Tactile guidance for land navigation / Linda R. Elliott [and others].

Format:

Book

Government document

Contributor:

Elliott, Linda R.

U.S. Army Research Laboratory

Series:

ARL-TR (Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.) ; 3814.

ARL-TR ; 3814

Language:

English

Subjects (All):

Navigation--Equipment and supplies--Testing.

Navigation.

Navigation--Equipment and supplies--Evaluation.

Tactile sensors--Testing.

Tactile sensors.

Tactile sensors--Evaluation.

Information display systems--Psychological aspects.

Information display systems.

Human information processing--Measurement.

Human information processing.

Human mechanics--Measurement.

Human mechanics.

GPS receivers--Testing.

GPS receivers.

Physical Description:

1 online resource (vi, 26 pages) : illustrations

Place of Publication:

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD : Army Research Laboratory, [2006]

Summary:

This study compared a tactile land navigation system to two operational systems with visual information displays. Front end workload and task analyses identified land navigation as having high and conflicting workload. The tactile display was expected to ameliorate the high visual and cognitive workload per Multiple Resource Theory (Wickens, 2002). Fifteen infantry Soldiers navigated three equivalent 1800-meter routes using each of three systems: the personal tactile navigator (PTN) tactile system; the U.S. Army precision lightweight GPS (global positioning system) receiver (PLGR), which is a hand-held GPS with an alpha-numeric display; and the traditional compass system. Note: Each soldier traversed each lane with different navigation systems; we counterbalanced the order in which they used the systems and the lanes that were walked with each system in order to control for any effects attributable to order (such as fatigue) or to the lane itself. The PLGR system was predicted to enhance performance relative to the compass system because of reduced cognitive demands. The PTN system was predicted to enhance performance relative to both PLGR and compass systems because of reduced cognitive demand from more intuitive display (e.g., following direction of tactor) and off load from visual attention demand. Soldiers performed more quickly and accurately when using the PLGR and tactile systems, relative to a compass. However, there was no significant difference between GPS and tactile systems. This is likely because of the low need for focal visual attention during navigation in this experiment; there was not as much interference with the occasional use of a visual display. However, visual attention demand increases when there is an active search for enemy or reduced visual field (e.g., fog, darkness).

Notes:

Title from PDF title page (viewed June 8, 2010).

"June 2006."

Prepared in collaboration with TNO Defence Research, Delft, Netherlands.

Includes bibliographical references (pages 22-24).

OCLC:

227891672

Access Restriction:

Approved for public release.