optometry, University of California, Berkeley EARL L. WIENER, Department of Management Science, University of Miami GREG L. ZACHARIAS, Charles River Analytics, Cambridge, MA ANNE MAVOR, Study Director JERRY KIDD, Senior Adviser SUSAN McCUTCHEN, Senior Project Assistant

OCR for page R1
--> Contents     PREFACE   vii     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY   1 1   THE MILITARY ENVIRONMENT   7     Combat Setting,   7     The Land Warrior System,   10     Conclusions,   24 2   THE INFANTRY POPULATION   27     Personnel Selection,   27     Training,   32     Implications for Display Design,   36     Conclusions,   41 3   SITUATION AWARENESS   43     The Soldier's Situation Awareness,   44     Factors Affecting Situation Awareness,   45     Information Distribution,   53     Design Drivers,   54     Measurement,   54     Conclusions,   62     Design Guidelines,   63

OCR for page R1
--> 4   VISUAL AND PSYCHOMOTOR FACTORS IN DISPLAY DESIGN   65     Introduction,   66     Visual Factors in Designing and Assessing Display Devices,   88     Training,   112     Conclusions and Design Guidelines,   112     Technical Note,   114 5   AUDITORY FACTORS IN THE DESIGN OF DISPLAYS AND CONTROLS   117     Auditory Displays,   117     Auditory Controls,   126     Conclusions and Design Guidelines,   128 6   STRESS AND COGNITIVE WORKLOAD   130     A Unifying Framework,   130     Sources of Operational Stress,   133     Effects of Stress on Performance,   142     Adaptive Response to Stress,   144     Implications for Design,   159     Conclusions,   162     Design Guidelines,   162 7   RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TESTING, AND EVALUATION   164     Adopting a New Strategy,   165     Planning the Strategy,   167     Implementing the Strategy,   171     Conclusion,   181 8   RECOMMENDATIONS   184     Major Recommendations,   184     Recommended Research Agenda,   185     Recommended Design Guidelines,   187     REFERENCES   189     APPENDIXES         A:Covered Ergonomics for the Helmet-Mounted Display   207     B:Physical Ergonomics of the Infantry Helmet   211     C:Biographical Sketches   217     INDEX   221

OCR for page R1
--> Preface The Panel on Human Factors in the Design of Tactical Displays for the Individual Soldier was established by the National Research Council at the request of the U.S. Army Natick Research, Development, and Engineering Center for the purpose of explicating the human factors issues and approaches associated with the development, testing, and implementation of helmet-mounted display technology in the Land Warrior System. More specifically, the panel was charged with examining the relationship among the tactical information needs of individual soldiers; the possible devices available now and in the near future for processing, transmitting, and displaying such information; and the human performance implications of the use of such devices. This report presents our analysis, findings, and recommendations. The requirement for the proposed Land Warrior System stems from the need to help the soldier think and act quickly and effectively. Underlying the design concept is the assumption that the resulting system will improve the soldier's situation awareness of the battlefield and by so doing increase his performance efficiency and accuracy. In order to appropriately frame the critical human factors issues regarding design, training, and conditions of use, we begin by characterizing the sources of the requirement-the mission needs and the infantry soldier. Chapter 1 discusses military context, infantry doctrine, and employment scenarios for the proposed Land Warrior System; Chapter 2 presents the characteristics of the intended user. Designing usable equipment and providing effective training requires a detailed knowledge of the potential uses and the users as well as the possible interactions between design attributes and user capabilities and limitations. Because situation awareness is a central goal of the system, we begin our

OCR for page R1
--> technical analysis in Chapter 3 by considering how the land warrior helmet-mounted display may have both positive and negative impacts on the soldier's awareness of his surroundings and in turn on his ability to act. Effective situation awareness of the battlefield requires not only knowledge of friendly and enemy forces but also understanding of the dynamics of actions expected to occur in the near future. Since the soldier's situation awareness and performance are directly affected by how well he sees and interprets images of the world, it is essential to consider the proposed display and its implications for viewing and moving in the environment. The eyes are the primary input channel for the soldier. When using the proposed system at night, the soldier will view the battlefield, detect and engage targets, and perform all his soldiering tasks through the display. Under both nighttime and daytime conditions, the soldier will read, respond to, create, and interpret images and messages that are transmitted over the system. Chapter 4 addresses the visual factors in designing and evaluating display devices in terms of the visually guided behaviors and tasks they are intended to support. Like the eyes, the ears are essential to the soldier's performance and survivability. Auditory communications on the battlefield have always been challenging because of interference from background noise, the imprecision of oral communication, and fatigue. Our discussion of auditory displays in Chapter 5 focuses on supplementing or amplifying visual information, evaluating the pros and cons of various types of auditory signals, and examining the conditions and tasks for which auditory information is most effective. Our final area of technical analysis, covered in Chapter 6, is the potential effects of the proposed Land Warrior helmet-mounted display on the soldier's cognitive workload. The Land Warrior System will add new tasks for the soldier to perform that will require him to acquire more information through reading and to process that information for retransmission, decision making, or both. It will be important for the Army to consider the implications of this additional workload on the performance of infantry soldiers who meet minimum recruiting standards. As a result of our analysis of relevant research, the panel identified many areas in which additional knowledge is needed both for research and at the operational test and evaluation level. As a result, in Chapter 7 we identify a critical set of human factors test issues and propose a strategy for collecting information about these issues. This plan is followed in Chapter 8 by the conclusions and recommendations that the panel feels are most important. Some of these recommendations are in the form of design guidelines; others provide the basis for a proposed research agenda. We begin our acknowledgments by extending thanks to Claire Gordon and Cynthia Blackwell, sponsor representatives from the U.S. Army Natick Research, Development, and Engineering Center (Natick RD&E) for their foresight in recognizing the importance of human factors for the Land Warrior System and for providing sponsorship and information support for the panel. Throughout the

OCR for page R1
--> course of the project, many individuals have made contributions to the panel's thinking by serving as presenters and sources of information. We are particularly grateful to Bernard Corona, Human Research and Engineering Directorate, Army Research Laboratory, for his continued interest in the project and for providing us with his valuable insights on the Land Warrior System and the state of human factors in related technologies. We also received cooperation and support from numerous members of the Army staff at the Infantry School, Fort Benning, the Training and Doctrine Command, and the Army Materiel Command. We would like to extend our special thanks to Captain Gregory Dyekman of the Infantry School for taking care of our logistic needs and for scheduling special demonstrations of the Soldier Integrated Protective Ensemble (SIPE) and night vision equipment. Others who contributed during our visit to Fort Benning were: Major Marc Collins, Project Manager-Soldier Systems; Captain William Dickey, Major Ronald Murray, Sergeant Richardson, and Staff Sergeant Weiser of the Infantry School; Lieutenant Colonel Ross Holden, Captain Ed Jennings, and Captain Scott O'Neil of the Night Vision Laboratory; and Patrick Snow, Jr., U.S. Natick RD&E Center. Although this report is the collective product of the entire panel, in the course of preparing it, each member of the panel took an active role in drafting sections of chapters, leading discussions, and reviewing successive drafts. In particular, John Corson provided expert knowledge on the military context and on planning for research, development, testing, and evaluation; Mica Endsley contributed extensively in the area of situation awareness; Julian Hochberg, James Hoffman, and Ronald Kruk assumed major responsibility for the work on visual and psychomotor issues; Timothy Anderson provided material on auditory displays; Peter Hancock contributed material on cognitive workload; and Tom Bennett provided expertise in decision making. Staff at the National Research Council made important contributions to our work in many ways. We would like to express our gratitude to Jerry Kidd, senior staff officer, for his hard work and technical support; to Alexandra Wigdor, director of the Division on Education, Labor, and Human Performance, for her valuable guidance; and to Cindy Prince, the panel's administrative assistant, who was indispensable in organizing meetings, compiling agenda materials, and working on the final manuscript. We are also indebted to Christine McShane, who edited and significantly improved the report. William O. Blackwood, Chair Anne S. Mavor, Study Director

OCR for page R1
--> The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is interim president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and interim vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

OCR for page R1
This page in the original is blank.

OCR for page R1
This page in the original is blank.