Measuring the Effect on Performance of Different Visual Modalities in Mixed Reality Aerial Door Gunnery
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Central Florida STARS Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 2014 A Program Manager's Dilemma: Measuring the Effect on Performance of Different Visual Modalities in Mixed Reality Aerial Door Gunnery Jonathan Stevens University of Central Florida Part of the Engineering Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Doctoral Dissertation (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STARS Citation Stevens, Jonathan, "A Program Manager's Dilemma: Measuring the Effect on Performance of Different Visual Modalities in Mixed Reality Aerial Door Gunnery" (2014). Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019. 4557. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/4557 A PROGRAM MANAGER'S DILEMMA: MEASURING THE EFFECT ON PERFORMANCE OF DIFFERENT VISUAL MODALITIES IN MIXED REALITY AERIAL DOOR GUNNERY by JONATHAN A. STEVENS B.A. University of Long Island C.W. Post College, 1993 M.S. University of Central Florida, 2007 A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Modeling and Simulation in the College of Engineering and Computer Science at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Summer Term 2014 Major Professor: John Peter Kincaid © 2014 Jonathan A. Stevens ii ABSTRACT The United States Army continues to develop new and effective ways to use simulation for training. One example is the Non-Rated Crew Member Manned Module (NCM3), a simulator designed to train helicopter crewmembers in critical, high risk tasks such as crew coordination, flight, aerial gunnery, hoist and sling load related tasks. The goal of this study was to evaluate visual modalities' effect on performance in mixed reality aerial door gunnery. There is a strong belief in the United States Army that the greater the degree of immersion in a virtual simulation, the more effective that simulation is. However, little scientific research exists that supports this notion. In fact, the true goal of training simulation is to optimize the degree of transfer to the trainee - not to create the most immersive experience possible. As a result, the Army Program Manager frequently faces trade-off dilemmas during the simulation design phase, balancing user desires with cost and schedule constraints. One of those trade-off predicaments, and the unscientific manner in which it was resolved, served as the motivation for this research. A review of the literature was conducted in order to investigate the benefits of simulation for training. The taxonomy of reality, as well as the training efficacy of virtual and mixed reality simulation, was examined. Major concepts, applications and components of virtual and mixed reality simulation training were studied. Prior visual modality research was reviewed and discussed. Two discrete groups of subjects, expert and novice, were employed in this study. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two visual modality treatments (Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) flat panel screen or Head-Mounted Display (HMD)) and executed three aerial iii door gunnery training scenarios in the NCM3. Independent variables were visual modality, immersive tendency and simulator sickness questionnaire scores. Dependent variables included performance, presence and simulator sickness change scores. Additionally, the relationship between an individual's immersive tendency and their performance and level of presence was explored. The results of the study indicate no main effect of visual modality on performance for the expert population while a main effect of visual modality on performance was discovered for the novice population. Both visual treatment groups experienced the same degree of presence and simulator sickness. No relationship between an individual's immersive tendency and their performance and level of presence was found. Results of this study's primary objective are conflicting, by expertise group, and thus both support and challenge the commonly held notion that higher immersive simulation leads to better performance. iv This dissertation is dedicated to the love of my life, my wife Elsy. To Jack: Become the good man I know you are and always know that I am so very proud of you. Finally, to the Predators: It was an honor serving with you. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge those who helped me through this journey. I would like to thank my wife and son for their patience and love during this process. Many thanks to Dr. Kincaid for his mentorship and support. Special gratitude goes to Ms. Belinda Lewis, Mr. Jeff Goodman, Ms. Latika Eifert, Mr. Trevor Mancuso and Mr. Curtis Germany for their support of this experiment. This project would not have been possible without you. Thanks to Dr. Robert Sottilare for his mentorship and belief in me. To Dr. Syed Mohammed for his advice and insistence that I get this done. To my committee members, Dr. Randall Shumaker and Dr. Waldemar Karwowski for their guidance and advice. Special thanks to Dr. Randall Spain and Dr. Neal Finkelstein for their brilliant insight throughout this project. Thanks to Ms. Sabrina Kalish for being the consummate professional and helping me navigate the process. Thanks to the Veteran's Administration for allowing a Veteran to reach his full potential using the GI Bill. Thanks to the team at STTC that supported me throughout this process. To the Predators of A/4- 31 Infantry, thanks for climbing those mountains with me. You served with honor, courage and distinction. And finally, thanks to God for blessing me with such a great life! vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ x LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ xii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 Chapter One Summary ................................................................................................................ 1 Motivation for Research .............................................................................................................. 1 Non-Rated Crew Members in the U.S. Army ......................................................................... 1 The Non-Rated Crew Member Manned Module (NCM3) ..................................................... 3 Program Manager's Dilemma ................................................................................................. 5 Description of the GAP ............................................................................................................... 5 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................. 7 Chapter Two Summary ............................................................................................................... 7 Benefits of Simulation for Training ............................................................................................ 7 Taxonomy of Reality ................................................................................................................. 11 Training Efficacy of Virtual Environments .............................................................................. 16 Transfer ................................................................................................................................. 16 Fidelity .................................................................................................................................. 19 Immersion ............................................................................................................................. 21 Presence ................................................................................................................................ 24 Simulator Sickness ................................................................................................................ 28 Head Mounted Displays (HMDs) ............................................................................................. 31 Research of the Comparison in Performance between HMDs and Screen-Based Visual Systems in Virtual Training ...................................................................................................... 34 Summary of Literature Review ................................................................................................. 44 Research Gap ............................................................................................................................. 45 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 47 Chapter Three Summary ........................................................................................................... 47 Separate Studies ........................................................................................................................ 47 Participants ................................................................................................................................ 47 Experiment Challenges ............................................................................................................