Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding

DRDC Toronto CR 2005-068

ALTERNATIVE DIRECTIONAL MODALITIES IN SUPPORT OF WAYFINDING

By: Jason K. Kumagai, David W. Tack, and Heather J. Colbert

Humansystems® Incorporated 111 Farquhar Street Guelph, ON N1H 3N4

Project Director: David W. Tack (519) 836 5911

PWGSC Contract No. W7711-007685/001/TOR HSI SIREQ Item #19 On behalf of DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE as represented by Defence Research and Development Canada - Toronto 1133 Sheppard Avenue West Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3M 3B9

DRDC Toronto Scientific Authorities Maj Linda Bossi 416-635-2197 Capt Jameel Adam 416-635-2138

July 2005

This document contains information that may not be passed or shared, even in confidence, with foreign military, research and development representatives or civilian contractors of any nationality without the expressed prior permission of the Exploitation Manager of SIREQ TD. The scientific or technical validity of this Contract Report is entirely the responsibility of the contractor and the contents do not necessarily have the approval or endorsement of Defence R&D Canada

Abstract

The aims of this study were: to determine the information requirements for effective wayfinding in wooded terrain during both day and night conditions; to determine the utility of each of three different display modalities (visual, auditory, and tactual) for enhancing wayfinding capabilities; to assess the effectiveness of wayfinding systems that provide both location and directional information (2D) as compared to systems that provide only location information (1D); to determine the benefits and/or drawbacks of providing ‘distance from the waypoint’ information; to identify the interface design issues associated with each modality; and to determine the requirements for design optimization and future experimentation. Twelve infantry soldiers were required to navigate routes using the FIND (Future Infantry Navigation Device) system for enhanced wayfinding information in three different display modalities: visual, auditory, and tactile displays. For each modality, two systems were tested. The first was a one-dimensional system (1D) that provided information on the location of the waypoint, and how far the soldier had to turn in order to face the waypoint. The second was a two-dimensional system (2D) that provided the same information as the 1D system as well as directional information indicating the quickest way to turn in order to face the waypoint. The current in-service condition of using a compass and pace counting was piloted at night on a shortened route. To simulate the tactical demands of operational wayfinding, soldiers were required to engage enemy targets and navigate around obstacles enroute. Data collection included questionnaires, focus groups, performance measures and Human Factors (HF) observer assessments. Overall, participants indicated that all of the FIND displays were very easy to learn and were perceived to be very accurate. Participants felt the 1D modalities were effective, but the 2D were noticeably better. As a whole, participants disliked the visual modality because it frequently required adjustment, obstructed view, and interfered with the rifle sight. Participants liked the auditory modality because there it did not restrict their visual field. Many participants liked the tactile modality because it allowed other simultaneous tasks while moving (e.g. visual search for targets, listening for communications and enemy movements). Some soldiers, however, also maintained the importance of using a compass and retaining the associated skills. Performance measures indicated that the FIND system was superior to the compass method for locating the waypoints accurately, both in bearing and distance. Of the FIND modalities, there were no statistical differences between modality, dimension, or time conditions for distance traveled or accuracy of waypoint estimation performance results. Participants also took longer to complete a leg when using a compass compared to the FIND modalities. The FIND system did not adversely affect the ability of the soldiers to perform visual searching, or detection and engagement tasks. Areas of future research suggested by this trial include investigating additional information for wayfinding, 3D auditory displays, as well as alternative visual and tactile displays. Hardware, software, and several methodological improvements that could be used in future research are also explored.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page i

Résumé La présente étude avait les objectifs suivants : déterminer l’information nécessaire pour un cheminement efficace en terrain boisé, le jour comme la nuit; déterminer l’utilité de chacune de trois modalités d’indication : visuelle, auditive et tactile, pour améliorer les capacités de cheminement; évaluer l’efficacité des systèmes de cheminement qui fournissent tant de l’information de position que de l’information directionnelle (2D) comparativement aux systèmes qui ne fournissent que de l’information de position (1D); déterminer les avantages et/ou les inconvénients de la fourniture de l’information de distance au point de cheminement; identifier les problèmes de conception d’interface associés à chaque modalité en vue de déterminer les exigences pour l’optimisation de la conception et les expériences futures. Douze fantassins étaient chargés de parcourir des itinéraires à l’aide du système SNIA (système de navigation de l’Infanterie de l’avenir) pour obtenir de l’information de cheminement améliorée dans trois modalités d’indication différentes : visuelle, auditive et tactile. Pour chaque modalité, deux systèmes ont été testés. Le premier était un système unidimensionnel (1D) qui fournissait de l’information sur la position du point de cheminement et sur l’angle d’orientation du fantassin nécessaire pour s’orienter vers le point de cheminement. Le deuxième était un système bidimensionnel (2D) qui, en plus de l’information du système 1D, fournissait de l’information directionnelle indiquant la façon la plus rapide de s’orienter vers le point de cheminement. La méthode du service consistant à utiliser une boussole et le nombre de pas a été mise à l’essai la nuit au moyen d’un itinéraire raccourci. Pour simuler les exigences tactiques du cheminement opérationnel, les fantassins devaient engager des objectifs ennemis et contourner des obstacles en route. La collecte de données faisait appel à des questionnaires, à des groupes de concertation, à des mesures de performance et à des évaluations par des observateurs de facteurs humains (FH). Règle générale, les participants ont indiqué que tous les indicateurs du SNIA étaient d’utilisation très facile et étaient perçus comme étant de grande précision. Les participants étaient d’avis que les modalités 1D étaient efficaces, mais que les modalités 2D étaient notablement supérieures. Dans l’ensemble, les participants n’aimaient pas la modalité visuelle, parce qu’elle exigeait souvent des réglages, bloquait la vue et nuisait au dispositif de visée du fusil. Les participants aimaient la modalité auditive, parce qu’elle ne limitait pas leur champ de vision. Bien des participants aimaient la modalité tactile, parce qu’elle permettait d’effectuer simultanément d’autres tâches en route (p. ex. recherche visuelle d’objectifs, écoute de communications et de mouvements ennemis). Toutefois, certains fantassins faisaient valoir l’importance de l’utilisation d’une boussole et du maintien des aptitudes connexes. Les mesures de performance indiquaient que le système SNIA était supérieur à la boussole pour la localisation des points de cheminement avec précision, en relèvement et en distance. Quant aux modalités du SNIA, il n’y avait pas de différences statistiques entre les conditions de modalité, de dimension ou de temps à l’égard de la distance parcourue ou de la précision des résultats de performance en termes d’estimation des points de cheminement. De plus, les participants mettaient plus de temps à parcourir un segment à l’aide d’une boussole comparativement aux modalités du SNIA. Le système SNIA ne nuisait pas à la capacité des fantassins à effectuer les tâches de recherche ou de détection et d’engagement visuels. Les domaines de recherches futures suggérés par cet essai comprennent l’étude d’information supplémentaire pour le cheminement, des indicateurs auditifs 3D, ainsi que des indicateurs visuels et tactiles de remplacement. Du matériel, des logiciels et plusieurs améliorations méthodologiques qui pourraient être utilisés à l’avenir sont également explorés. Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page ii

Executive Summary

The Soldier Information Requirements Technology Demonstration (SIREQ TD) program is conducting a series of experiments to research the type and amount of information necessary to support wayfinding, the most effective display modality for providing wayfinding information (visual, auditory or tactile), and the optimal interface design for promoting wayfinding. This paper summarizes the results of an experiment conducted to compare the in-service compass and pace count method of wayfinding with providing location, distance and directional information via an enhanced Future Infantry Navigation Device (FIND) wayfinding system. Three display modalities of the FIND system were evaluated: visual information presented through a helmet- mounted display (HMD), auditory tones presented through a specially adapted helmet, and vibrating tactors placed on a lumbar support belt worn around the torso. Tests were conducted during both day and night conditions. This trial had the following aims: • Determine the information requirements for effective wayfinding in wooded terrain, during both day and night conditions. • Determine the utility of three display modalities (visual, auditory, and tactile) for enhancing wayfinding capabilities. • Compare systems that provide both location and directional information (2D) versus systems that provide only location information (1D). • Determine the benefits and/or drawbacks of providing ‘distance from the waypoint’ information. • Identify the interface design issues associated with each modality and determine the requirements for design optimization and future experimentation. This experiment expanded on a previous navigation experiment by increasing the information complexity in each of the modality displays to include directional cues and distance to waypoint indications. Directional information was provided by displaying either directional arrows in the visual display, stereo signals in the auditory display (presenting sounds to either the left or right ears independently), or via tactors positioned on the left and right side of the torso. Distance (to the waypoint) information was provided in the form of a visual numeric display, or synthetic voice. The six-day field trial was undertaken at Wainwright, Alberta, Canada over the period of 23-28 June 2001. Twelve infantry soldiers participated in the study. Participants were required to navigate routes through wooded and open terrain using the FIND system in three different display modalities: visual, auditory, and tactile displays. Each 1.35 km route consisted of five waypoints, with each waypoint requiring a bearing change. For each FIND modality, two systems were tested. The one dimensional systems (1D) provided information on the location of the waypoint and how far the soldiers had to turn in order to face the waypoint. The two- dimensional systems (2D) provided the same information as the 1D systems, as well as information on the quickest way to turn in order to face the waypoint. During the day, a balanced repeated measures design was employed, so that each of twelve participants used each of the six systems to navigate a route. The night group consisted of ten participants that Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page iii

completed a route using only the three 2D modalities (Visual 2D, Auditory 2D, and Tactile 2D). In order to develop a baseline, the existing in-service condition of using a compass and pace counting was piloted at night on a 450m, one leg route with nine of the participants. Low-profile 2733 night vision goggles (LP/NVGs) were used in the night condition for all modalities. To assess the adaptability of each wayfinding condition, one leg in each route required the soldiers to confront and navigate around an unexpected simulated obstacle. Soldiers were instructed to navigate around obstacles and resume course to the active waypoint. To simulate the tactical demands of operational wayfinding (i.e. wayfinding behind enemy lines), all route legs included 3D stationary infantry targets (SIT), which soldiers were required to engage using blank ammunition fire. Although the FIND system was continuously operating during each experimentation route, participants controlled the display of wayfinding data using a “display activation” remote control button that was strapped to their weapon. Participants were required to base their direction of travel solely on the visual, audio or tactile signal they received when they interrogated the system. Depending on which system was being used, the feedback changed as participants faced closer to the direction of the waypoint. For all modalities, when the soldiers were facing ±8° from the waypoint, they received a signal indicating they were on target. Signals took the form of a light meter (visual 1D), directional arrows (visual 2D), sound pitch and tone frequency (auditory 1D and 2D), or location of the active tactor (tactile 1D and 2D). In all cases, the 2D displays had directional information indicating which way to turn, in addition to waypoint location information. In addition, all modalities provided information on the distance to the waypoint. In the visual displays, this information was displayed on the screen when the soldiers interrogated the system by pressing the remote control button. For the auditory and tactile displays, distance information was provided by an audio voice that stated the distance in metres when the system was interrogated. Data collection included questionnaires, focus groups, performance measures and Human Factors (HF) observer assessments. A repeated-measures analysis of variance was conducted for 1D modalities within the day (n = 12) session, 2D modalities within the day session (n=12), and 2D modalities within the night session (n=10). Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare 1D and 2D modalities within the day condition (n=12). One dimensional modalities were not tested at night due to time constraints. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare the night and day sessions of the 2D modalities (n = 10). Results were then subjected to a Post Hoc Tukey test. Differences were identified at p < 0.05. Results were divided into categories that included navigation, terrain traverse, target detection and engagement, usability, compatibility and overall evaluation of the system.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page iv

Navigation Summary: For navigation, questionnaire results indicated a preference for 2D displays over 1D displays. Of all the modalities, the overall acceptance ratings suggested the visual 2D and auditory 2D were more acceptable than the tactile 2D modality. Results also suggest that the compass was unacceptable for navigation at night. Soldiers using the compass demonstrated significantly greater error in waypoint estimation at night (for the 450m route leg) than those using the FIND system. They also traveled a significantly shorter distance using a compass compared to the FIND modalities because they tended to stop short of the waypoint. Of the FIND modalities, there were no statistical differences for distance traveled or accuracy of waypoint estimation performance results between modality, dimension, or time condition (day or night). Terrain Traverse Summary: With the exception of some compass ratings, all the questionnaire items were rated acceptable by more than 80% of soldiers, indicating a high degree of acceptance for terrain traverse in both day and night conditions. The auditory 2D modality was rated more acceptable than other modalities for several terrain traverse tasks. For items related to detecting hazards/objects, the visual modality was often rated significantly less acceptable than both the auditory and tactile modalities. Questionnaire results underlined the increased difficulty in terrain traverse during dark conditions. Terrain traverse tasks proved more difficult at night than during the day. Those using the 2D modalities were significantly slower at night than during the day. In addition, across 1D and 2D models, the time needed to traverse a route was longer with the visual modalities than with the tactile modalities. Target Detection and Engagement Summary: Results indicated that the FIND system did not adversely affect the ability of the soldiers to perform visual searching, detection and engagement tasks. Questionnaire results showed that the 2D modalities were rated significantly more acceptable than the 1D modalities for target search. The auditory modality was consistently rated significantly more acceptable than the visual modality. Comments indicated that the auditory modality allowed navigational information to be used without shifting visual attention away from searching for targets. The visual modality, on the other hand, seemed to shift attention away from the visual search for targets. Performance results indicated no difference in target detection and engagement between 1D and 2D modes during the day, but an effect for modality, with more targets engaged while in the auditory modality than in the visual modality. Comparing within the 2D mode showed that more targets were engaged during the day than at night. Usability Results Summary: At night, the 2D visual modality was rated significantly more acceptable than the compass for many usability items. The auditory and tactile modalities were rated significantly more acceptable than the compass for items involving distance information. Also, 2D modalities were often rated significantly more acceptable than the 1D modalities for usability during the day. Performance results showed that for 2D displays, the visual 2D modality used during the day required significantly less directional inquiries than the auditory 2D and tactile 2D modalities during the day, and the tactile 2D modality at night. The 1D auditory modality also required significantly less directional inquiries than other modalities during the day, including the 2D modalities. Results also indicated that a display is more acceptable if it takes less time to view, regardless of the number of times that the display is referenced. For the 2D modes, however, there was a significant interaction, such that the visual and auditory modalities required longer duration during the day, but the tactile required longer inquiries at night than during the day.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page v

Compatibility Summary: The visual, auditory and compass conditions attained significantly higher acceptance ratings for compatibility with clothing than the tactile modality. Low acceptance ratings for the tactile modality were attributed to the requirement to place the modality beneath clothing, which was uncomfortable and restricted mobility. For compatibility with the weapon, soldiers rated the visual modalities less acceptable than the auditory modalities during day conditions. The heads-up display (HUD) on the visual system was commented to interfere with sighting the rifle. Soldiers also indicated that the 2D modalities were more acceptable for compatibility with weapons during day than during the night conditions. Observations indicated that this reflected the difficulty in sighting the weapon with NVG’s. Evaluation of the System Summary: Questionnaire results showed no significant differences among modalities. However, ratings indicated that the 2D modalities were generally rated more positively than the 1D modalities. Although the compass was rated as imposing higher workload demands, soldiers expressed a great deal of trust in the compass, as it has proven itself to be tactically feasible and would be a reliable last resort if an electronic wayfinding system fails. Discussion and Conclusions: The FIND displays were seen to be both very easy to learn and very accurate. Overall, although 1D modalities were seen to be effective, the 2D modalities were rated notably higher. Although displays were judged to be informative, the visual modality was disliked because it frequently required adjustment, obstructed view, and interfered with the rifle sight. Using the auditory modality did not impede the visual field. Focus group discussions indicated that the tactile modality was an improvement over the original 1D configuration with a vertical row of four closely spaced tactors used in the first experiment (Kumagai and Tack, 2002). Tactors received support from participants because they could be used while moving, and allowed simultaneous visual search for targets, or listening for communications and enemy movements. Soldiers maintained the importance of using a compass and retaining the associated skills. Areas of future research include investigating additional information for wayfinding, 3D auditory displays, as well as alternative visual and tactile displays. Hardware, software improvements, and methodological improvements for the future are explored.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page vi

Sommaire

Dans le cadre du programme de démonstration technologique des besoins des soldats en matière d'information (SIREQ TD), on mène une série d’expériences pour déterminer le type et la quantité d’information nécessaire pour soutenir le cheminement, la modalité d’indication la plus efficace de l’information de cheminement (visuelle, auditive ou tactile) et la conception de l’interface optimale pour favoriser le cheminement. Le présent rapport résume les résultats d’une expérience menée pour comparer la méthode de cheminement du service faisant appel à la boussole et au nombre de pas avec la fourniture d’information de position, de distance et de direction au moyen d’un système de navigation d’Infanterie de l’avenir (SNIA) amélioré aux fins du cheminement. Trois modalités d’indication du système SNIA ont été évaluées : information visuelle présentée au moyen d’un afficheur sur casque (HMD), tonalités présentées dans un casque spécial et transducteurs vibrotactiles placés sur une ceinture de soutien lombaire portée autour du torse. Les tests ont été menés dans des conditions diurnes et nocturnes. Cet essai avait les objectifs suivants : • Déterminer l’information nécessaire pour un cheminement efficace en terrain boisé, le jour comme la nuit. • Déterminer l’utilité de trois modalités d’indication (visuelle, auditive et tactile) pour améliorer les capacités de cheminement. • Comparer les systèmes qui fournissent de l’information de position et de direction (2D) avec des systèmes qui ne fournissent que de l’information de position (1D). • Déterminer les avantages et/ou les inconvénients de la fourniture d’information de distance au point de cheminement. • Identifier les problèmes de conception d’interface associés à chaque modalité en vue de déterminer les exigences pour l’optimisation de la conception et les expériences futures. Cette expérience a approfondi une expérience de navigation antérieure en augmentant la complexité de l’information dans chacune des modalités d’indication en incluant les indications de direction et de distance aux points de cheminement. L’information de direction était fournie par l’affichage de flèches de direction sur l’afficheur, des signaux stéréo dans des haut-parleurs (présentant des tonalités indépendamment à l’oreille gauche ou droite) ou au moyen de transducteurs vibrotactiles positionnés du côté gauche et du coté droit du torse. L’information de distance (au point de cheminement) était fournie sous la forme d’un affichage numérique ou d’une voix synthétique. L’essai en campagne de six jours a été effectué à Wainwright, en Alberta, au Canada, du 23 au 28 juin 2001. Douze fantassins ont participé à l’étude. Les participants devaient parcourir des itinéraires en terrain boisé et à découvert à l’aide du système SNIA dans trois modalités d’indication différentes : visuelle, auditive et tactile. Chaque itinéraire de 1,35 km comprenait cinq points de cheminement, chaque point de cheminement nécessitant un changement de relèvement. Pour chaque modalité du SNIA, on a testé deux systèmes. Le premier était un système unidimensionnel (1D) qui fournissait de l’information sur la position du point de cheminement et sur l’angle d’orientation du fantassin nécessaire pour s’orienter vers le point de cheminement. Le deuxième était un système bidimensionnel (2D) qui, en plus de l’information du système 1D, fournissait de l’information indiquant la façon la plus rapide de s’orienter vers le

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page vii

point de cheminement. Le jour, on utilisait une conception équilibrée de mesures répétées, de sorte que chacun des douze participants a utilisé chacun des six systèmes pour parcourir un itinéraire. Le groupe de nuit comptait dix participants qui parcouraient un itinéraire n’utilisant que les trois modalités 2D (2D visuelle, 2D auditive et 2D tactile). Afin d’établir une référence, la méthode du service existante faisant appel à une boussole et au nombre de pas a été mise à l’essai la nuit sur un itinéraire de 450 m à un seul segment avec neuf des participants. Des lunettes de vision nocturne discrètes 2733 (LP/NVG) ont été utilisées dans la condition nocturne pour toutes les modalités. Pour évaluer l’adaptabilité de chaque condition de cheminement, un des segments de chaque itinéraire obligeait les soldats à contourner un obstacle simulé imprévu. Les soldats étaient chargés de contourner les obstacles et de reprendre la route vers le point de cheminement actif. Pour simuler les exigences tactiques du cheminement opérationnel (c.-à-d. cheminement derrière des lignes ennemies), tous les segments d’itinéraire comprenaient des cibles fixes d’infanterie (CFI) 3D, que les soldats devaient engager au moyen de tirs à blanc. Le système SNIA était en marche en continu pendant chaque mission, mais les participants commandaient l’indication des données de cheminement au moyen d’un bouton de télécommande d’indicateur, qui était attaché à leur arme. Les participants devaient baser leur direction de déplacement uniquement sur le signal visuel, audio ou tactile qu’ils recevaient lorsqu’ils interrogeaient le système. Selon le système utilisé, la rétroaction changeait à mesure que l’orientation des participants se rapprochait de la direction vers le point de cheminement. Pour toutes les modalités, lorsque les soldats étaient orientés à un angle de ±8 ° par rapport à la direction vers le point de cheminement, ils recevaient un signal indiquant qu’ils étaient sur la cible. Les signaux étaient appliqués à des indicateurs prenant la forme d’un luxmètre (modalité visuelle 1D), d’un afficheur à flèches de direction (modalité visuelle 2D), de haut-parleurs émettant une tonalité de hauteur son et de fréquence variables (modalité auditive 1D et 2D) ou d’un transducteur vibrotactile actif (modalité tactile 1D et 2D). Dans tous les cas, les indicateurs 2D avaient de l’information de direction indiquant l’orientation en plus de l’information de position du point de cheminement. En outre, toutes les modalités fournissaient l’information de distance au point de cheminement. Sur les affichages, cette information était affichée à l’écran lorsque les soldats interrogeaient le système en appuyant sur le bouton de télécommande. Dans le cas des indicateurs auditif et tactile, l’information de distance était fournie par une voix synthétique qui énonçait la distance en mètres lorsque le système était interrogé. La collecte de données faisait appel à des questionnaires, à des groupes de concertation, à des mesures de performance et à des évaluations par des observateurs de facteurs humains (FH). Une analyse de variance à mesures répétées a été effectuée pour les modalités 1D pendant la session de jour (n = 12), les modalités 2D pendant la session de jour (n=12) et les modalités 2D pendant la session de nuit (n=10). Une analyse de variance à mesures répétées a été effectuée pour comparer les modalités 1D et 2D dans la condition diurne (n=12). Les modalités unidimensionnelles n’ont pas été testées la nuit à cause de contraintes de temps. Une analyse de variance à mesures répétées a été effectuée pour comparer les sessions nocturnes et diurnes au moyen des modalités 2D (n = 10). Les résultats ont ensuite été soumis à un test de Tukey post hoc. Les différences étaient identifiées à p < 0,05. Les résultats ont été divisés en catégories comprenant la navigation, la traversée de terrain, la

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page viii

détection et l’engagement d’objectifs, l’utilisabilité, la compatibilité et l’évaluation globale du système. Résumé de la navigation : Pour la navigation, les résultats des questionnaires indiquaient une préférence pour les affichages 2D, comparativement aux affichages 1D. Parmi toutes les modalités, les cotes d’acceptation globales semblaient indiquer que la modalité 2D visuelle et la modalité 2D auditive étaient plus acceptables que la modalité 2D tactile. Les résultats semblent également indiquer que la boussole était inacceptable pour l’orientation nocturne. Les soldats utilisant la boussole présentaient des erreurs nettement plus grandes dans l’estimation des points de cheminement la nuit (pour le segment d’itinéraire de 450 m) que celle des soldats utilisant le système SNIA. De plus, ils parcouraient une distance considérablement plus courte à l’aide de la boussole comparativement aux modalités du SNIA, car ils tendaient à s’arrêter avant d’avoir atteint le point de cheminement. Parmi les modalités du SNIA, il n’y avait pas de différences statistiques en distance parcourue ou en précision des résultats de performance d’estimation des points de cheminement entre les conditions de modalité, de dimension ou de temps (jour ou nuit). Résumé de la traversée de terrain : Exception faite de quelques cotes relatives aux boussoles, tous les articles du questionnaire étaient jugés acceptables par plus de 80 % des soldats, ce qui indique un haut degré d’acceptation aux fins de la traversée de terrain, le jour comme la nuit. La modalité 2D auditive était jugée plus acceptable que les autres modalités pour plusieurs tâches de traversée de terrain. Pour les articles en rapport avec la détection de dangers/objets, la modalité visuelle était souvent jugée nettement moins acceptable que les modalités auditive et tactile. Les résultats des questionnaires soulignaient la difficulté accrue de la traversée de terrain dans l’obscurité. Les tâches de traversée de terrain se sont avérées plus difficiles la nuit que le jour. Ceux qui utilisaient des modalités 2D étaient nettement plus lents la nuit que le jour. En outre, parmi les modèles 1D et 2D, le temps nécessaire pour parcourir un itinéraire était plus long avec les modalités visuelles qu’avec les modalités tactiles. Résumé de la détection et de l’engagement d’objectifs : Les résultats indiquaient que le système SNIA ne nuisait pas à la capacité des soldats à effectuer les tâches de recherche, de détection et d’engagement visuels. Les résultats des questionnaires montraient que les modalités 2D étaient jugées nettement plus acceptables que les modalités 1D pour la recherche d’objectifs. La modalité auditive était uniformément jugée nettement plus acceptable que la modalité visuelle. Les commentaires indiquaient que la modalité auditive permettait d’utiliser l’information de navigation sans détourner l’attention visuelle de la recherche d’objectifs. La modalité visuelle, par contre, semblait détourner l’attention de la recherche visuelle d’objectifs. Les résultats de performance n’indiquaient aucune différence dans la détection et l’engagement d’objectifs entre les modes 1D et 2D pendant le jour. Par contre, ils variaient selon la modalité : il y avait plus d’objectifs engagés en modalité auditive qu’en modalité visuelle. Une comparaison effectuée à l’intérieur du mode 2D mode montrait qu’il y avait plus d’objectifs engagés le jour que la nuit. Résumé des résultats de l’utilisabilité : La modalité visuelle 2D utilisée la nuit était jugée nettement plus acceptable que la boussole pour bien des aspects de l’utilisabilité. Les modalités auditive et tactile étaient jugées nettement plus acceptables que la boussole pour les aspects associés à l’information de distance. De plus, les modalités 2D étaient souvent jugées nettement plus acceptables que les modalités 1D à l’égard de l’utilisabilité pendant le jour. Les résultats de performance montraient que pour les afficheurs 2D, la modalité visuelle 2D utilisée pendant le jour Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page ix

exigeait beaucoup moins d’interrogations de direction que les modalités auditives 2D et tactile 2D pendant le jour, et que la modalité tactile 2D pendant la nuit. La modalité auditive 1D exigeait aussi beaucoup moins d’interrogations de direction que les autres modalités pendant le jour, y compris les modalités 2D. En outre, les résultats indiquaient qu’un afficheur est plus acceptable s’il prend moins de temps à visualiser, quel que soit le nombre de fois que l’afficheur est consulté. Pour les modes 2D, toutefois, il y avait une interaction considérable, de sorte que les modalités visuelle et auditive exigeaient plus de temps pendant le jour, tandis que la modalité tactile exigeait des interrogations plus longues pendant la nuit que pendant le jour. Résumé de la compatibilité : Les conditions visuelle et auditive et l’utilisation de la boussole ont atteint des cotes d’acceptation nettement plus élevées à l’égard de la compatibilité avec les vêtements que la modalité tactile. Les faibles taux d’acceptation de la modalité tactile étaient attribués à l’exigence de placer la modalité au-dessous des vêtements, ce qui était inconfortable et limitait la mobilité. Quant à la compatibilité avec l’arme, les soldats ont jugé les modalités visuelles moins acceptables que les modalités auditives pendant le jour. D’après les commentaires, l’afficheur supérieur (HUD) du système visuel gênait le dispositif de visée du fusil. De plus, les soldats ont indiqué que les modalités 2D étaient plus acceptables à l’égard de la compatibilité avec les armes pendant les conditions diurnes que pendant les conditions nocturnes. Des observations indiquaient que cela reflétait la difficulté de visée avec des NVG. Résumé de l’évaluation du système : Les résultats des questionnaires ne présentaient pas de différences significatives parmi les modalités. Cependant, les résultats indiquaient que les modalités 2D étaient généralement cotés plus positivement que les modalités 1D. Bien que la boussole soit considérée comme imposant des charges de travail supérieures, les soldats ont exprimé beaucoup de confiance dans la boussole, car c’est un moyen éprouvé au point de vue tactique et ce serait un moyen de remplacement fiable si un système de cheminement électronique tombait en panne. Discussion et conclusions : Les indicateurs du SNIA étaient perçus comme étant à la fois d’utilisation très facile à apprendre et de grande précision. De façon générale, bien que les modalités 1D soient considérées comme étant efficaces, les modalités 2D ont reçu des cotes nettement supérieures. Bien que les indicateurs soit jugés informatifs, on n’aimait pas la modalité visuelle parce qu’elle exigeait des réglages fréquents, bloquait la vue et gênait le dispositif de visée du fusil. L’utilisation de la modalité auditive ne gênait pas le champ de vision. Les discussions de groupe de concertation indiquaient que la modalité tactile était une amélioration par rapport à la configuration 1D d’origine avec une colonne de quatre transducteurs vibrotactiles à espacement réduit utilisée dans la première expérience (Kumagai et Tack, 2002). Les participants étaient en faveur des transducteurs vibrotactiles, parce qu’ils pouvaient les utiliser tout en se déplaçant et tout en effectuant simultanément la recherche visuelle d’objectifs ou l’écoute de communications et de mouvements ennemis. Des soldats faisaient valoir l’importance de l’utilisation d’une boussole et du maintien des aptitudes connexes. Des domaines de recherches futures comprennent l’enquête sur de l’information supplémentaire aux fins du cheminement, sur les indicateurs auditifs 3D ainsi que sur les afficheurs et les indicateurs tactiles de remplacement. Des améliorations du matériel, des logiciels et des méthodes qui pourraient être utilisées à l’avenir sont explorées.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page x

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ...... I

RÉSUMÉ...... II

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... III

SOMMAIRE ...... VII

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... XI

LIST OF TABLES...... XIII

LIST OF FIGURES...... XIV

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2. AIM...... 3

3. METHOD ...... 4 3.1 PARTICIPANTS...... 4 3.2 PROCEDURE ...... 4 3.2.1 Obstacles ...... 5 3.2.2 Target Detection and Engagement ...... 6 3.4 MODALITIES ...... 11 3.4.1 Visual Modality...... 11 3.4.2 Auditory Modality...... 13 3.4.3 Tactile Modality...... 14 3.5 LOCATION...... 16 3.6 DATA COLLECTION ...... 16 3.7 WAYFINDING PERFORMANCE MEASURES ...... 19 4. RESULTS ...... 20 4.1 PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS ...... 21 4.2 NAVIGATION...... 21 4.2.1 Performance Measures: Navigation...... 21 4.2.1.1 Distance Traveled ...... 21 4.2.1.2 Root Mean Square Error Deviation ...... 24 4.2.1.3 Accuracy of Waypoint Estimation...... 26 4.2.2 Wayfinding Questionnaire Results: Navigation ...... 28 4.2.3 Exit Questionnaire Results: Navigation ...... 30 4.2.4 Navigation Summary ...... 30 4.3 TERRAIN TRAVERSE...... 31 4.3.1 Performance Measures: Terrain Traverse ...... 31 4.3.1.1 Time to Traverse Route ...... 31 4.3.1.2 Mission Velocity...... 33 4.3.2 Wayfinding Questionnaire Results: Terrain Traverse...... 35 4.3.3 Exit Questionnaire Results: Terrain Traverse...... 36 4.3.4 Terrain Traverse Summary...... 36

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page xi

4.4 TARGET DETECTION AND ENGAGEMENT...... 38 4.4 TARGET DETECTION AND ENGAGEMENT...... 38 4.4.1 Performance Measures: Target Detection and Engagement...... 38 4.4.1.1 Targets Engaged ...... 38 4.4.2 Wayfinding Questionnaire Results: Target Detection and Engagement ...... 39 4.4.3 Exit Questionnaire Results: Target Detection and Engagement ...... 41 4.4.4 Target Detection and Engagement Summary...... 42 4.5 USABILITY RESULTS ...... 43 4.5.1 Performance Measures: Usability Results ...... 43 4.5.1.1 Number of Direction Inquiries...... 43 4.5.1.2 Duration of Direction Inquiries...... 44 4.5.1.3 Number of Distance Inquiries...... 45 4.5.1.4 Duration of Distance Inquiries...... 46 4.5.2 Wayfinding Questionnaire Results: Usability Results ...... 47 4.5.3 Exit Questionnaire Results: Usability Results ...... 47 4.5.4 Usability Results Summary...... 48 4.6 COMPATIBILITY ...... 50 4.6.1 Wayfinding Questionnaire Results: Compatibility ...... 50 4.6.2 Exit Questionnaire Results: Compatibility ...... 51 4.6.3 Compatibility Summary ...... 51 4.7 EVALUATION OF THE SYSTEM ...... 52 4.7.1 Performance Measures: Evaluation of the System ...... 52 4.7.2 Wayfinding Questionnaire Results: Evaluation of the System...... 54 4.7.3 Exit Questionnaire Results: Evaluation of the System...... 55 4.7.4 Evaluation of the System Summary...... 55 5. DISCUSSION...... 56 5.1 DIRECTIONAL INFORMATION ...... 56 5.2 DISTANCE INFORMATION ...... 56 5.3 VISUAL ...... 56 5.4 AUDITORY ...... 57 5.5 TACTILE...... 57 5.6 COMPASS ...... 58 6. FUTURE RESEARCH...... 59 6.1 INVESTIGATE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR WAYFINDING ...... 59 6.2 INVESTIGATE 3D AUDITORY DISPLAYS ...... 59 6.3 INVESTIGATE ALTERNATIVE VISUAL DISPLAYS...... 59 6.4 INVESTIGATE ALTERNATIVE TACTILE DISPLAYS ...... 60 6.5 INTEGRATE HARDWARE IMPROVEMENTS...... 60 6.6 INTEGRATE SOFTWARE IMPROVEMENTS ...... 61 6.7 INCORPORATE METHODOLOGY IMPROVEMENTS...... 61 7. REFERENCES ...... 62

ANNEX A: WAYFINDING QUESTIONNAIRES ...... A-1

ANNEX B: WAYFINDING QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS...... B-1

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page xii

List of Tables

TABLE 1: EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE ACCEPTANCE RATINGS FOR NAVIGATION...... 30 TABLE 2: EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE ACCEPTANCE RATINGS FOR TERRAIN TRAVERSE ...... 36 TABLE 3: EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS FOR TARGET DETECTION AND ENGAGEMENT ...... 41 TABLE 4: EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE ACCEPTANCE RATINGS FOR USABILITY RESULTS...... 48 TABLE 5: EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE ACCEPTANCE RATINGS FOR COMPATIBILITY ...... 51 TABLE 6: NASA TLX WORKLOAD RATING SUMMARY OF ALL EFFECTS ...... 53 TABLE 7: EXIT QUESTIONNAIRE ACCEPTANCE RATINGS FOR EVALUATION OF SYSTEM ...... 55

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page xiii

List of Figures

FIGURE 1: WAYFINDING ROUTES AND TARGET LOCATIONS AT WAINWRIGHT ...... 5 FIGURE 2: OBSTACLE...... 6 FIGURE 3: THREE DIMENSIONAL SIT (STATIONARY INFANTRY TARGET) TARGET ...... 7 FIGURE 4: WAYFINDING SYSTEM SCHEMATIC...... 8 FIGURE 5: WAYFINDING SYSTEM...... 8 FIGURE 6: WAYFINDING OUTPUT DATA ...... 9 FIGURE 7: WAYFINDING “DISPLAY ACTIVATION” REMOTE CONTROL ...... 10 FIGURE 8: VISUAL HELMET MOUNTED DISPLAY...... 11 FIGURE 9: SPECIALIZED TECHNICAL SERVICES NIGHT VISION GOGGLE IMAGE ...... 12 FIGURE 10: ONE DIMENSIONAL VISUAL MODALITY...... 12 FIGURE 11: TWO DIMENSIONAL VISUAL MODALITY ...... 13 FIGURE 12: ONE DIMENSIONAL AUDITORY MODALITY...... 13 FIGURE 13: TWO DIMENSIONAL AUDITORY MODALITY ...... 14 FIGURE 14: TACTOR ARRANGEMENT ON LUMBAR BELT...... 14 FIGURE 15: TACTILE HARNESS...... 15 FIGURE 16: ONE DIMENSIONAL TACTILE MODALITY ...... 16 FIGURE 17: TWO DIMENSIONAL TACTILE MODALITY ...... 16 FIGURE 18: WOODED AND OPEN FIELD TERRAIN...... 16 FIGURE 19: SEVEN-POINT ACCEPTABILITY RATING SCALE ...... 18 FIGURE 20: DISTANCE TRAVELED (P VALUES) ...... 22 FIGURE 21: DISTANCE TRAVELED INCLUDING COMPASS ON A 450M ROUTE LEG AT NIGHT...... 23 FIGURE 22: ROOT MEAN SQUARE ERROR DEVIATION (M) FOR THREE MODALITIES (P VALUES) ...... 24 FIGURE 23: ROOT MEAN SQUARE ERROR DEVIATION INCLUDING COMPASS ON A 450M ROUTE LEG AT NIGHT .. 25 FIGURE 24: ACCURACY OF WAYPOINT ESTIMATION...... 26 FIGURE 25: WAYPOINT ESTIMATION OFFSET DISTANCE ON A 450M ROUTE LEG AT NIGHT ...... 27 FIGURE 26: TIME TO TRAVERSE GROUND...... 31 FIGURE 27: TIME TO TRAVERSE A 450M ROUTE LEG AT NIGHT INCLUDING COMPASS...... 32 FIGURE 28: VELOCITY OF TRAVEL DURING NAVIGATION OF WAYFINDING ROUTE ...... 33 FIGURE 29: VELOCITY ON A 450M ROUTE LEG AT NIGHT INCLUDING COMPASS ...... 34 FIGURE 30: TARGET ENGAGEMENTS DURING WAYFINDING ROUTES ...... 38 FIGURE 31: TARGET ENGAGEMENTS ON A 450M ROUTE LEG AT NIGHT ...... 39 FIGURE 32: DIRECTION INQUIRIES DURING WAYFINDING ROUTES...... 43 FIGURE 33: MEAN DURATION OF DIRECTION INQUIRIES...... 44 FIGURE 34: DISTANCE INQUIRIES DURING WAYFINDING ROUTES ...... 45 FIGURE 35: MEAN DURATION OF DISTANCE INQUIRIES ...... 46 FIGURE 36: MEAN NASA TLX WORKLOAD RATINGS ...... 52

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page xiv

1. Introduction

Numerous shortcomings with traditional compass and pace-counting method for wayfinding during navigation have been identified. This is especially true at night, when location and orientation cues are largely absent, and errors in distance and bearing estimation can result in sizeable offset errors. The SIREQ TD program is conducting a series of experiments to research the type and amount of information necessary to support wayfinding, the most effective display modality for providing that information (visual, auditory or tactile), and the optimal interface design. The first navigation experiment, conducted in March 2001, compared the in-service compass and pace count method of wayfinding with a new system that provided basic directional information via visual display, auditory tones or vibrating tactors on the torso, during both day and night conditions. The results of this study were reported in Kumagai and Tack (2002) and are summarized below. Analyses of the performance results indicated that the accuracy of waypoint estimation was significantly better and that there was significantly less collective error, when using the visual, auditory and tactile systems, as compared to the compass. This was true in both day and night conditions. The visual modality also yielded significantly less route deviation compared to the tactile and compass conditions. Soldiers’ average speed of traverse was significantly faster when using the auditory and tactile systems than with the compass. Performance was better during the day than at night. At night, the waypoint estimation error and collective route error was higher, the time needed to traverse the route was longer, the average speed of traverse was slower, fewer targets were engaged, and there were a higher number of directional inquiries of shorter duration than during the day. In addition, navigating with a compass also took more time at night than during the day. Users also rated the visual, auditory and compass modalities as more acceptable than the tactile modality for a majority of criteria. In addition, the visual modality received the highest acceptance of all modalities, for tasks other than terrain traverse and target detection tasks. Although results showed that the visual modality was the preferred choice, users also argued that more must be done to further develop and enhance the auditory and tactile modalities. The tactors created some physical and thermal discomfort because of the torso belt and the requirement to don and doff clothing to use the system. However, focus group comments agreed unanimously that with more development, the tactile modality might meet the needs of the future dismounted infantry soldier. Future research protocols and design changes were recommended to further define the information requirements of dismounted infantryman for wayfinding. Recommended future research included improving displays of modalities, investigating effects of directional and/or distance information, and integrating software, hardware, and methodology improvements. This paper summarizes the results of a second experiment, conducted to expand on the first navigation experiment. This experiment involves increased information complexity in each of the modality displays to include directional cues and distance to waypoint indications. Directional information is provided to participants by displaying directional arrows in the visual display, stereo signals in the auditory display (presenting sounds to either the left or right ears independently), or tactors positioned on the left or right sides of the torso. Distance (to the waypoint) information was provided in the form of a visual numeric display, or synthetic voice. Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 1

Participants had suggested a number of design improvements in the first experiment. Some of these were incorporated into this experiment to better investigate the information requirements of dismounted infantryman for wayfinding. Design and protocol improvements that have been incorporated into this experimental series include: • The 20-metre proximity warning was changed from a “beep” to a voice warning that stipulated “20 metres.” • Increased the spacing between tactors to improve discrimination between vibrations. • Based on the soldiers’ ratings and comments, the visual and auditory systems integrated only three levels of magnitude instead of the four levels tested in the first study. Soldiers commented that more than three levels of magnitude are not required to effectively target a waypoint. The visual display was moved from the center and placed offset to the right side of the display to improve the soldiers’ ability to site (or dead reckon) onto a feature once the correct bearing was achieved. • The auditory system integrated tones that increased in both frequency (pitch) and rate (time between signals) as the head moved closer to the bearing of the waypoint. The highest (i.e. closest) auditory signal was a continuous tone. • The tactor system integrated only two levels of magnitude as soldiers had indicated that they required only one distinctive signal to know when they were facing the waypoint. Another signal indicated that the system was activated while not facing the waypoint. • To improve applicability of the experimental results to actual wayfinding tasks, leg distances were increased and varied in distance. Instead of 200m, distances used in this study ranged from 150 to 450 metres in length. The total route distance was increased from 1 km to 1.35 km. • Soldiers were instructed to travel to the waypoint as quickly and accurately as possible while using the system to avoid areas difficult to navigate. Strict adherence to a straight line path was eliminated because this path is often blocked by poorly navigable areas that would cause the soldiers to become tangled, or force them to travel off the most direct route. In addition, the straight line may not actually reflect the best approach when tactics or topography are considered. • Experimenters changed waypoints without identifying the actual location of the current waypoint. • Customized data analyses software was developed to tag the data during experimentation, and quickly conduct data reduction of the pertinent measures including route time, distance traveled and waypoint accuracy and RMS deviation from the route. • Hardware improvements were made to the remote control interfaces to improve the ease of display activation and provide improved tactile feedback upon activation.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 2

2. Aim

This trial had the following aims: • Determine the information requirements for effective wayfinding in wooded terrain, during both day and night conditions. • Determine the utility of three different display modalities (visual, auditory, and tactile) for enhancing wayfinding capabilities. • Compare systems that provide both location and directional information (2D), versus those that provide only location information (1D). • Determine the benefits and/or drawbacks of providing ‘distance from the waypoint’ information. • Identify the interface design issues associated with each modality and determine the requirements for design optimization and future experimentation.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 3

3. Method

3.1 Participants

Twelve infantry soldiers participated in the study. The soldiers ranged in age from 23 to 40 years (mean = 30.2). The group consisted of four privates (33%), six junior Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs) (50%) and 2 senior NCOs (17%). The average length of military service for the participants was 7.8 years. All participants reported having normal or corrected-to-normal visual acuity.

3.2 Procedure

A six-day field trial was undertaken at Wainwright, Alberta, Canada over the period of 23-28 June 2001. Soldiers navigated routes with five waypoints through wooded and open terrain using enhanced wayfinding information in three different display modalities: visual, auditory, and tactile. For each modality, two systems were tested. A one-dimensional system (1D) provided information on the location of the waypoint and how far the soldiers had to turn in order to face the waypoint. A two-dimensional system (2D) provided the same information as the 1D system as well as information on the quickest way to turn in order to face the waypoint. As such, there were six systems tested in total: visual 1D, visual 2D, auditory 1D, auditory 2D, tactile 1D and tactile 2D. During the day, a balanced repeated measures design was used so that each of the 12 soldiers used each of the six systems to navigate a route. Due to troop constraints, only 10 subjects participated in the night condition. Each of the 10 subjects completed a route using each of the three 2D modalities only (Visual 2D, Auditory 2D and Tactile 2D). In order to develop a baseline, the existing in-service condition of using a compass and pace counting was piloted at night on a 450m, one-leg route with nine of the soldiers. While completing the compass condition, the subjects wore a backpack containing the data collection system so that the weight of the system remained constant between conditions. Specialized Technical Services (STS) low- profile night vision goggles (2733 LP/NVGs) were used in the night condition for all modalities. The order of wayfinding modality was balanced among participants. Six different route plans were used to minimize learning effects (see Figure 1). Each route started from one of three locations, with each waypoint requiring a bearing change. Each route was 1.35 kilometres long and consisted of five waypoints. The length of each route leg varied from 150 to 450 metres. Routes were configured to have similar terrain, vegetation, and topography. The same routes were used at night, however, the order of the waypoints was reversed so that the routes were traversed in the opposite order of waypoints. The order of the routes used was balanced among wayfinding modalities.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 4

Figure 1: Wayfinding routes and target locations at Wainwright

Soldiers were instructed to use the system to avoid obstacles such as a thick copse of trees if they felt it was appropriate. As the soldiers navigated the routes, they were followed by an experimenter who used a remote control device to mark the wayfinding data file when the soldiers detected and engaged targets. When the soldiers felt they had reached the waypoint, they indicated this to the experimenter, who used the remote control to mark the file. The experimenter then used the remote control to set the system for the next waypoint.

3.2.1 Obstacles To assess the adaptability of each wayfinding condition, route legs were planned to require the soldiers to confront and navigate around an unexpected simulated obstacle. An obstacle was incorporated into one leg of each route (Figure 2). Obstacles consisted of an irregular area that impeded the most direct route to the active waypoint. For the purpose of this experiment, the obstacles simulated mined ground, and were indicated by white mine tape. Each obstacle was irregular in shape, deep enough so that soldiers could not see the other side to estimate its depth (e.g. 50-100m), and wide enough to one side of the route so that the soldiers could not estimate its width (e.g. 50-100m). When they encountered an obstacle, soldiers were instructed to navigate around it, and to resume their course to the active waypoint.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 5

Figure 2: Obstacle

3.2.2 Target Detection and Engagement To simulate the tactical demands of operational wayfinding (i.e. wayfinding behind enemy lines), all route legs included 3D SIT targets (stationary infantry target) to simulate enemy soldiers (Figure 3). The course contained 44 targets, arranged so there were two targets for every 150 metres of the course. Target locations are identified in Figure 1. Targets were kept in the upright position and located on both sides of the intended route. Targets were attached to trees or stakes and placed at random distances along each leg. Each route presented 20 targets in total. However, if soldiers deviated from the straight-line route during navigation, they may have encountered either fewer or additional targets. Soldiers were required to detect and engage targets with two rounds using blank ammunition fire. Performance measures included soldier ratings of ease of target detection and engagement, perceived accuracy, and workload. These measures were collected to investigate the ability to visually search for targets in different modalities, and to identify the pros and cons of completing wayfinding tasks with different modalities. Target detection and engagement times were minimal and not subtracted from the overall route travel time.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 6

Figure 3: Three dimensional SIT (stationary infantry target) target

3.3 Apparatus In all conditions, soldiers wore a CF small-pack (backpack) that contained the data collection system. The Future Infantry Navigation Device (FIND) was developed by Humansystems Incorporated in conjunction with Oerlikon Aerospace. The system consisted of a small laptop computer, a global positioning system (GPS) receiver, a DGPS (differential global positioning system) beacon receiver, an electronic compass, and associated power supplies (Figures 4 & 5). Position coordinates of waypoints were preprogrammed into the computer. During the mission, soldiers’ location and orientation, as measured by the GPS and the electronic compass, were updated once every second. The bearing of the soldiers’ heads, measured by the electronic compass mounted to the helmet, was updated 10 times every second.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 7

Figure 4: Wayfinding system schematic

Stereo mini-amplifier Protective Casing

DGPS Beacon Receiver Computer GPS

Electronic Compass (under protective cover) Remote Control NVG Helmet Mount

Helmet

Tactors

Figure 5: Wayfinding system

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 8

The system hardware/software related the soldiers' locations (GPS) and facing direction (electronic compass on head) to the next waypoint (Figure 6). The difference between the facing direction and the waypoint bearing produced the offset bearing for display in each of the visual, auditory, and tactile displays.

Facing Direction Waypoint

Offset Bearing

Distance GPS

Electronic Compass

Own Location

Figure 6: Wayfinding output data

The system was set up to enable the same system configuration to be used for each display interface type. The system performed all of the necessary navigational processes and output the offset bearing and distance parameters required for each of the display types. For each experimentation trial, the appropriate display type was plugged into a laptop for use on the route. The GPS track and associated data was captured for each experimentation route, and then the next display type was plugged in, and the system reset for the next trial route. With the electronic compass mounted to the top of the helmet, the soldiers were able to visually scan the way ahead while receiving directional cues from the relevant display type. Although the navigational system was continuously operating during each experimentation route, soldiers controlled the display of wayfinding data, since a continuous display could result in a significant distraction for other soldiering tasks. The “display activation” remote control button was strapped to the weapon to enable the soldiers to activate the display as required to update their wayfinding status, without releasing hold of the weapon (Figure 7).

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 9

Figure 7: Wayfinding “Display Activation” remote control

Soldiers were required to base their direction of travel solely on the visual, audio or tactile signals received when they interrogated the system. For all modalities, when soldiers faced ±8° from the waypoint, they received a signal indicating they were on target. This signal varied, depending on the modality. Signals took the form of a light meter (visual 1D), directional arrows (visual 2D), sound pitch and tone frequency (auditory 1D and 2D) or location of the active tactor (tactile 1D and 2D). Displays were configured to maximize participants’ ability to discriminate between the varying forms of feedback. In all cases, the 2D displays had directional information indicating which way to turn in addition to waypoint location information. As well, all modalities provided information on the distance to the waypoint. For distances greater than 200m, distance information was provided in 50m increments. For distances less than 200m, distance was provided in 10m increments. In the visual displays, this information was displayed on the screen when the soldiers interrogated the system by pressing a remote control button. For the auditory and tactile displays, distance information was provided by an audio voice that stated the distance in metres when the system was interrogated. For all modalities, a 20m audio voice warning was given automatically without having to interrogate the system. The experimenter who followed the soldiers also used a remote control button which enabled the experimenter to interrogate the system to verify proper functionality, record when the soldiers engaged a target, mark the location of the perceived waypoint, and start and stop the system for data recording. During the experiment, two FIND system units were used. One of the systems also contained the Tactile Amplifier Board provided by Engineering Acoustics to run the tactor system. The helmets for each system contained built-in speakers to provide sound, regardless of the modality being tested.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 10

3.4 Modalities

For each modality (Visual, Auditory and Tactile), two display types were tested, a 1D and a 2D display.

3.4.1 Visual Modality Day: During the day, the display was presented using a helmet-mounted display (HMD). The device was positioned out of soldiers’ line of sight in the right peripheral visual field. This prevented the need to manually position the HMD during the experiment (Figure 8). The display could be adjusted by the soldiers to a position where they could comfortably see the screen.

Figure 8: Visual helmet mounted display

Night: At night, the display was presented in the visual field of the NVG’s. The goggles were fitted with a heads-up display (HUD) with an active matrix electroluminescent microdisplay (AMEL) display controller, which accepted a standard 9-pin VGA video-in cable. The HUD image was presented in the right visual field of the NVG’s for all participants (Figure 9). For all other nighttime wayfinding, the NVG’s were worn solely for their night vision capability. The NVG’s were attached to the test helmet using one of two different helmet mount systems. Defense Research Establishment Valcartier (DREV) designed the first helmet mount to allow soldiers to flip the NVG’s off the eyes and up on the helmet. The second helmet mount did not allow for the NVG’s to be flipped up on the helmet.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 11

Figure 9: Specialized technical services night vision goggle image

One Dimensional Modality The 1D Visual display tested in Wainwright was similar to the display used in the previous experiment in Fort Benning, however only three levels of offset were included rather than four. The display provided a direction-heading indicator to the next waypoint. To operate the system, soldiers depressed the button on the weapon to activate the visual display. Participants could then visually scan the way ahead while viewing the visual image being displayed. As the participants’ heads turned towards the direction of the next waypoint, the number of lights increased (Figure 10). Participants continued to scan and as their heads turned closer to the direction of the waypoint, the hollow circles progressively filled in.

Not Active Active Active Active 31°- 180° 8°- 30°offset < 8° offset

Figure 10: One dimensional visual modality

Two Dimensional Modality The 2D visual display provided information both on the location of the waypoint and the quickest direction to turn in order to face the waypoint. The interface (Figure 11) consisted of two arrows which were composed of segments that could be either hollow or filled in, and indicated the direction to turn. As the soldiers turned their heads in the direction of the arrow with black segments and towards the waypoint, the segments became hollow. When the soldiers were facing within 8o of the waypoint, a third arrow appeared on top of the display, indicating they were on target.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 12

Turn right 30°to 180° Turn right 8°to 30° On target (within 8°) Turn left 8°to 30° Turn left 30°to 180°

Figure 11: Two dimensional visual modality

3.4.2 Auditory Modality The auditory system featured mono sound speakers that were incorporated into a Canadian Forces (CF) helmet. These speakers indicated the degree to which the head was facing the direction of the active waypoint. To operate the system, soldiers depressed the remote control button on the weapon to activate the display. Soldiers could then visually scan the way ahead while listening to the auditory tones. The tone was a synthesized oboe sound. As the head turned towards the direction of the next waypoint, both the pitch and the rate of the auditory tone increased in distinct levels. Each level represented a specific field of view (Figure 12). When the head was facing within 8o of the waypoint, the tone was constant. The volume was adjustable, but set at a standard level for all runs. One Dimensional Modality In the 1D system, audio information was provided simultaneously to both ears. The tones changed in pitch and rate as the soldiers turned their head. There were three different levels of tone rates, as shown in Figure 12.

65Hz Constant

Tone Pitch 60Hz 10Hz Rate

55Hz 5Hz

180o 30o 8o 8o 30o 180o Offset

Figure 12: One dimensional auditory modality

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 13

Two Dimensional Modality The 2D system was identical to the 1D system, except that the 2D system presented tones only in the ear closest to the direction of the active waypoint. For example, if the soldiers needed to turn to the right to face the waypoint, tones sounded only in the right earphone, with no sound in the left earphone. The tones increased in pitch and rate as they turned to the right, and decreased in pitch and rate as they turned to the left. If they continued to turn the head to the left, as they passed the point of 180° from the waypoint, the tones would cease in the right earphone and begin in the left. When the soldiers faced the waypoint (within 8°), the tone was constant and in both ears.

Both Ears

Right Ear Left Ear 65Hz Constant

Tone Pitch 60Hz 10Hz Rate

55Hz 5Hz

180o 30o 8o 8o 30o 180o Offset Figure 13: Two dimensional auditory modality

3.4.3 Tactile Modality The tactile modality featured four tactors arranged on a lumbar support belt. The arrangement of individual tactors on the belt is shown in Figure 14.

14.9cm

8.3cm 7.6cm

3.2cm

Figure 14: Tactor arrangement on lumbar belt

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 14

The belt was worn over a T-shirt around the lower abdomen as shown in Figure 15. The belt was worn such that the two middle tactors were located on the abdomen just above the navel and the right and left tactors were just below the ribcage on the right and left side, respectively. The tactors (vibrotactile transducers, Engineering Acoustics, Winterpark, FL) were set at a frequency of 260 Hz.

Figure 15: Tactile harness

The design of the tactile system included four (4) tactors activated by an Engineering Acoustics driver/controller/interface card. The driver card was controlled through an RS-232 serial interface, which triggered the activation of each individual tactor. The tactile system was also configured to indicate the degree to which the head was facing the direction of the next waypoint (see Figure 14). To operate the system, soldiers depressed the remote control button on the weapon to activate the tactor display. Participants visually scanned the way ahead, while feeling the tactors vibrating. As the head turned towards the direction of the active waypoint, the location of the vibrating tactors changed. One Dimensional Modality In the 1D tactile condition, the two tactors in the center vibrated when the soldiers were within 8o of the waypoint. If the soldiers were between 8° and 90° of the waypoint, the two side tactors vibrated, and if they were more than 90° from the waypoint the tactors did not vibrate, even if the activation switch was depressed (Figure 16).

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 15

Active Not Active Active <8° offset 8°-90° offset

Figure 16: One dimensional tactile modality

Two Dimensional Modality For the 2D tactile modality, the two tactors in the centre vibrated when the soldiers were within 8o of the waypoint. However, if they were facing from 8o and 180o to the right of the waypoint, only the left side tactor would vibrate, indicating that they should turn left towards the waypoint. Similarly, if they were facing from 8o to 180o to the left of the waypoint, only the right side tactor would vibrate, indicating that they should turn right towards the waypoint (Figure 17).

Not Active Active: left Active: right Active: <8° offset offset 8° to offset 8° to 180° 180°

Figure 17: Two dimensional tactile modality

3.5 Location

A site was selected at the Western Area Training Centre in Wainwright, Alberta, Canada. The experimental routes were selected to be similar to each other in terrain difficulty. All routes contained terrain varying from dense woods to open fields (Figure 18).

Figure 18: Wooded and open field terrain

3.6 Data Collection Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 16

Various questionnaires and forms were used to collect information. These are underlined below and detailed in Annex A. A Personal Information Questionnaire was issued prior to the study to obtain background information on the participants. This information included age, rank, years of experience, and operational experience. Following a briefing to all participants regarding the trial protocol, participants completed an ethics approved Consent Form to proceed with participation in the experimentation. All subjects completed two cognitive ability tests from the Kit of Factor Referenced Cognitive Tests. These evaluated Spatial Orientation Ability, and Spatial Scanning Ability. Participants also received instruction in the completion of the NASA TLX Workload Questionnaire. This questionnaire assesses the relative importance of six factors (mental demand, physical demand, temporal demand, performance, effort and frustration level) in experienced workload. Prior to the start of each experimental run, soldiers were fitted with the appropriate modality. A check was conducted to ensure that the system was functioning properly and collecting data. Two test waypoints, separate from the experimental routes, were laid out for the soldiers to familiarize themselves with the system. The waypoints were located 50m from each other. Soldiers practiced interrogating the system for both distance and direction, and used the system to move from one waypoint to another. The experimenter conducted crosschecks of the system to ensure that soldiers were able to detect and distinguish the levels of the modality. All soldiers were given the same amount of familiarization time with the system prior to the start of the experiment. Once the familiarization run had concluded, the experimenter activated the first waypoint on the experimental route using the remote. From this point on, interaction with the system by the experimenter and the soldiers was conducted using two remote control buttons. One remote control button was mounted on the soldiers’ weapons and the other was hand-held by the experimenter who accompanied soldiers on the route. The trial began with the experimenter and soldiers at the start point of the wayfinding route. The start of the test was marked by the selection of the first waypoint on the system. Participants were instructed that speed and accuracy were equally important when traveling from one waypoint to another. At various points throughout the route, soldiers activated the display to obtain bearing information consistent with the active modality by manually depressing one button on the remote attached to the weapon. Another button on the remote control was used to interrogate the system for distance information, and both forms of information were active for as long as the button was depressed. Each time the display button was activated, the system tagged the data being recorded to indicate the soldiers’ location, and the time (from start) that the button was pushed. The length of time the display button was depressed was also collected. During the activation of the display, the electronic compass readings (sampled ten times per second) were also collected to indicate the direction of the head.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 17

The GPS sampled position data every second. The system recorded the participants’ raw coordinates every second, along with the electronic compass reading, calculated bearing offset, and distance from the waypoint. For each raw coordinate, the time at which the coordinate was collected (relative to the start time) was recorded. When the soldiers detected a target, the experimenter marked the location on the system by using the remote trigger. This coordinate was used later to indicate the number of target engagements. In all modalities, an auditory voice announced when the soldiers were 20m away from the active waypoint. This warning was meant to act as positive reinforcement that the soldiers were on the right track and nearing their destination. After the signal was presented, the soldiers stopped, interrogated the system for a final bearing check, and did a pace count for the remaining 20 metres. When the soldiers believed they had reached the waypoint, they stopped and verbally indicated to the experimenter, by saying “Finished.” The experimenter ‘tagged’ this location by pressing a button on the remote control to mark the data file. At this time, the soldiers heard “waypoint reached” in the headset. Next, the experimenter pressed another button on the remote control to activate the next waypoint in the system. The audio voice stated the next waypoint (e.g. “waypoint 5”), indicating the system was activated for the next waypoint and that data collection for the next leg of the route had begun. The interface was set to enable the experimenter to switch the system to the next waypoint within 50 metres of the active waypoint. This was done to account for variations in GPS signal strength and accuracy. After the last waypoint was reached, the experimenter ended data collection by pressing the next waypoint button on the remote control. An auditory voice then stated, “experiment stopped”. The experimenter then led the soldiers back to the base camp. Following the completion of the route, the experimenter saved the track capture for that route on disk for back-up and future analyses. Subsequent analyses included calculations of total distance, total time, velocity, and root mean square error (RMSE) deviation for each leg and the overall route. Immediately following completion of the route, soldiers were required to complete a NASA TLX Workload Questionnaire and a Wayfinding Questionnaire. The wayfinding questionnaire was used to obtain ratings of usability, compatibility, functionality, overall ratings and comments. The seven-point acceptability rating scale shown in Figure 19 was used in the wayfinding questionnaire.

Figure 19: Seven-point acceptability rating scale

For the purposes of this study, orientation and route decisions were provided to participants. Orientation traditionally involves determining where one is in respect to nearby objects and the target location by the use of landmarks. In this study, traditional comparisons between a map

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 18

and landmarks to orient oneself were replaced with a specific ‘start’ location identified with an exact grid location corresponding to GPS coordinates. Route decision traditionally involves choosing a route that will get one to one’s destination. Predetermined routes, with specified waypoints, distances and bearings, were provided to facilitate this wayfinding exercise. Route monitoring involves monitoring the route one has taken to confirm that one is on the correct route and is going in the right direction. The primary measure of route monitoring performance included the number of times the soldiers queried the system for bearing and distance information. Destination recognition involves recognizing that one has reached the correct destination, or at least a point nearby. The primary measure of destination recognition included the accuracy of the waypoint estimations, in terms of distance in metres from the actual waypoint. An Exit Questionnaire was administered at the completion of the study. This questionnaire was used to obtain comparison ratings between the different display modalities and utilized the same seven-point rating scale used for the wayfinding questionnaire (Figure 19). A focus group discussion was conducted with all soldiers to elicit group commentary and promote discussion regarding the usability and utility of the various displays.

3.7 Wayfinding Performance Measures

The route adopted by the soldiers was tracked by GPS and compared to the route plan to determine: • Track deviation: The extent of track deviation from the most direct route between waypoints was determined for each leg and totaled for the route (RMSE or root mean square error). • Obstacle detour: Participants were asked to navigate around each obstacle in the most efficient manner. Actual track deviation from the most efficient route (RMSE) and the total time to traverse the obstacle were determined. • Time to traverse ground: Time to traverse each leg and each route. • Total distance traveled: Total distance traveled for each leg and totaled for each route was determined and compared to the shortest possible distance (including obstacles). • Accuracy of waypoint estimation: Participants estimated the location of each waypoint prior to initiating the next leg. The distance from the estimated to the actual waypoint location was calculated and used as the primary measure of destination recognition. • Wayfinding Referrals: The number of times and duration that the soldiers chose to refer to the wayfinding aide was recorded. This was used as the primary measure of route monitoring and to quantify the use of distance and directional information. • Workload: Overall subjective workload scores as indicated by the NASA TLX.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 19

4. Results

This section presents the results obtained from analyses of the objective and subjective measures used during the wayfinding experiment. The results have been divided into several categories, including navigation, terrain traverse, target search and detection, usability, compatibility and overall evaluation of the system. Each section individually assesses results obtained from the performance measures (if applicable), wayfinding questionnaires, and exit questionnaires. Comments from soldiers are described to help interpret the obtained results. A repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance was conducted for 1D modalities within the day session (n = 12), 2D modalities within the day session (n=12), and 2D modalities within the night session (n=10). Repeated-measures multivariate analyses of variance were used to compare 1D and 2D modalities within the day session (n=12). One-dimensional modalities were not tested at night due to time constraints. Repeated-measures multivariate analyses of variance were used to compare between night and day sessions for the 2D modalities (n = 10). Results were then subjected to a Post Hoc Tukey test. Differences were identified at p < 0.05. At night, only nine of the 10 soldiers were able to conduct the compass session. Measurements of a 450m leg were only obtained for eight soldiers, due to participant availability at this phase of the study. Tables provide the mean acceptance ratings for each modality, as well as the percentage of soldiers that rated the item “acceptable,” defined as a rating of four (4) or greater on the seven- point acceptability rating scale. For each modality, acceptance ratings are based on the maximum number of soldiers. Items that were rated acceptable by less than 80% of soldiers have been shaded. Throughout the following tables and figures, the following abbreviations are used: • A: All audio modalities. • T: All tactile modalities. • V: All visual modalities. • C: Compass (night only) • 1D: All one-dimensional modalities • 2D: All two-dimensional modalities • A1D: The one-dimensional audio modality. • T1D: The one-dimensional tactile modality. • V1D: The one-dimensional visual modality. • A2D: The two-dimensional audio modality. • T2D: The two-dimensional tactile modality. • V2D: The two-dimensional visual modality. • A2D_D: The two-dimensional audio modality during the day. • A2D_N: The two-dimensional audio modality at night. • T2D_D: The two-dimensional tactile modality during the day. • T2D_N: The two-dimensional tactile modality at night. • V2D_D: The two-dimensional visual modality during the day. • V2D_N: The two-dimensional visual modality at night. • D: All systems during the day. • N: All systems at night.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 20

4.1 Participant Characteristics

Perceived skill at navigating, overall scores on cognitive ability tests, and baseline wayfinding performance measures were used to classify the skill levels of the soldiers. A wayfinding experience questionnaire was used to obtain information regarding perceived skill at land navigation. Soldiers were asked to rate their land navigation skills as ‘poor’, ‘fair’, ‘good’ or ‘excellent’. Eight percent (8%) of soldiers rated their land navigation skills as being ‘excellent’, 75% as ‘good’, and 17% as ‘fair’. Identical results were obtained in the night group. Cognitive ability tests were completed prior to the start of the experiment. Cognitive skill questionnaires included assessments of spatial orientation and spatial scanning, with higher scores indicating better cognitive skills. Spatial orientation scores ranged from 0 to 7.5 out of 10 (mean =4.7), and spatial scanning scores ranged from 3 to 9 (mean = 5.8).

4.2 Navigation

Soldiers assessed the effectiveness of using the FIND system to navigate a predetermined route while moving and stationary. The results are discussed in this section.

4.2.1 Performance Measures: Navigation Performance measures included distance traveled, root mean square error (RMSE) deviation, and accuracy of waypoint estimation.

4.2.1.1 Distance Traveled The total distance to travel the 1350m route was computed for each soldier, and subjected to a repeated measures analysis of variance with display modality (visual, auditory, or tactile) and dimension (1D vs. 2D) or time (day vs. night) as the within-subject effects. The results and the distances traveled per route (mean and standard deviation) are presented in Figure 20.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 21

1750

1700

1650

1600

1550

1500

1450

Distance Travelled per Route (m) 1400

1350 1D Day 2D Day 1300 Visual Auditory Tactile 2D Night DISPLAY MODALITY

1D vs. 2D Day 2D Day vs. Night (n=12) (n=10) Effect p F MSe p F MSe MODALITY 0.315 F(2,22)=1.22 12799.24 0.274 F(2,18)=1.39 14553.30 DIMENSION 0.075 F(1,11)=3.88 9309.31 - - - TIME - - - 0.076 F(1,9)=4.02 13572.82 INTERACTION 0.167 F(2,22)=1.943 21122.07 0.135 F(2,18)=2.24 9921.72 Figure 20: Distance traveled (p values)

There were no significant differences between modalities for distance traveled.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 22

The distance taken by each soldier to travel a 450 m route leg at night was computed for eight soldiers1 and subjected to a repeated measures analysis of variance with display modality (visual, auditory, or tactile) as the within-subject effects. The results and the distances traveled per route (mean and standard deviation) are presented in Figure 21.

580

540

500

460

420 Distance Travelled (m)

380

340 Visual Auditory Tactile Compass DISPLAY MODALITY

Figure 21: Distance traveled including compass on a 450m route leg at night

At night, soldiers traveled a significantly shorter distance using a compass compared to travel using the visual, auditory or tactile modalities (p<0.004, F(3, 21)=5.87, MSe= 1677.8, n=8). For the compass, actual distances traveled for the 450 metre legs ranged from 325 metres to 521 metres. The average distance traveled for the compass was less than the actual distance of 450 m because many of the soldiers stopped short of the waypoint. Soldiers using the visual, auditory or tactile modalities tended to travel more than 450 metres because they could use the system to travel around natural obstacles, even though this meant they had to travel a greater distance.

1 Although there were 10 soldiers in total during the actual study, only 8 were available at this point in data collection. Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 23

4.2.1.2 Root Mean Square Error Deviation The root mean square error (RMSE) deviation from the straight-line path was used as a measure of navigational accuracy. RMSE deviation, on average, ranged between 18 to 24 metres from the straight-line path along the 1350m route. RMSE deviation was computed for each soldier and subjected to a repeated measures analysis of variance with display modality (visual, auditory, or tactile) and dimension (1D vs. 2D) or time (day vs. night) as the within-subject effects. The results and the RMSE deviation per route (mean and standard deviation) are presented in Figure 22.

18 RMSE Deviation (m)

1D Day 2D Day 6 Visual Auditory Tactile 2D Night DISPLAY MODALITY

1D vs. 2D Day 2D Day vs. Night (n=12) (n=10) Effect p F MSe p F MSe MODALITY 0.359 F(2,22)=1.07 40.85 0.572 F(2,18)=0.58 58.42 DIMENSION 0.508 F(1,11)=0.47 39.73 - - - TIME - - - 0.049* N>D F(1,9)=5.17 48.56 INTERACTION 0.556 F(2,22)=0.60 66.82 0.983 F(2,18)=0.017 65.82 Figure 22: Root mean square error deviation (m) for three modalities (p values)

A significant main effect was found for time (p=0.049), as in the 2D mode, soldiers demonstrated more route deviation at night than during the day. No other effects were significant. Observers noted that the strategies used by infantry soldiers in avoiding terrain obstacles during land navigation may have lessened the potential for significant differences among modalities.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 24

The RMSE deviation taken by each soldier to travel a 450 m route leg at night was computed for each soldier and subjected to a repeated measures analysis of variance with display modality (visual, auditory, or tactile) as the within-subject effects. The results and the RMSE deviation per route (mean and standard deviation) are presented in Figure 23.

RMSE Deviation (m) 20

0 Visual Auditory Tactile Compass DISPLAY MODALITY

Figure 23: Root mean square error deviation including compass on a 450m route leg at night

At night, soldiers demonstrated no significant differences in the RMSE distances traveled among modalities (p = 0.494, F(3,21)=0.827, MSe=256.74, n=8).

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 25

4.2.1.3 Accuracy of Waypoint Estimation The accuracy of waypoint estimation was used as a measure of navigational accuracy. The offset distance between the actual waypoint location and the soldiers’ estimation of the waypoint location was calculated for each route leg. The accuracy of waypoint estimation was computed for each soldier and subjected to a repeated measures analysis of variance with display modality (visual, auditory, or tactile) and dimension (1D vs. 2D) or time (day vs. night) as the within- subject effects. The results and the waypoint estimation offset distances per route leg (mean and standard deviation) are presented in Figure 24.

7.5

6.5

5.5

4.5

3.5

2.5

1D Day 2D Day 1.5 Average Waypoint Estimation Offset Distance per Route Leg (m) Visual Auditory Tactile 2D Night DISPLAY MODALITY

1D vs. 2D Day 2D Day vs. Night (n=12) (n=10) Effect p F MSe p F MSe MODALITY 0.973 F(2,22)=0.027 2.85 0.975 F(2,18)=0.026 3.71 DIMENSION 0.559 F(1,11)=0.364 1.56 - - - TIME - - - 0.143 F(1,9)=2.57 1.79 INTERACTION 0.570 F(2,22)=0.576 2.32 0.880 F(2,18)=0.129 2.85 Figure 24: Accuracy of waypoint estimation

There were no significant differences in accuracy of waypoint estimation across all conditions. The mean waypoint estimation offset distance was less than 5 metres. The accuracy of the soldiers using the display modalities is appropriate, given that they received an audible indication when they were within 20 metres of the actual waypoint. In addition, soldiers could continue to interrogate the system and receive feedback as close as five metres from the actual waypoint.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 26

The waypoint estimation offset distance for a 450 m route leg at night was computed for each soldier and subjected to a repeated measures analysis of variance with display modality (visual, auditory, or tactile) as the within-subject effects. The results and the offset distances per route (mean and standard deviation) are presented in Figure 25.

140

120

100

20 Waypoint Estimation Offset Distance (m) 0

-20 Visual Auditory Tactile Compass DISPLAY MODALITY

Figure 25: Waypoint estimation offset distance on a 450m route leg at night

At night, soldiers demonstrated a significantly larger waypoint estimation offset distance using a compass compared to the visual, auditory or tactile modalities (p<0.0001, F(3,21)=11.20, Mse=786.14, n=8). The waypoint estimation offset distances for the visual, auditory and tactile modalities averaged approximately 5 metres, and the compass averaged a significantly greater offset distance of 71 metres. While the high variability in the compass condition as compared to the other conditions may indicate some concerns with the applicability of the ANOVA, the p value of less than 0.0001 indicates a strong difference between the compass condition and the other conditions.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 27

4.2.2 Wayfinding Questionnaire Results: Navigation The following questionnaire items applied to wayfinding performance: • Ease of use while moving • Ease of use while stationary • Detecting signals while moving • Detecting signals while stationary • Determining the direction of the waypoint • Determining the distance to the waypoint • Determining when waypoint reached • Maintaining my pace while using the system • Maintaining my heading while using the system • Navigating back to the original route (after obstacles) • Overall Effectiveness for Wayfinding Participant soldiers rated the above items using the seven-point scale in Figure 19. The results, including the mean acceptability rating, percentage of participants rating each item acceptable (i.e. four or higher on the seven-point scale) are shown in Table 1 of Annex B. Table 2 in Annex B shows the significant results from 3 ANOVAs (1D vs. 2D during the day, 2D Night (including the compass condition), and 2D Day vs. 2D Night). These results are discussed below. For the overall effectiveness for wayfinding, the 2D modalities were rated as significantly more acceptable than the 1D modalities for day operations. Acceptance of the 2D modalities stemmed from several issues, including the ease of use while stationary, detecting signals while stationary, determining the direction of the waypoint, determining when the waypoint had been reached, and maintaining pace. For all of these tasks, however, both modalities were rated acceptable by more than 80% of soldiers. Comparing 2D modalities to the compass condition at night, the visual and auditory modalities were rated significantly more acceptable than the compass condition for overall effectiveness of wayfinding. The visual and auditory modalities were consistently rated significantly more acceptable than the compass condition for many of the navigation tasks. These tasks included: ease of use while moving, detecting signals while moving, determining the distance to the waypoint, determining when the waypoint had been reached, maintaining heading, and navigating back to the original route. In fact, at night, the compass was rated acceptable by less than 80% of soldiers for on all but 3 of the 10 navigation tasks. For some navigation tasks, the tactile modality was also rated significantly more acceptable than the compass. These included detecting signals while moving, determining the distance to the waypoint, and navigating back to the original route. Trends in the data indicate that during the day, the visual 1D modality was less acceptable for use

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 28

while moving. This is reflected in the fact that less than 80% of soldiers rated the visual 1D modality as acceptable for ease of use while moving, and detecting signals while moving. The tactile modality, in both 1D and 2D, was also rated acceptable by less than 80% of soldiers for detecting signals while moving. The only significant difference between the modalities (other than the compass) included the visual 2D modality being rated significantly more acceptable than the tactile 2D modality for determining when the waypoint had been reached both in the day and at night. There was a significant interaction effect between 2D modalities and time (day/night). The auditory 2D (night and day) and visual 2D (night and day) modalities were rated significantly more acceptable than the tactile 2D modality at night. The auditory 2D (night) and visual 2D (night and day) modalities were also rated significantly more acceptable than the tactile 2D modality during the day and at night. For navigation, these results indicate a preference for 2D displays over 1D displays. Of the 1D displays, only the auditory modality was consistently rated acceptable by more than 80% of soldiers. The results also suggest that the compass is unacceptable for navigation at night, especially in comparison to using the FIND system with different display modalities. Of all the modalities, the overall ratings suggest that the visual 2D and auditory 2D modalities were more acceptable than the tactile 2D modality, especially at night.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 29

4.2.3 Exit Questionnaire Results: Navigation The results from the exit questionnaire regarding navigation are illustrated in Table 1 and discussed below. Table 1: Exit questionnaire acceptance ratings for navigation

Mean acceptability rating and % of participants giving p < 0.05 Significance acceptability rating of at least 4 out of 7 V1D V2D A1D A2D T1D T2D Display 4.92 6.25 5.33 5.75 4.67 5.67 Modality 0.63 Bearing Dimension 0.001** 2D>1D Acquisition 83% 100% 100% 100% 67% 92% Interaction 0.042** V2D>V1D,A1D, T1D A2D>V1D, T1D T2D>T1D 6.08 6.42 6.17 6.33 5.67 5.83 Modality 0.35 Locate Dimension 0.09 waypoint 100% 100% 100% 100% 92% 92% Interaction 0.38 Note : p < .05 ** Both day and night conditions were considered in the ratings of the different displays. The compass was not included in these ratings. Some significant differences did emerge in ratings of bearing acquisition and locating the waypoint. For bearing acquisition, for example, the 2D modalities were rated more acceptable than the 1D modalities. There was also a significant interaction effect, indicating that the visual 2D modality was rated significantly more acceptable than all of the 1D modalities. The auditory 2D modality was rated significantly more acceptable than the visual and tactile 1D modalities. As well, the tactile 2D modality was rated as significantly more acceptable than the tactile 1D modality. There were no significant differences among modalities on ratings for locating the waypoint.

4.2.4 Navigation Summary For navigation, the results of the evaluation and exit questionnaires indicated a preference for 2D displays over 1D displays. Of the 1D displays, only the auditory modality was consistently rated acceptable by more than 80% of soldiers. Exit questionnaire ratings also suggested that the compass was unacceptable for navigation at night, especially in comparison to using the FIND system with different display modalities. In terms of performance, soldiers using the compass demonstrated significantly greater error in waypoint estimations at night (for the 450m route leg) than when using the FIND system. Since many soldiers stopped short of the waypoint, they traveled a significantly shorter distance using a compass than using the visual, auditory or tactile modalities. However, in terms of the actual deviation from route, performance results indicated no significant performance decrements when using a compass. Of the FIND modalities, there were no statistical differences between modality, dimension, or time conditions for distance traveled or accuracy of waypoint estimation performance results. RMSE performance results indicated that soldiers demonstrated significantly more track deviation at night than during the day. Of all the modalities, the overall acceptance ratings suggested the visual 2D and auditory 2D modalities were more acceptable than the tactile 2D modality.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 30

4.3 Terrain Traverse

Soldiers were required to traverse dense woods and open ground as well as to navigate around obstacles. This section assesses the ability to effectively traverse ground and avoid obstacles using the various wayfinding modalities.

4.3.1 Performance Measures: Terrain Traverse Time to traverse ground and mission velocity were used as measures of terrain traverse performance.

4.3.1.1 Time to Traverse Route Time to traverse ground included the time to perform all other mission-related tasks. The time to traverse the 1350m route was computed for each soldier and subjected to a repeated measures analysis of variance with display modality (visual, auditory, or tactile) and dimension (1D vs. 2D) or time (day vs. night) as the within-subject effects. The results and the time taken to travel each route (mean and standard deviation) are presented in Figure 26.

4800

4400

4000

3600

3200

2800 Duration per Route (s)

2400

2000 1D Day 2D Day 1600 Visual Auditory Tactile 2D Night DISPLAY MODALITY

1D vs. 2D Day 2D Day vs. Night (n=12) (n=10) Effect p F MSe p F MSe MODALITY 0.046** F(2,22)=3.54 104871.8 0.842 F(2,18)=0.17 392958.2 V>T DIMENSION 0.574 F(1,11)=0.34 22355.3 - - - TIME - - - 0.003** N>D F(1,9)=15.47 678071.4 INTERACTION 0.904 F(2,22)=0.10 38261.0 0.356 F(2,18)=1.09 374680.2 Figure 26: Time to traverse ground

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 31

Comparing the 1D and the 2D modes during the day, there was a significant effect for modality, as participants using the visual modality during the day took longer to complete the route than when using the tactile modality. Observers noted that soldiers often stopped to use the visual modality, and sometimes had to spend time to adjust the position of the display for easier viewing. Comparing the 2D mode during the day versus at night showed a significant main effect for time (p=0.003), as soldiers took longer to complete the route at night than during the day. No other effects were significant. Observers noted the strategies used by infantry soldiers in avoiding terrain obstacles during land navigation. Many soldiers commented that they had strategically selected routes to avoid thick brush, and these observations may explain the lack of significant differences among modalities. The time taken by each soldier to traverse a 450 m route leg at night was computed and subjected to a repeated measures analysis of variance with display modality (visual, auditory, or tactile) as the within-subject effects. The results and the time taken (mean and standard deviation) are presented in Figure 27.

1500

1300

1100

900 Duration (s)

700

500

300 Visual Auditory Tactile Compass DISPLAY MODALITY

Figure 27: Time to traverse a 450m route leg at night including compass

At night, there were no significant differences among modalities in the time to traverse the 450m route leg (p = 0.140, F(3,21)=2.033, MSe=107294.6, n=8).

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 32

4.3.1.2 Mission Velocity Measures of velocity were obtained for each display modality by dividing the distance traveled by the time to navigate the route. The average velocity to travel the 1350m route was computed for each soldier and subjected to a repeated measures analysis of variance with display modality (visual, auditory, or tactile) and dimension (1D vs. 2D) or time (day vs. night) as the within- subject effects. The results and the average velocity (mean and standard deviation) are presented in Figure 28.

3.2

2.8

2.4

2.0 Average Velocity (km/h)

1.6

1D Day 2D Day 1.2 Visual Auditory Tactile 2D Night DISPLAY MODALITY

1D vs. 2D Day 2D Day vs. Night (n=11) (n=10) Effect p F MSe p F MSe MODALITY 0.343 F(2,20)=1.13 0.142282 0.586 F(2,18)=0.55 0.09 DIMENSION 0.524 F(1,10)=0.43 0.040403 - - - TIME - - - 0.004** D>N F(1,9)=14.46 0.19 INTERACTION 0.917 F(2,20)=0.09 0.024601 0.959 F(2,18)=0.04 0.23 Figure 28: Velocity of travel during navigation of wayfinding route

For the 2D mode, comparing day versus night, there was a significant main effect for time (p=0.004), as soldiers showed a higher rate of velocity during the day conditions than during the night conditions. No other effects were significant. Observations indicated that soldiers walked slower and more carefully at night, due in part to the reduced visibility.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 33

The average velocity of each soldier to travel a 450 m route leg at night was computed and subjected to a repeated measures analysis of variance with display modality (visual, auditory, or tactile) as the within-subject effects. The results and the average velocity per route (mean and standard deviation) are presented in Figure 29.

3.4

3.0

2.6

2.2

1.8 Average Velocity (km/h)

1.4

1.0 Visual Auditory Tactile Compass DISPLAY MODALITY

Figure 29: Velocity on a 450m route leg at night including compass

At night on the 450m leg, soldiers traveled significantly slower using a compass than when with the visual, auditory or tactile modalities (p<0.001, F(3,21)=10.48, MSe=0.16, n=8).

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 34

4.3.2 Wayfinding Questionnaire Results: Terrain Traverse The following questionnaire items applied to terrain traverse detection of hazards and navigation around hazards: • Kneeling • Walking • Pace Counting • Detecting terrain contours • Detecting ground level hazards • Detecting waist level hazards • Detecting eye level hazards • Detecting objects along path • Navigating around hazards/obstacles • Overall Ease of Terrain Traverse with System Participant soldiers rated the above items using the seven-point scale in Figure 19. The results, including the mean acceptability rating, percentage of participants rating each item acceptable (i.e. four or higher on the seven-point scale) are shown in Table 3 of Annex B. Table 4 in Annex B shows the significant results from 3 ANOVAs (1D vs. 2D during the day, 2D Night (including the compass condition), and 2D Day vs. 2D Night). These results are discussed below. With the exception of two compass ratings, all the items were rated acceptable by more than 80% of soldiers. This indicates a high degree of acceptance both the 1D and 2D modalities for terrain traverse in either day or night conditions. For overall ease of terrain traverse, there were no significant differences in the day between the 1D and the 2D modalities. However, for specific terrain traverse tasks performed at night, 2D modalities were typically rated as more acceptable than 1D modalities. These tasks included navigating around hazards/obstacles, and kneeling. For items related to detecting hazards/objects, the visual modality was often rated significantly less acceptable than the auditory and tactile modalities. Interaction effects for kneeling indicated that the tactile 1D modality was less acceptable than the tactile 2D and the auditory modalities. Interaction effects for walking indicated that the visual 1D modality was rated significantly less acceptable than the tactile 2D modality. This reflected poor acceptance for using the visual system while moving. There were no significant differences in acceptability ratings for overall ease of terrain traverse at night for 2D modalities, including the compass condition. However, for navigating around hazards/obstacles, the compass was rated as significantly less acceptable than the auditory modality. In addition, the compass was also rated acceptable by less than 80% of soldiers for items related to walking and pace counting. For kneeling, the tactile system was rated less acceptable than the auditory system and the compass. The higher rating for the compass seemed to relate to the standard operating procedure of kneeling while taking a bearing.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 35

For overall ease of terrain traverse, 2D modalities showed significantly lower acceptance ratings during night conditions. The auditory modality was also rated more acceptable than other modalities for some terrain traverse tasks. The auditory modality was rated more acceptable than the tactile modality for kneeling and navigating around hazards/obstacles. As well, the auditory modality was rated more acceptable than the visual modality for detecting objects along the path.

4.3.3 Exit Questionnaire Results: Terrain Traverse The results from the exit questionnaire regarding terrain traverse are illustrated in Table 2 and discussed below.

Table 2: Exit questionnaire acceptance ratings for terrain traverse

Mean acceptability rating and % of participants p < 0.05 Significance giving acceptability rating of at least 4 out of 7

V1D V2D A1D A2D T1D T2D Display 5.36 5.36 5.82 6.00 5.82 6.00 Modality 0.29 Terrain Dimension 0.26 Traverse 83% 83% 100% 100% 100% 100% Interaction 0.09 Navigate 5.83 6.08 6.25 6.42 5.67 5.83 Modality 0.47 around Dimension 0.03** 2D>1D obstacles/ 92% 92% 100% 100% 92% 92% Interaction 0.83 hazards Note : p < .05 ** AN analysis of variance indicated no significant effects among modalities for terrain traverse in the exit questionnaire. For navigation around obstacles/hazards, soldiers rated the 2D modalities as significantly more acceptable than the 1D modalities. Acceptability ratings across modalities remained consistently high. Participant comments highlighted the fact that it was relatively easy to traverse with the FIND systems. They did state however, that the weight and size of the system must be reduced for practical reasons.

4.3.4 Terrain Traverse Summary With the exception of two compass ratings, all the items were rated acceptable by more than 80% of soldiers. This indicates a high degree of acceptance for terrain traverse in either day or night conditions. For overall ease of terrain traverse, there were no significant differences in the day between the 1D and the 2D modalities, yet soldiers rated the 2D modalities more acceptable than the 1D modalities for some terrain traverse tasks like navigating around hazards. The auditory 2D modality was rated more acceptable than other modalities for some items related to terrain traverse. The auditory 2D modality was rated more acceptable than the tactile 2D modality for kneeling and navigating around hazards/obstacles. The auditory 2D modality was also rated more acceptable than the visual 2D system for detecting objects along the path. For items related to detecting hazards/objects, the visual modality was often rated significantly less acceptable than the auditory and tactile modalities. These ratings underlined the preference for auditory 2D over visual 2D systems with regard to terrain traverse. There were no significant differences in acceptance ratings for overall ease of terrain traverse in the night for 2D modalities, including the compass condition. However, the compass was

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 36

significantly less acceptable than the auditory modality for navigating around hazards/obstacles. In terms of performance, comparing 1D vs. 2D mode during the day, there was no difference between 1D and 2D for time to traverse, but soldiers using the visual modalities took significantly longer time to traverse the route than those using the tactile modalities. For the 2d mode, comparing day vs. night, soldiers took significantly more time to traverse the route, and were significantly slower at night than during the day. The results from the wayfinding and exit questionnaires underlined the increased difficulty in terrain traverse during dark conditions. A time effect was found for the 2D modalities for overall ease of terrain traverse. Soldiers rated the night condition as less acceptable than the day, which was reflected in many of the terrain traverse items.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 37

4.4 Target Detection and Engagement

Soldiers were required to detect and engage SIT targets presented on the route. This section assesses the ability to search, detect and engage targets with the various wayfinding modalities.

4.4.1 Performance Measures: Target Detection and Engagement Performance measures included the number of targets detected and engaged.

4.4.1.1 Targets Engaged The total number of targets detected and engaged over the 1350m route was computed for each participant and subjected to a repeated measures analysis of variance with display modality (visual, auditory, or tactile) and dimension (1D vs. 2D) or time (day vs. night) as within-subject effects. The results and the number of targets engaged per route (mean and standard deviation) are presented in Figure 30.

18 Engagements per Route

6 Number of Target

1D Day 2D Day 0 Visual Auditory Tactile 2D Night DISPLAY MODALITY

1D vs. 2D Day 2D Day vs. Night (n=12) (n=10) Effect p F MSe p F MSe MODALITY 0.024** F(2,22)=4.44 30.16 0.264 F(2,18)=1.43 36.0 A>V DIMENSION 0.773 F(1,11)=0.088 97.59 - - - TIME - - - 0.001** D>N F(1,9)=36.61 46.9 INTERACTION 0.698 F(2,22)=0.37 35.01 0.104 F(2,18)=2.57 28.9 Figure 30: Target engagements during wayfinding routes

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 38

Although each route consisted of 18 dedicated targets, soldiers sometimes detected targets from other legs. As well, soldiers sometimes re-engaged targets for different route legs. Analyses of the day results comparing 1D and 2D modes showed a significant effect for modality, as more targets were engaged when in the auditory modality than in the visual modality (p=0.024). Several soldiers commented on impeded visibility using the HUD during the day. Comparing the 2D modes, day vs. night, showed a significant main effect for time (p=0.0002), as more targets were engaged during the day than at night. No other effects were significant. The number of targets engaged on a 450 m route leg at night was computed and subjected to a repeated measures analysis of variance with display modality (visual, auditory, or tactile) as the within-subject effect. The results and the number of targets engaged (mean and standard deviation) are presented in Figure 31.

1 Number of Target Engagements

-1 Visual Auditory Tactile Compass DISPLAY MODALITY

Figure 31: Target engagements on a 450m route leg at night

At night, there were no significant differences between modalities for the number of targets engaged (p = 0.486, F(3,21)=0.84, MSe=4.39, n=8). However, as the 450 metre route leg consisted of only six dedicated targets, this may have provided an insufficient basis for comparison among modalities.

4.4.2 Wayfinding Questionnaire Results: Target Detection and Engagement The following questionnaire items applied to target detection: • Searching for targets • Detecting targets • Engaging targets • Overall Target Detection & Engagement with System

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 39

Participant soldiers rated the above items using the seven-point scale in Figure 19. The results, including the mean acceptability rating, percentage of participants rating each item acceptable (i.e. four or higher on the seven-point scale) are shown in Table 5 of Annex B. Table 6 in Annex B shows the significant results from 3 ANOVAs (1D vs. 2D during the day, 2D Night (including the compass condition), and 2D Day vs. 2D Night). These results are discussed below. All modalities were rated acceptable by more than 80% of soldiers, indicating a high acceptance for all conditions for target detection and engagement. For overall target detection and engagement, in day conditions, the auditory modalities were rated significantly more acceptable than the visual modalities. The tactile modalities were also rated significantly more acceptable than the visual modalities for searching and detecting targets. In terms of actual performance in day conditions, more targets were engaged in the auditory modality than in the visual modality. Several soldiers commented on impeded visibility using the HUD during the day, that the visual modality shifted attention away from the visual search for targets in order to attend to the display, and that the HMD used in the visual modality interfered somewhat with the optical sight of the rifle, making it more difficult to engage targets. Other participants argued that the eyepiece partially obstructed the view during searching tasks, and suggested that a see through HMD might be better. Some soldiers preferred the auditory modality because it allowed them to inquire the FIND system while continuing to devote their visual attention to searching for targets. Although there was no effect for overall target detection and engagement, the 2D modalities were rated significantly more acceptable than the 1D modalities for searching for targets. There were no significant differences between 2D modalities (including the compass) at night. At night, a similar number of targets were engaged, regardless of modality. However, overall target detection and engagement was significantly less acceptable at night compared to day for the 2D modalities. Comments indicated that vision was limited by the NVG’s at night.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 40

4.4.3 Exit Questionnaire Results: Target Detection and Engagement The results from the exit questionnaire regarding target detection and engagement are illustrated in Table 3 and discussed.

Table 3: Exit questionnaire results for target detection and engagement

Mean acceptability rating and % of participants giving p < 0.05 Significance acceptability rating of at least 4 out of 7 V1D V2D A1D A2D T1D T2D Display 4.75 4.83 6.00 6.25 6.08 6.41 Modality 0.006** A,T>V Detect Targets Dimension 0.10 75% 75% 100% 100% 100% 100% Interaction 0.33 4.83 4.83 6.08 6.33 6.17 6.33 Modality 0.004** A,T>V Engage Targets Dimension 0.14 75% 75% 100% 100% 100% 100% Interaction 0.26 Note : p < .05 ** Visual modalities were rated as significantly less acceptable than the auditory and tactile modalities for target detection. In addition, fewer than 80% of soldiers rated the visual 1D and visual 2D modalities as acceptable for target engagement and detection.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 41

4.4.4 Target Detection and Engagement Summary Results show that the FIND system did not adversely affect the ability of the soldiers to perform visual searching, detection, or engagement tasks. In the wayfinding questionnaire, all items were rated acceptable by more than 80% of soldiers for all modalities. However, exit questionnaire acceptance ratings dropped below 80% for the visual modalities. Although there was no effect for overall target detection and engagement, the 2D modalities were rated significantly more acceptable than the 1D modalities for searching for targets. The auditory modality was consistently rated significantly more acceptable than the visual modality. Comments indicated that using the auditory modality still allowed for navigational information to be provided while visual attention was directed to searching for targets. The visual modality, on the other hand, seemed to require a shift in attention away from the visual search for targets in order to attend to the display. Moreover, the HMD of the visual modality interfered somewhat with the optical sight of the rifle, making it more difficult to engage targets. Many soldiers felt that the eyepiece partially obstructed the view during searching tasks. Performance results indicated that there was no difference in target detection and engagement between 1D and 2D modes during the day, but an effect for modality, with more targets engaged while in the auditory modality than in the visual modality. Comparing within the 2D mode showed that more targets were engaged during the day than at night.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 42

4.5 Usability Results

This section addresses issues of usability of the three modalities of the FIND system. These include ease of learning, operating and accessing information, as well as interface design.

4.5.1 Performance Measures: Usability Results The performance measures used to assess the usability of the FIND system included the number of directional and distance referrals and the average time of inquiry.

4.5.1.1 Number of Direction Inquiries The total number of direction inquiries during the 1350m route was computed for each soldier and subjected to a repeated measures analysis of variance with display modality (visual, auditory, or tactile) and dimension (1D vs. 2D) or time (day vs. night) as the within-subject effects. The result and the number of inquiries per route (mean and standard deviation) are presented in Figure 32.

140

120

100

20 Number of Direction Inquiries per Route 0 1D Day 2D Day -20 Visual Auditory Tactile 2D Night DISPLAY MODALITY

1D vs. 2D Day 2D Day vs. Night (n=12) (n=10) Effect p F MSe p F MSe MODALITY 0.012** F(2,22)=5.40 584.5 0.148 F(2,18)=2.12 508.77 T>A DIMENSION 0.379 F(1,11)=0.84 830.5 - - - TIME - - - 0.179 F(1,9)=2.12 246.56 INTERACTION 0.001** F(2,22)=13.93 264.7 0.031** F(2,18)=4.24 112.02 Figure 32: Direction inquiries during wayfinding routes

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 43

During day conditions, the tactile modality required significantly more inquiries to complete the route than the auditory modality (p=0.012). This finding, however, was qualified by a significant interaction effect (p=0.001), which indicated that the 1D auditory modality required significantly fewer directional inquiries than all other modalities during the day. A significant interaction effect was also found between the 2D day and night conditions. For 2D displays, the visual modality used during the day required significantly fewer directional inquiries than the auditory and tactile modalities during the day, and the tactile modality at night. No other effects reached significance.

4.5.1.2 Duration of Direction Inquiries The duration of the direction inquiries during the 1350m route was computed for each soldier and subjected to a repeated measures analysis of variance with display modality (visual, auditory, or tactile) and dimension (1D vs. 2D) or time (day vs. night) as the within-subject effects. The result and the duration of inquiries (mean and standard deviation) are presented in Figure 33.

5 Average Duration of Direction Inquiries (s) 4 1D Day 2D Day 3 Visual Auditory Tactile 2D Night DISPLAY MODALITY

1D vs. 2D Day 2D Day vs. Night (n=12) (n=10) Effect p F MSe p F MSe MODALITY 0.238 F(2,22)=1.54 2.67 0.605 F(2,18)=0.52 3.13 DIMENSION 0.009** F(1,11)=10.02 0.96 - - - 1D>2D TIME - - - 0.522 F(1,9)=0.44 0.99 INTERACTION 0.465 F(2,22)=0.79 2.24 0.031** F(2,18)=4.22 3.40 Figure 33: Mean duration of direction inquiries

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 44

During the day, the 1D modalities required longer duration inquiries than did the 2D modalities (p=0.009). There were no other significant effects. It is important to note, however, that although the 1D direction inquiries were longer than the 2D inquiries, on average, the best 1D modality (audio) required less total time for direction inquiries (228 seconds) than the best 2D modality (visual) (383 seconds). For the 2D mode, there was a significant interaction, such that the visual and auditory modalities required longer duration during the day, but the tactile required longer inquiries at night than during the day.

4.5.1.3 Number of Distance Inquiries The total number of distance inquiries during the 1350m route was computed for each soldier and subjected to a repeated measures analysis of variance with display modality (visual, auditory, or tactile) and dimension (1D vs. 2D) or time (day vs. night) as within-subject effects. The results and the number of distance inquiries per route (mean and standard deviation) are presented in Figure 34.

20 Number of Distance Inquiries per Route 10 1D Day 2D Day 0 Visual Auditory Tactile 2D Night DISPLAY MODALITY

1D vs. 2D Day 2D Day vs. Night (n=12) (n=10) Effect p F MSe p F MSe MODALITY 0.408 F(2,22)=0.93 159.02 0.275 F(2,18)=1.39 112.25 DIMENSION 0.104 F(1,11)=0.10 115.81 - - - TIME - - - 0.250 F(1,9)=5.10 74.50 INTERACTION 0.395 F(2,22)=0.40 169.70 0.387 F(2,18)=1.00 67.19 Figure 34: Distance inquiries during wayfinding routes

Comparing the 1D and 2D modes during the day, there were no significant effects.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 45

4.5.1.4 Duration of Distance Inquiries The duration of distance inquiries during the 1350m route was computed for each soldier and subjected to a repeated measures analysis of variance with display modality (visual, auditory, or tactile) and dimension (1D vs. 2D) or time (day vs. night) as within-subject effects. The results and the duration of distance inquiries per route (mean and standard deviation) are presented in Figure 35.

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.2

3.0

2.8

2.6

2.4 Average Duration of Distance Inquiries (s) 2.2 1D Day 2D Day 2.0 Visual Auditory Tactile 2D Night DISPLAY MODALITY

1D vs. 2D Day 2D Day vs. Night (n=12) (n=10) Effect p F MSe p F MSe MODALITY 0.771 F(2,22)=0.26 0.22 0.888 F(2,18)=0.12 0.12 DIMENSION 0.416 F(1,11)=0.71 0.11 - - - TIME - - - 0.049** D>N F(1,9)=5.15 5.15 INTERACTION 0.748 F(2,22)=0.29 0.12 0.550 F(2,18)=3.41 3.41 Figure 35: Mean duration of distance inquiries

A significant main effect was found for time (p=0.0493), as participants took longer to view the 2D distance information during day conditions than during night conditions. No other effects were significant. Distance inquires for all modalities ranged, on average, between 2.7 and 3.1 seconds. Both auditory and tactile modalities required short inquiries because the distance was provided as a synthetic voice when the remote control button was depressed. The visual modality provided the distance information as a visual representation.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 46

4.5.2 Wayfinding Questionnaire Results: Usability Results The following questionnaire items applied to usability: • Ease of learning the system • Ease of operating the system • Ease of accessing information • Amount of distance information presented • Amount of directional information presented • Ease of distinguishing between directional signal levels • Ease of distinguishing between distance signal levels • Overall Usability Participant soldiers rated the above items using the seven-point scale in Figure 19. The results, including the mean acceptability rating, percentage of participants rating each item acceptable (i.e. four or higher on the seven-point scale) are shown in Table 7 of Annex B. Table 8 in Annex B shows the significant results from 3 ANOVAs (1D vs. 2D during the day, 2D Night (including the compass condition), and 2D Day vs. 2D Night). These results are discussed below. With the exception of one compass rating, all the items were rated acceptable by more than 80% of soldiers. This indicates a high degree of acceptance for terrain traverse in either day or night conditions using all systems. Ratings of overall usability indicated that the 2D modalities were rated significantly more acceptable than the 1D modalities for day conditions. The interaction effect indicated that the tactile 1D was rated significantly less acceptable than the auditory modalities, the visual 2D modality, and the tactile 2D modality. Two dimensional modalities were also rated significantly more acceptable than 1D modalities for ease of accessing information, amount of directional information presented, ease of distinguishing between directional signal levels, and ease of distinguishing between distance signal levels. For the 2D modalities at night, including the compass, the visual modality was rated significantly more acceptable than the compass for overall usability. The visual modality was consistently rated more acceptable than the compass for ease of learning and operating the system, ease of accessing information, amount of distance information presented, amount of directional information presented, and ease of distinguishing between distance signal levels. The auditory and tactile modalities were also rated significantly more acceptable than the compass for distance information. This is unsurprising, as the compass does provide any distance information. Correspondingly, the compass condition was rated acceptable by less than 80% of soldiers for amount of distance information presented. There were no significant effects for the 2D modalities between night and day conditions.

4.5.3 Exit Questionnaire Results: Usability Results The results from the exit questionnaires regarding usability and operation are illustrated in Table 4 and discussed below. Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 47

Table 4: Exit questionnaire acceptance ratings for usability results

Mean acceptability rating and % of participants giving p < 0.05 Significance acceptability rating of at least 4 out of 7 V1D V2D A1D A2D T1D T2D Display Presentation of 6.17 6.25 6.58 6.67 6.58 6.67 Modality 0.005** A,T>V distance info Dimension 0.19 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Interaction >0.05 Presentation of 4.75 5.58 5.00 5.67 4.58 5.17 Modality 0.60 directional info Dimension 0.003** 2D>1D 75% 83% 83% 92% 75% 83% Interaction 0.58 Discrimination 5.33 5.58 6.17 6.42 5.91 6.08 Modality 0.33 between distance Dimension 0.07 signals 83% 83% 100% 100% 92% 92% Interaction 0.89 Discrimination 5.08 6.00 5.50 5.67 4.92 5.50 Modality 0.69 between directional Dimension 0.06 signals 83% 92% 100% 92% 83% 92% Interaction 0.17 4.92 5.58 5.58 6.00 5.33 5.58 Modality 0.61 Overall usability Dimension 0.010** 2D>1D 75% 83% 100% 100% 92% 92% Interaction 0.24 Overall impression 4.58 5.42 5.08 5.58 5.08 5.58 Modality 0.79 of interface design Dimension 0.09 75% 83% 92% 100% 83% 92% Interaction 0.38 Note : p < .05 ** The only significant difference among modalities was for ratings of presentation of distance information. The auditory and tactile modalities were rated significantly better than the visual modalities. Both the auditory and tactile modalities received distance information through a synthetic voice. The 2D modalities were rated significantly more acceptable than the 1D modalities for overall usability and presentation of directional information. On the exit questionnaire, the visual 1D modality was rated acceptable by fewer than 80% of soldiers for these items, as well as for overall impression of the interface design. For presentation of directional information, the tactile 1D modality was also rated acceptable by fewer than 80% of soldiers.

4.5.4 Usability Results Summary For the 2D modalities at night, including the compass, the visual modality was consistently rated as significantly more acceptable than the compass for many usability items. The auditory and tactile modalities were also rated significantly more acceptable for tasks involving distance information. There were no significant time-of-day effects in acceptance ratings, duration of directional inquiries, or number of distance inquiries between night and day conditions for the 2D modalities. Performance results found that for 2D displays during the day, the visual 2D required significantly fewer directional inquiries than the auditory 2D and tactile 2D modalities during the day, and the tactile 2D modality at night. Although soldiers did take longer to view distance information at night, distance inquiries for all modalities ranged, on average, between 2.7 and 3.1 seconds, and were at a fairly consistent level. For performance results, the 1D auditory modality required fewer directional inquiries than all other modalities during the day, including the 2D modalities. However, ratings of usability indicated that the 2D mode was often significantly more acceptable than the 1D mode for day

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 48

conditions. Analyses of the day performance results showed that the 2D modes required less time to view directional information than the 1D mode. This suggests that soldiers based their usability acceptance ratings on the time required to use the information, rather than on the number of directional inquiries. As such, a display was more acceptable if it required less time to view, regardless of the number of times the display was referenced. For the 2D modes, however, there was a significant interaction, such that the visual and auditory modalities required longer duration during the day, but the tactile required longer inquiries at night than during the day.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 49

4.6 Compatibility

This section addresses issues of compatibility of the systems with clothing, weapons and other equipment currently in use.

4.6.1 Wayfinding Questionnaire Results: Compatibility The following questionnaire items applied to compatability: • Compatibility (interference) with clothing • Compatibility (interference) with weapon • Compatibility (interference) with equipment • Overall Compatibility Rating Participant soldiers rated the above items using the seven-point scale in Figure 19. The results, including the mean acceptability rating, percentage of participants rating each item acceptable (i.e. four or higher on the seven-point scale) are shown in Table 9 of Annex B. Table 10 in Annex B shows the significant results from 3 ANOVAs (1D vs. 2D during the day, 2D Night (including the compass condition), and 2D Day vs. 2D Night). These results are discussed below. There were no significant effects for ratings of overall compatibility. For compatibility with clothing, tactile modalities were rated significantly less acceptable than the visual and auditory modalities during the day conditions. In addition, the visual and compass modalities were rated more acceptable than the tactile modality during night conditions. The tactile 1D modality was the only display rated acceptable by fewer than 80% of soldiers for compatibility items. Comments indicated that the tactile system was less acceptable because it required donning and doffing of clothing. For compatibility with a weapon, soldiers rated the visual modalities less acceptable than the auditory modalities during day conditions. The HUD on the visual system was argued to interfere with sighting the rifle. In terms of weapon compatibility, 2D modalities were rated as more acceptable during the day than during night conditions. Observations indicated that this likely reflects the difficulty of sighting the weapon with NVG’s. For compatibility with equipment, the 2D modalities were rated more acceptable than the 1D modalities in day conditions. This reflects the general acceptance of 2D displays over 1D displays.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 50

4.6.2 Exit Questionnaire Results: Compatibility The results from the exit questionnaire regarding compatibility of the systems are illustrated in Table 5 and discussed below.

Table 5: Exit questionnaire acceptance ratings for compatibility

Mean acceptability rating and % of participants giving p < 0.05 Significance acceptability rating of at least 4 out of 7 V1D V2D A1D A2D T1D T2D Display 4.50 4.50 5.25 5.42 4.9 5.17 Modality 0.33 Compatibility Dimension 0.21 75% 75% 92% 92% 83% 83% Interaction 0.09

Similar to the wayfinding evaluation questionnaire, there were no differences in compatibility ratings. However, both the 1D and 2D visual displays were rated acceptable by less than 80% of soldiers. This may reflect difficulties that soldiers experienced when using the visual displays during the day to sight their weapons.

4.6.3 Compatibility Summary The visual, auditory and compass conditions attained significantly higher acceptance ratings for compatibility with clothing than did the tactile modality. Low acceptance ratings for the tactile modality can be attributed to the requirement to place the modality beneath clothing, which was uncomfortable and restricted ease of mobility. For compatibility with the weapon, soldiers rated the visual modalities less acceptable than the auditory modalities during day conditions. The HUD on the visual system was commented to interfere with sighting the rifle. For time of day effects, soldiers indicated that the 2D modalities were more acceptable for compatibility with weapons during the day than at night. Observations indicated that this might reflect difficulty sighting the weapon while wearing NVG’s.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 51

4.7 Evaluation of the System

This section addresses issues of confidence, workload, tactical feasibility and overall impressions of the system.

4.7.1 Performance Measures: Evaluation of the System The results from the NASA TLX workload questionnaire have been illustrated in Figure 36 and discussed below. Based on a ten-point scale, a higher score corresponds to increased workload.

4.5

4.0

3.5

Workload Rating Workload 3.0

2.5

2.0 1D Day 2D Day Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Visual Tactual Tactual Tactual Tactual Tactual Tactual Auditory Auditory Auditory Auditory Auditory Auditory 2D Night MODALITY MODALITY MODALITY MODALITY MODALITY MODALITY DEMANDS: DEMANDS: DEMANDS: DEMANDS: DEMANDS: DEMANDS: Mental Physical Temporal Performance Effort Frustration

Figure 36: Mean NASA TLX workload ratings

A summary of the significant effects is provided in Table 6.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 52

Table 6: NASA TLX workload rating summary of all effects

Main Effect 1D vs. 2D Day 2D Night includes 2D Day vs. Night (n=12) compass (n=10) (n=9) MODALITY 0.543 0.001** C>V,A,T 0.234 Mental DIMENSION 0.164 - - TIME - - 0.235 INTERACTION 0.172 - 0.050** MODALITY 0.549 0.027** C>A 0.155 Physical DIMENSION 0.562 - - TIME - - 0.850 INTERACTION 0.638 - 0.963 MODALITY 0.510 0.001** C>V,A,T 0.362 Temporal DIMENSION 0.182 - - TIME - - 0.574 INTERACTION 0.314 - 0.361 MODALITY 0.916 0.022** C>V,A 0.907 Performance DIMENSION 0.02** 1D>2D - - TIME - - 0.513 INTERACTION 0.595 - 0.03** MODALITY 0.892 0.001** C>V,A,T 0.916 Effort DIMENSION 0.176 - - TIME - - 0.784 INTERACTION 0.669 - 0.123 MODALITY 0.333 0.009** C>V,A 0.335 Frustration DIMENSION 0.068 - - TIME - - 0.143 INTERACTION 0.746 - 0.279 Note : p < .05 ** In day conditions, the 1D modalities imposed greater workload demands with respect to performance than did the 2D modalities. No other significant effects were found in the day conditions. Among the 2D modalities and the compass during night conditions, the compass was consistently rated as imposing significantly greater workload demands than the auditory modality. The compass was also rated as imposing significantly greater temporal demands and as requiring more effort than the tactile and the visual modalities. Low mental demand and effort ratings on the NASA TLX questionnaire reflecting the ease of use and minimal amount of thinking required when operating the visual, auditory and tactile display modalities in comparison to the compass. These findings were also reflected in participant comments. The visual, auditory and tactile modalities imposed significantly fewer temporal demands than the compass. Soldiers’ comments indicated that quick and easy acquisition of direction information using the modalities (as compared to the compass) contributed to their lower temporal workload rating. Comparing the 2D modalities during the day and night, there was an interaction for mental effort and for performance. More specifically, for the 2D mode at night, mental effort was highest in visual and tactile modality and lowest for auditory. For the 2D mode during the day, however, the opposite was true. A parallel pattern of means was seen for the performance dimension.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 53

4.7.2 Wayfinding Questionnaire Results: Evaluation of the System The following questionnaire items applied to an overall evaluation of the system:

• Confidence in the system

• Thermal comfort • Mental workload • Tactical feasibility • Accuracy of the system • Durability of the system • Overall acceptability Participant soldiers rated the above items using the seven-point scale in Figure 19. The results, including the mean acceptability rating, percentage of participants rating each item acceptable (i.e. four or higher on the seven-point scale) are shown in Table 11 of Annex B. Table 12 in Annex B shows the significant results from 3 ANOVAs (1D vs. 2D during the day, 2D Night (including the compass condition), and 2D Day vs. 2D Night). These results are discussed below. A significant effect was found for soldier ratings regarding confidence in 1D vs. 2D modes during the day, as the 2D modalities were rated as significantly more acceptable than the 1D modalities. A significant effect was also found for thermal comfort. The tactile modality attained significantly lower acceptance ratings than the compass condition at night and the auditory modality during the day. The tactile system was consistently rated acceptable by less than 80% of soldiers for thermal comfort. The low acceptance rating for the tactile modality may be attributed to the extra insulation afforded by the torso belt. With the exception of mental workload, no significant differences were found between day and night conditions. For mental workload, the tactile modality used at night was significantly less demanding than the auditory modality at night and the visual modality during the day. When the compass was compared to the 2D modalities at night, the compass was rated significantly less acceptable than the visual and auditory modalities. In addition, the compass was rated acceptable by less than 80% of soldiers for mental workload. Soldiers rated the compass as significantly more acceptable for durability than the auditory and tactile modalities. These ratings reflected the opinions of soldiers that technology that requires batteries is always subject to breakdowns. The tactile 2D modality was rated acceptable by less than 80% of soldiers. Although there were no significant differences for tactical feasibility, the auditory modalities were rated acceptable by less than 80% of soldiers in the day conditions, and by 80% in the night condition. These low ratings were also reflected in soldiers’ concern that auditory sounds might be detected by the enemy, especially at night.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 54

4.7.3 Exit Questionnaire Results: Evaluation of the System The results from the exit questionnaire regarding overall evaluation of the systems are illustrated in Table 7 and discussed.

Table 7: Exit questionnaire acceptance ratings for evaluation of system

Mean acceptability rating and % of participants giving p < 0.05 Significance acceptability rating of at least 4 out of 7 V1D V2D A1D A2D T1D T2D Display 4.08 4.42 4.67 4.91 5.25 5.67 Modality 0.13 Tactical Dimension 0.020** 2D>1D feasibility 67% 67% 83% 83% 83% 83% Interaction 0.63 5.75 6.09 5.75 6.08 5.75 6.17 Modality 0.99 Confidence in Dimension 0.029** 2D>1D system 92% 92% 100% 100% 100% 100% Interaction 0.77 5.42 6.17 5.33 6.08 5.33 5.83 Modality 0.85 Overall mental Dimension 0.013** 2D>1D workload 83% 92% 92% 100% 92% 92% Interaction 0.63 Overall 4.58 5.25 4.92 5.33 5.08 5.58 Modality 0.83 impression of Dimension 0.034** 2D>1D system 75% 75% 92% 92% 83% 92% Interaction 0.65 Note : p < .05 ** The 2D modalities were rated significantly more acceptable than the 1D modalities for tactical feasibility, confidence in the system, overall mental workload, and overall impression of the system. For tactical feasibility and overall impression, the visual systems were rated as acceptable by less than 80% of soldiers. Comments indicated that the visual displays were distracting and impeded the ability to detect hazards and use the rifle sights effectively.

4.7.4 Evaluation of the System Summary Neither the wayfinding nor the exit questionnaires indicated a clear and unqualified overall acceptance for any one modality. In general, ratings indicated that the 2D modalities made a significantly better overall impression than the 1D modalities. In day conditions, the 1D modalities were rated as imposing significantly greater performance workloads than the 2D modalities. Soldiers also demonstrated significantly more confidence in the 2D than the 1D modalities. A higher level of mental effort was required to use a compass than all other modalities at night. Among the 2D modalities and the compass during night conditions, the compass was consistently rated as imposing a significantly greater workload demand than the auditory modality, as well as significantly greater workload demand than the tactile and the visual modalities on many tasks. However, soldiers indicated that the compass might be more acceptable for durability and thermal comfort. They expressed a great deal of trust in the compass, as it has proven itself to be tactically feasible and can always be the last resort should an electronic wayfinding system fail. The tactors created some thermal discomfort because of the torso belt and the requirement to don and doff clothing to use the system. For the NASA TLX workload questionnaire items, comparing the 2D modalities during the day and night, there was an interaction for mental effort and for performance. More specifically, for the 2D mode at night, mental effort was highest in visual and tactile modality and lowest for auditory. For the 2D mode during the day, however, the opposite was true. A parallel pattern of means was seen for the performance dimension.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 55

5. Discussion

This section discusses results system acceptance ratings, pros and cons of each system, possible improvements to support soldier information requirements, and design recommendations for consideration in the next series of experiments.

5.1 Directional Information

Soldiers indicated that all the FIND displays were very easy to learn and were judged to be very accurate. Although soldiers saw 1D modalities as effective, the 2D modalities were rated as noticeably better. Soldiers felt that the 2D displays led them to a target or a bearing more quickly, and with less effort required than the 1D modalities.

5.2 Distance Information

All soldiers indicated that the addition of distance information helped to improve their wayfinding performance. Almost all soldiers preferred the synthetic voice representation of the distance compared to the visual presentation. They liked the synthetic voice because it did not require the remote control button to be depressed. As well, the visual system was difficult to view while moving, and required stopping to be used effectively. The visual system sometimes required adjustment to facilitate viewing. The only concern for the synthetic voice was the volume level. Soldiers desired a volume adjustment to control the volume level. All soldiers expressed a desire for a female voice. However, they did not think that this would affect performance. The distance information was provided in increments of 10 metres from 0 to 200 metres and 50 metre increments from 200 to 500 metres. All soldiers indicated that this degree of accuracy was suitable for the wayfinding tasks.

5.3 Visual

Many soldiers commented that the visual displays were informative. The 2D display was preferred because it gave a clear indication of which direction to turn. Some soldiers indicated that the arrows could be further developed to be “less confusing”, and suggested a display that looked similar to the conventional compass. Although soldiers found the displays informative, almost all reporting disliking the visual modality because it frequently required adjustment, obstructed view, and interfered with the rifle sight. These issues required moving their eyes from the terrain and were reported by soldiers to compromise their sense of safety. Because the HMD required precise alignment, soldiers indicated that the visual display was often “cut-off” and required adjustment of the sight. For the future, continued use of the current HMD would require a more stable mount that locked securely once positioned. Some soldiers suggested that a flip-down sight mounted to the helmet might be preferable, because it could be removed when not needed, and thus not interfere with viewing the terrain. A majority of soldiers indicated a desire for a transparent visual eyepiece such as a heads-up display (HUD) projected onto ballistic eyewear. This should provide a more

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 56

stable platform that does not interfere with sighting the rifle and would not get caught on branches. Moreover, future displays should minimize glare that might make them difficult to read.

5.4 Auditory

All soldiers liked the auditory modality because its system did not impose on their visual field. Most found that the 2D mode provided improved directionality over the 1D system. Some soldiers expressed difficulty detecting whether a sound was coming from the left or right side. This was partially related to the volume level, which was reportedly too loud for some soldiers, causing an echo in the helmet. Soldiers also disliked the static that was sometimes generated by the speakers. Some soldiers suggested that altering the type of sound or pitch might help in distinguishing between sounds. Some soldiers commented that is was a bit difficult to landmark without a visual aim point.

5.5 Tactile

All soldiers in the focus group indicated that the tactors were an improvement over the original 1D configuration with a vertical row of four, closely spaced tactors used in the first experiment (Kumagai and Tack, 2002). Many soldiers liked the tactors because they could be used while moving, allowing continued visual search for targets, or listening for communications and enemy movements. Other modalities, like the visual and compass, could not be used as easily or tactically while moving. Soldiers indicated that future tactile systems could be improved if they were located in more sensitive areas, and were easier to don and doff. Because the abdomen moves in and out with breathing, there were times when tactors’ contact with the skin was decreased. Soldiers indicated that a neck, head, or wrist-mounted system might be more functional. They also suggested that the tactors might be better placed on the back, because they would be more likely to maintain constant contact with the skin. Wrist mounted tactors may cause difficulty if the soldier’s wrists turn or swing in space, disrupting the reference farm. Further research on placement of tactors is recommended. A few soldiers still felt that the tactors were placed too closely together to easily distinguish between signals. In addition, the on-target offset could be increased from 8 to 10 degrees to minimize “flicker.” A few soldiers also indicated that the intensity of the tactors could be increased slightly to improve detection. Although weather conditions were mild and cool (especially at night), some soldiers indicated that the torso belt generated heat build-up. Soldiers suggested that a smaller, lighter, and less intrusive belt system be integrated.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 57

5.6 Compass

Soldiers maintained the importance of using a compass and retaining the associated skills. The compass offered advantages because it was small, compact and lightweight. Compasses are durable and are “almost impossible to break”, and since they do not require batteries, soldiers indicated they had more confidence in the reliability of the compass. The major disadvantages associated with using the compass involved the high mental workload required to pace count and detour around obstacles. The attention required to perform these activities, and to maintain a heading to a landmark, limited the ability to conduct other essential tasks, such as scanning for targets and observing the terrain. Targets or obstacles often made soldiers lose track of their pace count. Using a compass, soldiers tended to “bash through obstacles so as not to have to recalculate bearings or pacing.” They expressed that the compass was nearly impossible to use on the move, which might slow progress. In addition, they expressed extreme difficulty using the compass with NVG’s at night, because their eyes had to continually adjust from the compass to the NVG’s in order to landmark a heading. Major improvements suggested for the compass included features that exist on the FIND system. The FIND system provided distance information to replace the need to pace count. It also allowed soldiers to navigate around obstacles or select alternative routes, because the system continually directed them to the active waypoint. Soldiers indicated that additional training and practice would be required to become proficient with using a map and compass. All soldiers reiterated the requirement to learn basic compass skills.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 58

6. Future Research

Several areas of future research suggested by these results are outlined below.

6.1 Investigate Additional Information for Wayfinding

In addition to directionality and distance to waypoint information, soldiers also expressed the desire to have other forms of wayfinding information. More specifically, information regarding current location, bearing, distance traveled, distance alerts, and waypoint labels were also indicated as valuable forms of information. Grid location should be provided in a 10-figure military grid reference system (MGRS) military format. Bearing information of heading direction should also be provided in MGRS format. Bearings should include indication of major bearings such as North, East, West, and South. Distance information might include both distance to the waypoint and distance traveled (i.e. pedometer). Like the 20m warning, soldiers could be given the option to have various distances automatically provided. This might help to further reduce the requirement to interrogate the system for distances. While desirable, a pedometer is not likely required for effective wayfinding performance. In this study, soldiers were given a verbal indication for “waypoint number __.” For the future, they suggested that this coding might be defined or dictated by the user, in order to give each waypoint a distinctive and mnemonic code. Incorporation of a laser range finder was also suggested as likely to aid in distance estimations.

6.2 Investigate 3D Auditory Displays

The concept of 3D sound was discussed with the soldiers during focus group. A 3D sound system would present tones to the soldiers so that they would perceive the sound to originate from the direction of the waypoint. Soldiers expressed interest in the concept, but commented that it must be easily calibrated to each soldier’s hearing ability. In addition, different speakers, such as bone conduction headphones, should be researched to establish their influence on noise, and minimization of external noise generation. Soldiers reiterated the need for volume adjustment for future auditory displays, and again stated a preference for the use of a female synthetic voice to present the auditory distance information.

6.3 Investigate Alternative Visual Displays

Soldiers liked the 2D visual display used in the experiment. They indicated a desire to investigate the use of a linear rolling compass display and a cross-hair targeting display. These displays would integrate a vertical centerline, which may help to establish landmarks. All soldiers indicated that wayfinding while wearing NVG’s would be improved if the display provided an aim point for landmarking. Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 59

Use of 3D displays that incorporate electronic maps should be investigated in future experiments. Because of the variety of information that can be provided on a map, an investigation should be conducted to establish the essential information to be provided with this capability. Soldiers indicated the helmet-mounted display should be replaced with a transparent heads up display. The transparent display was perceived as a desirable option because it might not obstruct visibility when inactive and may not interfere with the C79 rifle site. Additional research will be required to establish the optimal frame of reference and point of view for a visual display, especially in conjunction with a head mounted display.

6.4 Investigate Alternative Tactile Displays

The concept of 3D tactors was discussed during focus groups. Building upon the existing tactor system, 6 to 8 tactors could be arranged encircling the torso and back (like a belt) around the waist area. The system could be designed such that the tactor closest to the waypoint would vibrate. Most soldiers indicated that the system “sounds confusing.” A majority of soldiers expressed interest in moving away from the torso area because of the difficulty of donning and doffing the system, the heat generated from the torso belt, and the possible clash of the system with other equipment during certain types of movement (e.g. crawling). All soldiers indicated they would need to test the system to assess its functionality, but most desired investigation into alternative locations for tactor placement. The most preferred alternative placement for the tactors were the wrists or forearms. Soldiers suggested investigation into possible wrist mounted displays (e.g. GPS wristwatch with computer interface). For wrist tactors, frequencies might be modulated on either side, and would be simultaneously activated when facing the target. This would simulate the type of bilateral directional information presented in the 2D tactile displays. These might be combined with another display modality (such as the visual modality) to help reinforce information in an alternative sensor pathway.

6.5 Integrate Hardware Improvements

To improve hygiene conditions, a head/helmet mount could be engineered to eliminate the requirement to share a helmet. Although the remote controls had been improved to provide tactile feedback upon activation, some soldiers indicated that the signal was intermittent, and buttons had to be pushed forcibly to interrogate the system. This difficulty resulted from the continued use of soiled remotes, rather than because of battery drain or circuit malfunction. Ease of use may be improved by wiring the remote control button to activate and deactivate the displays. Options for input devices should be investigated to improve tactility and durability. Soldiers liked the wireless ability of the remote controls.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 60

6.6 Integrate Software Improvements

To improve ease of data collection, the FIND system software could be enabled to automatically detect rifle fire and mark the file, thus eliminating the need for an experimenter to mark the file when a target is engaged. Future potential options include: • Capability to integrate different modalities within one experimental run. • Capability to scroll through waypoints during a route. For example, enroute to waypoint #2, the soldiers could stop and scroll through waypoints to find out where waypoint #4 is in relation to their current position. They could then return to waypoint #2 and continue travel. • Integrate the mission planning process, where soldiers look at maps and touch desired waypoint locations, or make routes. • Eliminate the need to physically open the FIND system box on each route by programming all route options and selecting from a list. • Reduce angle offset of each level as distance to waypoint decreases. (e.g. reduce ±8° to ±6°) • Integrate more controls for the soldiers to accommodate the optional display of information. This information may include direction, range to waypoint, location, bearing, change waypoint, and target engagement trigger. • If cost effective, the FIND system could be made smaller and more lightweight. Future requirements include water resistance and a rugged exterior for actual soldier environments. In case of breakdown, soldiers expressed the need for the FIND system to continue indicating a final bearing or location so they could continue their mission without the system. As well, the system should be quickly and easily cleared in the event of capture.

6.7 Incorporate Methodology Improvements

A majority of soldiers indicated that they desired the option to use various modalities in combination. Future experiments may investigate the effect of combining two or more modalities as well as integrate hand held or wrist mounted devices. Soldiers expressed the desire to refer to maps, since terrain and situational awareness are important aspects of navigation. Future methodologies might incorporate maps and route planning as part of the experimental protocol to improve the construct validity. At night, a sight compatible with the NVG’s, which may include a laser sight, should be used.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 61

7. References

Kumagai, J.K.and Tack, D.W. (2002). Alternative Display Modalities in Support of Wayfinding. SIREQ Report #9.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page 62

Annex A Questionnaires

1. Personal Information Questionnaire...... A-2 2. Wayfinding Questionnaire ...... A-4 3. NASA TLX Workload Questionnaire...... A-9 4. Exit Questionnaire...... A-10

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page A-1 PROTECTED B PROTECTED B ® (not for release to industry) DRAFT 11/04/2005 Please provide the requested information in the spaces provided:

Name Service Number MOC

jjjjjjjjjjj kkkkkkkkk kkkk Rank Gender

Private $ Junior NCO $ Senior NCO $ Male $ Female $ Length of Service Age Months since last PWT (Regular and Reserve)

jj years jj years jj months Operational Experience (By Theatre)

Middle East $ Golan Heights $ Sinai $ Croatia $ Bosnia $ Rwanda $ Somalia $ Haiti $ Cyprus $ Cambodia $ Do you wear Shooting Eye Handedness glasses/contacts? Yes No Right Left Right Left $ $ $ $ $ $ Operational Experience With NVGs/NVDs Please rate your training and or operational experience you’ve had with NVGs and NVDs (including previous research studies). $ None $ Some $ Moderate $ Extensive Please describe any training or operational experience while wearing night vision goggles, or night vision devices.

Training/Operational Experience in Dismounted Navigation Please describe any training/operational experience you’ve had in dismounted navigation.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page A-2 PROTECTED B PROTECTED B ® (not for release to industry) DRAFT 11/04/2005 Skill Please rate your map reading skills $ Terrible $ Poor $ Fair $ Good $ Excellent Please rate your Land Navigation skills $ Terrible $ Poor $ Fair $ Good $ Excellent Please rate your abilty to pace count $ Terrible $ Poor $ Fair $ Good $ Excellent Please rate your ability to use a compass $ Terrible $ Poor $ Fair $ Good $ Excellent Experience Please rate your training and/or operational experience using a compass $ None $ Some $ Moderate $ Extensive Please rate your training and/or operational experience using a Helmet Mounted Display $ None $ Some $ Moderate $ Extensive Please rate your training and/or operational experience using a PLGR ( GPS ) $ None $ Some $ Moderate $ Extensive Please rate your training and/or operational experience reading a topographical map $ None $ Some $ Moderate $ Extensive Night Blindness Colour Blindness Do you suffer from night blindness? YES $ NO $ Are you colour blind ? YES $ NO $ Experience with Novel Weapon Sights Please rate your training and/or operational experience using a compass $ None $ Some $ Moderate $ Extensive Please describe your experience and what novel weapon sights you used during operations/training:

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page A-3 PROTECTED B PROTECTED B ® (not for release to industry) DRAFT 11/04/2005 How To Fill Out The Wayfinding Questionnaire

• There are eight sections of the experimental system for you to assess. They are Wayfinding, Terrain Traverse, Target Detection, Usability, Compatibility & Evaluation of System. • In each section, there are questions regarding different aspects of the system. • These questions address issues of functionality and performance. • Additional Space has been provided for you to address any specific problems you might have encountered while using the system.

USING THE SCALE Take a moment to look at this scale and make sure you understand it.

REMEMBER • Check only one answer per question • Answer every question • In the Comments section, don’t worry about spelling. This is not a test. We want you ideas • There are no correct answers. We want your honest opinion, not your friend’s.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page A-4 PROTECTED B PROTECTED B ® (not for release to industry) DRAFT 11/04/2005

SUBJECT ID # lll TIME: DAY NIGHT

DISPLAY: Visual 1D Auditory 1D Tactile 1D

Visual 2D Auditory 2D Tactile 2D

RATE THE ACCEPTABILITY OF THE DISPLAY ON THE CRITERIA LISTED BELOW USING THE SCALE ILLUSTRATED.

User Acceptance Rating WAYFINDING ☺ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ease of use while moving $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Ease of use while stationary $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Detecting signals while moving $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Detecting signals while stationary $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Determining the direction of the waypoint $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Determining the distance to the waypoint $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Determining when the waypoint had been reached $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Maintaining my pace while using the system $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Maintaining my heading while using the system $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Navigating back to the original route (after obstacles) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Overall Effectiveness Of Wayfinding With System $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page A-5 PROTECTED B PROTECTED B ® (not for release to industry) DRAFT 11/04/2005

User Acceptance Rating TERRAIN TRAVERSE ☺ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Standing $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Kneeling $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Walking $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Pace Counting $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Detecting terrain contours $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Detecting ground level hazards $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Detecting waist level hazards $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Detecting eye level hazards $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Detecting objects along path $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Navigating around hazards / obstacles $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Overall Ease Of Terrain Traverse With System $ $ $ $ $ $ $

TARGET DETECTION

Searching for targets $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Detecting targets $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Engaging targets $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Overall Target Detection & Engagement With System $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page A-6 PROTECTED B PROTECTED B ® (not for release to industry) DRAFT 11/04/2005

User Acceptance Rating USABILITY ☺ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Ease of learning the system $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Ease of operating the system $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Ease of accessing information $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Amount of distance information presented $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Amount of directional information presented $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Ease of distinguishing between directional signal levels $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Ease of distinguishing between distance signal levels $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Overall Usability $ $ $ $ $ $ $

COMPATIBILITY

Compatibility (interference) with clothing $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Compatibility (interference) with weapon $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Compatibility (interference) with equipment $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Overall Compatibility Rating $ $ $ $ $ $ $

EVALUATION OF SYSTEM

Confidence in the system $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Thermal comfort $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Mental workload $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Tactical feasibility $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Accuracy of the system $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Durability of the system $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Overall Acceptability of System $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page A-7 PROTECTED B PROTECTED B ® (not for release to industry) DRAFT 11/04/2005

LIKES: Indicate the features/ information you liked the best

DISLIKES: Indicate the features/ information you liked the least

IMPROVEMENTS: How would you improve wayfinding in military applications ?

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page A-8 PROTECTED B PROTECTED B ® (not for release to industry) DRAFT 11/04/2005

SUBJECT ID # : <<< TIME : DAY NIGHT DISPLAY: Visual 1D Auditory 1D Tactile 1D

Visual 2D Auditory 2D Tactile 2D Section A: Rate the trial by marking each scale at the point which matches your experience. Each line has two endpoint descriptors to help describe the scale. Please consider your responses to these scales carefully.

MENTAL DEMAND (thinking, deciding, searching, remembering)

Low High (easy, simple) (demanding, complex)

PHYSICAL DEMAND (controlling, operating, activating)

Low High (easy, restful) (demanding, laborious)

TEMPORAL DEMAND (time pressure)

Low High (leisurely) (frantic)

PERFORMANCE (how successful and how satisfied were you with performing this task?)

Good Poor

EFFORT (how hard did you have to work, both mentally and physically?)

Low High

FRUSTRATION

Low High (gratified, complacent) (discouraged, annoyed)

Section B: Comments (Use back of page if required)

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page A-9 PROTECTED B PROTECTED B ® (not for release to industry) DRAFT 11/04/2005

Visual 1D Visual 2D Auditory 1D Auditory 2D Tactile 1D Tactile 2D

☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Detect Targets $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Comments: Engage Targets $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Comments:: Terrain Traverse $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Comments: Compatibility $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Comments:

Presentation of distance info. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Comments:

Presentation of directional info. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Comments:

Discrimination between distance $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ signals Comments:

Discrimination between directional $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ signals

Comments:

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page A-10 PROTECTED B PROTECTED B ® (not for release to industry) DRAFT 11/04/2005

Visual 1D Visual 2D Auditory 1D Auditory 2D Tactile 1D Tactile 2D

☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Bearing Acquisition $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Comments: Locate waypoint $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Comments:

Navigate around obstacles/hazards $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Comments: Tactical feasibility $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Comments:

Confidence in system $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Comments: Overall usability $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Comments:

Overall mental workload $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Comments:

Overall impression of interface design $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Comments:

Overall impression of system $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page A-11 PROTECTED B PROTECTED B ® (not for release to industry) DRAFT 11/04/2005

Likes: indicate the features of the system you liked Dislikes: indicate the features of the system you Improvements: indicate the improvements you would like Additional Comments the most disliked the most to see to the current wayfinding systems

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page A-12 PROTECTED B

Annex B Wayfinding Questionnaire Results

1. Navigation Results ...... B-2 2. Terrain Traverse Results...... B-4 3. Target Detection and Engagement Results...... B-6 4. Usability Results ...... B-7 5. Compatibility Results...... B-9 6. Evaluation of System Results ...... B-9

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page B-1

Table 1: Wayfinding questionnaire acceptance ratings for navigation Mean acceptability rating and % of participants giving acceptability rating of at least 4 out of 7 DAY NIGHT 1D 2D compass 2D V1D A1D T1D V2D A2D T2D C V2D A2D T2D n 12 12 12 10/12 10/12 10/12 9 9/10 9/10 9/10 Ease of use 4.3 5.2 4.8 5.2/5.1 5.2/5.0 5.5/5.3 3.9 5.7/5.6 5.7/5.7 5.0/5.1 while moving 67% 83% 83% 83% 83% 83% 44% 100% 100% 90% Ease of use 5.6 6.0 5.6 6.6/6.4 6.0/6.0 6.1/6.0 6.3 6.4/6.4 6.4/6.4 5.9/6.0 while stationary 92% 100% 92% 100% 100% 92% 100% 100% 100% 100% Detecting signals 4.0 4.9 4.6 5.3/4.9 5.0/4.8 5.0/4.9 3.0 5.6/5.4 5.3/5.4 4.7/4.8 while moving 67% 83% 67% 83% 83% 75% 11% 100% 100% 80% Detecting signals 5.8 6.1 5.5 6.4/6.3 6.2/6.2 6.0/5.9 6.2 6.5/6.4 6.5/6.5 5.9/5.9 while stationary 100% 100% 92% 100% 100% 92% 100% 100% 100% 100% Determining the 5.7 5.6 5.3 6.6/6.5 6.0/6.0 5.9/5.7 5.9 6.6/6.5 6.5/6.4 5.8/5.9 direction of the 92% 92% 83% 100% 100% 83% 100% 100% 100% 100% waypoint

Determining the 6.4 6.7 6.4 6.8/6.7 6.8/6.7 6.6/6.6 5.9 6.7/6.7 6.6/6.6 6.7/6.8 distance to the 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 78% 100% 100% 100% waypoint

Determining 6.3 6.0 5.7 6.6/6.4 6.3/6.3 5.9/6.0 4.9 6.6/6.6 6.2/6.3 5.5/5.5 when waypoint 100% 100% 92% 100% 100% 92% 89% 100% 100% 90% reached

Maintaining my 5.2 5.7 5.1 6.1/5.8 5.8/5.7 5.5/5.4 4.9 5.9/5.9 5.8/5.8 5.3/5.4 pace while using 83% 100% 83% 92% 100% 92% 89% 100% 90% 90% the system

Maintaining my 5.8 6.2 5.7 6.4/6.4 6.2/6.2 6.0/6.1 5.0 6.2/6.2 6.1/6.1 5.7/5.8 heading while 100% 100% 92% 100% 100% 100% 78% 100% 100% 92% using the system

Navigating back 6.0 6.0 5.9 6.3/6.3 6.2/6.2 5.6/5.8 4.9 6.2/6.2 6.2/6.2 5.8/5.9 to the original 100% 100% 92% 100% 100% 92% 78% 100% 100% 92% route (after obstacles)

Overall 5.6 5.8 5.3 6.3/6.2 6.0/6.0 5.7/5.8 5.1 6.5/6.4 6.3/6.3 5.5/5.5 Effectiveness of 92% 100% 92% 100% 100% 92% 100% 100% 100% 90% Wayfinding

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page B-2

Table 2: Navigation summary of all effects of wayfinding questionnaire (p values)

Main Effect 1D vs. 2D Day 2D Night 2D Day vs. Night (n=12) (n=9 includes compass.) (n=10) Ease of use MODALITY 0.50 0.01** V, A>C 0.93 while moving DIMENSION 0.10 - - TIME - - 0.51 INTERACTION 0.13 - 0.15 Ease of use MODALITY 0.71 0.26 0.34 while stationary DIMENSION 0.01** 2D>1D - - TIME - - 0.78 INTERACTION 0.07* V2D>V1D,T1D - 0.11 Detecting signals MODALITY 0.64 0.01** V,A,T>C 0.47 while moving DIMENSION 0.10 - - TIME - - 0.68 INTERACTION 0.084 - 0.38 Detecting signals MODALITY 0.42 0.18 0.26 while stationary DIMENSION 0.01** 2D>1D - - TIME - - 0.58 INTERACTION 0.18 - 0.45 Determining the MODALITY 0.23 0.09 0.14 direction of the DIMENSION 0.02** 2D>1D - - waypoint TIME - - 0.54 INTERACTION 0.36 - 0.30 Determining the MODALITY 0.46 0.01** V,A,T>C 0.81 distance to the DIMENSION 0.05 - - waypoint TIME - - 0.38 INTERACTION 0.52 - 0.13 Determining MODALITY 0.31 0.01** V>T; V,A>C 0.02** V>T when the DIMENSION 0.03** 2D>1D - - waypoint had TIME - - 0.28 been reached INTERACTION 0.84 - 0.57 Maintaining my MODALITY 0.36 0.08 0.14 pace while using DIMENSION 0.04** - - the system 2D>1D TIME - - 0.71 INTERACTION 0.29 - 0.87 Maintaining my MODALITY 0.50 0.01** V, A > C 0.07 heading while DIMENSION 0.07 - - using the system TIME - - 0.32 INTERACTION 0.13 - 0.87 Navigating back MODALITY 0.52 0.01** V,A,T>C 0.040** N.S. to the original DIMENSION 0.33 - - route (after TIME - - 0.77 obstacles) INTERACTION 0.13 - 0.42 Overall MODALITY 0.60 0.01** V, A >C 0.21 Effectiveness of DIMENSION 0.04** 2D>1D - - Wayfinding with TIME - - 0.69 system INTERACTION 0.29 - 0.045** A2D_D>T2D_N; V2D_N,A2D_N, V2D_D>T2D_D, T2D_N Note : p < .05 **

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page B-3

Table 3: Wayfinding questionnaire acceptance ratings for terrain traverse

Mean acceptability rating and % of participants giving acceptability rating of at least 4 out of 7 DAY NIGHT 1D 2D compass 2D V1D A1D T1D V2D A2D T2D C V2D A2D T2D n 12 12 12 10/12 10/12 10/12 9 9/10 9/10 9/10 Standing 5.8 6.1 5.8 6.6/6.1 6.1/6.1 6.3/6.3 6.3 6.3/6.3 6.1/6.1 6.3/6.3 92% 100% 100% 92% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Kneeling 5.5 5.8 4.9 6.2/5.7 6.1/6.0 6.0/6.0 6.6 6.3/6.1 6.5/6.4 5.5/5.4 92% 100% 83% 92% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% Walking 5.0 5.8 5.4 6.0/5.7 5.5/5.5 5.9/5.9 5.1 5.8/5.7 5.8/5.8 5.6/5.5 83% 92% 92% 92% 92% 100% 67% 100% 100% 100% Pace Counting 5.3 5.5 5.3 5.6/5.4 5.6/5.6 5.6/5.5 4.9 5.2/5.2 5.3/5.3 5.5/5.6 100% 100% 92% 92% 100% 100% 78% 90% 90% 100% Detecting terrain 5.7 6.3 6.4 6.2/5.8 6.4/6.3 6.5/6.4 5.8 5.3/5.4 5.8/5.8 5.3/5.4 contours 92% 100% 100% 92% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% Detecting ground 5.2 6.3 6.3 5.9/5.5 6.3/6.3 6.4/6.3 5.3 4.8/4.7 5.2/5.3 4.9/4.9 level hazards 83% 100% 100% 92% 100% 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% Detecting waist 5.8 6.4 6.3 6.1/5.7 6.4/6.3 6.4/6.3 5.5 4.9/4.9 5.2/5.3 5.0/5.1 level hazards 92% 100% 100% 92% 100% 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% Detecting eye level 5.4 6.5 6.3 6.1/5.7 6.5/6.4 6.4/6.3 5.7 5.0/5.1 5.6/5.5 5.2/5.3 hazards 83% 100% 100% 92% 100% 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% Detecting objects 5.7 6.3 6.3 6.0/5.6 6.6/6.5 6.5/6.4 5.8 4.8/4.8 5.6/5.6 4.9/4.9 along path 92% 100% 100% 92% 100% 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% Navigating around 5.8 6.4 6.2 6.5/6.3 6.6/6.5 6.3/6.3 5.1 5.7/5.6 6.2/6.2 5.4/5.4 hazards/obstacles 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 89% 100% 100% 90% Overall Ease of 5.2 6.2 5.9 6.2/5.8 6.2/6.2 6.1/6.1 5.3 5.5/5.4 5.9/5.9 5.3/5.4 Terrain Traverse 83% 100% 92% 92% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% with System Note: Running, jumping, and crawling were not included because less than 25 percent of soldiers responded to these items.

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page B-4

Table 4: Terrain traverse summary of all effects

Main Effect 1D vs. 2D Day 2D Night 2D Day vs. (n=12) (n=9 includes Night compass) (n=10) Standing MODALITY 0.85 0.73 0.10 DIMENSION 0.10 - - TIME - - 0.24 INTERACTION 0.22 - 0.41 Kneeling MODALITY 0.50 0.02** A,C>T 0.15 DIMENSION 0.02** - - 2D>1D TIME - - 0.24 INTERACTION 0.023** A1D, A2D, T2D>T1D - 0.072 Walking MODALITY 0.64 0.44 0.73 DIMENSION 0.11 - - TIME - - 0.48 INTERACTION 0.05** T2D>V1D - 0.18 Pace Counting MODALITY 0.75 0.55 0.80 DIMENSION 0.13 - - TIME - - 0.46 INTERACTION 0.98 - 0.034** Detecting terrain MODALITY 0.07 0.40 0.39 contours DIMENSION 0.49 - - TIME - - 0.013** D>N INTERACTION 0.57 - 0.33 Detecting ground MODALITY 0.01** A,T>V 0.52 0.07 level hazards DIMENSION 0.27 - - TIME - - 0.008** D>N INTERACTION 0.27 - 0.56 Detecting waist MODALITY 0.04** A>V 0.53 0.15 level hazards DIMENSION 0.44 - - TIME - - 0.007** D>N INTERACTION 0.90 - 0.93 Detecting eye MODALITY 0.010** A,T>V 0.37 0.23 level hazards DIMENSION 0.62 - - TIME - - 0.0148** D>N INTERACTION 0.49 - 0.94 Detecting objects MODALITY 0.01** A,T>V 0.08 0.007** A>V along path DIMENSION 0.29 - - TIME - - 0.014** D>N INTERACTION 0.69 - 0.37 Navigating around MODALITY 0.23 0.02** A>C 0.050** A>T hazards/obstacles DIMENSION 0.02** 2D>1D - - TIME - - 0.001** D>N INTERACTION 0.17 - 0.17 Overall Ease of MODALITY 0.11 0.10 0.15 Terrain Traverse DIMENSION 0.07 - - with System TIME - - 0.012** D>N INTERACTION 0.16 - 0.24

Note : p < .05 **

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page B-5

Table 5: Wayfinding questionnaire acceptance ratings for target detection and engagement Mean acceptability rating and % of participants giving acceptability rating of at least 4 out of 7 DAY NIGHT 1D 2D compass 2D V1D A1D T1D V2D A2D T2D C V2D A2D T2D n 12 12 12 10/12 10/12 10/12 9 9/10 9/10 9/10 Searching for targets 5.3 6.3 6.3 6.0/5.7 6.8/6.4 6.5/6.4 5.5 5.5/5.4 5.7/5.7 5.3/5.4 83% 92% 100% 92% 92% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Detecting targets 5.8 6.6 6.5 6.0/5.7 6.8/6.8 6.5/6.4 5.2 5.1/5.1 5.7/5.7 5.5/5.5 92% 100% 100% 92% 100% 100% 89% 90% 100% 100% Engaging targets 5.6 6.6 6.4 5.9/5.7 6.7/6.7 6.5/6.5 5.5 5.2/5.3 5.3/5.4 5.6/5.6 83% 100% 100% 83% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Overall Target Detection 5.8 6.3 6.3 6.2/5.8 6.8/6.7 6.5/6.5 5.3 5.2/5.2 5.8/5.8 5.5/5.6 & Engagement with 92% 92% 100% 92% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% System

Table 6: Target detection and engagement summary of all effects

Main Effect 1D vs. 2D Day 2D Night 2D Day vs. Night (n=12) (n=9 includes (n=10) compass) Searching for MODALITY 0.006** A,T>V 0.77 0.013** A>V targets DIMENSION 0.027** 2D>1D - - TIME - - 0.001** D>N INTERACTION 0.72 - 0.28 Detecting targets MODALITY 0.002** A,T>V 0.48 0.001** A,T>V DIMENSION 1.0 - - TIME - - 0.001** D>N INTERACTION 0.49 - 0.89 Engaging targets MODALITY 0.028** A>V 0.78 0.10 DIMENSION 0.19 - - TIME - - 0.005** D>N INTERACTION 1.0 - 0.49 Overall Target MODALITY 0.040** A>V 0.31 0.004** A>V Detection and DIMENSION 0.09 - - Engagement with TIME - - 0.001** D>N System INTERACTION 6.1 - 0.92 Note : p < .05 **

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page B-6

Table 7: Wayfinding questionnaire acceptance ratings for usability results Mean acceptability rating and % of participants giving acceptability rating of at least 4 out of 7 DAY NIGHT

1D 2D compass 2D V1D A1D T1D V2D A2D T2D C V2D A2D T2D n 12 12 12 10/12 10/12 10/12 9 9/10 9/10 9/10 Ease of learning the 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.6/6.5 6.1/6.1 6.4/6.3 5.0 6.5/6.4 6.6/6.5 6.4/6.4 system 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 89% 100% 100% 100% Ease of operating the 6.3 6.2 6.0 6.3/6.3 6.3/6.3 6.5/6.4 5.1 6.5/6.4 6.5/6.4 6.1/6.1 system 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 89% 100% 100% 100% Ease of accessing 5.8 5.9 6.1 6.3/6.3 6.3/6.3 6.2/5.9 5.0 6.5/6.3 6.2/6.2 6.0/6.0 information 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 92% 89% 100% 100% 100% Amount of distance 6.5 6.6 6.3 6.6/6.5 6.7/6.6 6.6/6.5 4.6 6.7/6.6 6.7/6.6 6.4/6.4 information presented 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 78% 100% 100% 100% Amount of directional 5.6 5.8 5.3 6.6/6.5 6.2/6.2 6.1/6.0 5.3 6.3/6.3 6.0/6.0 5.9/6.0 information presented 83% 92% 83% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Ease of distinguishing 5.6 5.7 4.8 6.6/6.5 5.8/5.8 5.6/5.4 5.8 6.6/6.4 6.0/6.1 5.9/5.9 between directional signal 83% 92% 83% 100% 92% 83% 100% 100% 100% 90% levels

Ease of distinguishing 6.4 6.3 5.8 6.8/6.7 6.5/6.4 6.4/6.3 5.0 6.6/6.6 6.2/6.2 6.6/6.5 between distance signal 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 89% 100% 100% 100% levels

Overall Usability 5.9 6.1 5.4 6.5/6.4 6.2/6.1 6.1/6.0 5.3 6.6/6.5 6.3/6.3 5.6/5.8 100% 100% 92% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 92%

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page B-7

Table 8: Usability summary of all effects

Main Effect 1D vs. 2D Day 2D Night 2D Day vs. Night (n=12) (n=9 includes (n=10) compass) Ease of learning the MODALITY 0.13 0.001*V, A>C 0.24 system DIMENSION 0.78 - - TIME - - 0.66 INTERACTION 0.49 - 0.18 Ease of operating MODALITY 0.96 0.003** V,A>C 0.94 the system DIMENSION 0.26 - - TIME - - 0.51 INTERACTION 0.23 - 0.15 Ease of accessing MODALITY 0.90 0.007** V,A>C 0.57 information DIMENSION 0.050** 2D>1D - - TIME - - 0.61 INTERACTION 0.08 - 0.73 Amount of distance MODALITY 0.55 0.001** V,A,T>C 0.55 information DIMENSION 0.55 - - presented TIME - - 0.53 INTERACTION 0.75 - 0.69 Amount of MODALITY 0.07 0.053* V>C 0.18 directional DIMENSION 0.02** 2D>1D - - information TIME - - 0.14 presented INTERACTION 0.35 - 0.81 Ease of MODALITY 0.13 0.18 0.23 distinguishing DIMENSION 0.043** 2D>1D - - between directional TIME - - 0.48 signal levels INTERACTION 0.35 - 0.43 Ease of MODALITY 0.25 0.004** V,A,T>C 0.44 distinguishing DIMENSION 0.017** 2D>1D - - between distance TIME - - 0.21 signal levels INTERACTION 0.18 - 0.37 Overall Usability MODALITY 0.18 0.014** V>C 0.22 DIMENSION 0.010** 2D>1D - - TIME - - 0.52 INTERACTION 0.05* - 0.14 V2D_D, A2D_D, T2D_D, A1D_D>T1D_D Note : p < .05 **

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page B-8

Table 9: Wayfinding questionnaire acceptance ratings for compatibility Mean acceptability rating and % of participants giving acceptability rating of at least 4 out of 7 DAY NIGHT

1D 2D compass 2D V1D A1D T1D V2D A2D T2D C V2D A2D T2D n 12 12 12 10/12 10/12 10/12 9 9/10 9/10 9/10 Compatibility 6.1 6.3 4.7 6.3/6.2 6.2/6.2 5.1/5.2 6.4 6.1/6.2 5.6/5.7 4.8/4.9 (interference) with clothing 100% 100% 75% 100% 100% 83% 100% 100% 92% 80% Compatibility 5.2 6.3 5.8 5.8/5.5 6.5/6.4 5.7/5.8 6.0 4.9/5.1 5.8/5.8 5.7/5.8 (interference) with weapon 83% 100% 100% 83% 100% 100% 89% 80% 100% 100% Compatibility 5.7 5.9 5.2 5.9/5.8 6.1/6.1 5.4/5.5 6.1 5.9/6.0 5.6/5.7 5.3/5.4 (interference) with 100% 92% 92% 100% 100% 92% 89% 100% 90% 100% equipment

Overall Compatibility 5.8 6.0 5.3 6.0/5.7 6.3/6.3 5.4/5.4 6.3 5.8/5.9 5.5/5.5 5.3/5.4 Rating 92% 100% 92% 92% 100% 92% 100% 100% 90% 90%

Table 10: Compatibility summary of all effects

Main Effect 1D vs. 2D Day 2D Night 2D Day vs. Night (n=12) (n=9 includes (n=10) compass) Compatibility MODALITY 0.006** V,A>T 0.009** V,C>T 0.022** V>T (interference) with DIMENSION 0.053 - - clothing TIME - - 0.08 INTERACTION 0.13 - 0.55 Compatibility MODALITY 0.050* A>V 0.27 0.20 (interference) with DIMENSION 0.37 - - weapon TIME - - 0.040** D>N INTERACTION 0.51 - 0.27 Compatibility MODALITY 0.07 0.35 0.12 (interference) with DIMENSION 0.007** 2D>1D - - equipment TIME - - 0.48 INTERACTION 0.91 - 0.43 Overall Compatibility MODALITY 0.11 0.20 0.23 Rating DIMENSION 0.28 - - TIME - - 0.11 INTERACTION 0.42 - 0.12 Note : p < .05 **

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page B-9

Table 11: Wayfinding questionnaire acceptance ratings for evaluation of system Mean acceptability rating and % of participants giving acceptability rating of at least 4 out of 7 DAY NIGHT

1D 2D compass 2D V1D A1D T1D V2D A2D T2D C V2D A2D T2D n 12 12 12 10/12 10/12 10/12 9 9/10 9/10 9/10 5.5 5.8 5.7 6.5/6.3 6.0/5.8 5.9/5.8 6.0 6.2/6.2 6.0/6.1 5.6/5.6 Confidence in the system 92% 92% 100% 100% 100% 92% 100% 100% 100% 90% 5.2 5.3 4.3 5.1/5.2 5.4/5.5 4.8/4.8 6.6 5.3/5.4 5.1/5.3 4.2/4.4 Thermal comfort 83% 92% 58% 92% 83% 75% 100% 100% 90% 70% 5.6 6.0 5.8 6.3/6.3 5.8/5.8 5.9/5.9 4.6 6.0/6.0 6.2/6.2 5.4/5.4 Mental workload 92% 100% 92% 100% 100% 92% 78% 100% 100% 90% 5.1 4.8 5.3 5.8/5.4 5.1/4.8 5.6/5.7 6.4 5.3/5.3 5.1/5.2 5.9/5.9 Tactical feasibility 83% 75% 83% 100% 75% 100% 100% 100% 80% 90% 6.2 5.9 5.8 6.4/6.4 5.9/5.9 6.1/6.1 5.9 6.3/6.3 6.1/6.1 5.6/5.6 Accuracy of the system 100% 100% 92% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 5.1 5.1 5.1 5.0/5.2 5.3/5.4 4.7/4.9 6.8 5.7/5.7 5.0/5.1 4.5/4.6 Durability of the system 92% 83% 83% 92% 92% 83% 100% 100% 80% 70% 5.2 5.5 5.6 6.2/5.9 5.8/5.8 5.3/5.3 6.0 5.9/5.9 5.8/5.8 5.2/5.3 Overall Acceptability 83% 92% 92% 92% 100% 92% 100% 100% 100% 90%

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page B-10

Table 12: Evaluation of system summary of all effects

Main Effect 1D vs. 2D Day 2D Night 2D Day vs. Night (n=12) (n=9 includes (n=10) compass) Confidence in the MODALITY 0.91 0.39 0.21 system DIMENSION 0.039** 2D>1D - - TIME - - 0.49 INTERACTION 0.32 - 0.40 Thermal comfort MODALITY 0.05 0.003* C>T 0.06 DIMENSION 0.09 - - TIME - - 0.81 INTERACTION 0.52 - 0.42 Mental workload MODALITY 0.94 0.005** V,A>C 0.30 DIMENSION 0.18 - - TIME - - 0.50 INTERACTION 0.15 - 0.013** A2D_N, V2D_D>T2D_N Tactical feasibility MODALITY 0.33 0.08 0.09 DIMENSION 0.14 - - TIME - - 0.91 INTERACTION 0.52 - 0.31 Accuracy of the MODALITY 0.17 0.22 0.18 system DIMENSION 0.31 - - TIME - - 0.52 INTERACTION 0.61 - 0.22 Durability of the MODALITY 0.79 0.008** C>A,T 0.15 system DIMENSION 0.61 - - TIME - - 0.68 INTERACTION 0.50 - 0.32 Overall Acceptability MODALITY 0.91 0.18 0.09 of System DIMENSION 0.10 - - TIME - - 0.62 INTERACTION 0.07 - 0.58 Note : p < .05 **

Humansystems® Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding Page B-11 UNCLASSIFIED

DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA (Security classification of the title, body of abstract and indexing annotation must be entered when the overall document is classified)

1. ORIGINATOR (The name and address of the organization preparing the document, Organizations 2. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION for whom the document was prepared, e.g. Centre sponsoring a contractor's report, or tasking agency, (Overall security classification of the document are entered in section 8.) including special warning terms if applicable.) Publishing: DRDC UNCLASSIFIED Toronto Performing: Humansystems® Incorporated, 111 Farquhar St., 2nd floor, Guelph, ON N1H 3N4 Monitoring: Contracting: DRDC Toronto

3. TITLE (The complete document title as indicated on the title page. Its classification is indicated by the appropriate abbreviation (S, C, R, or U) in parenthesis at the end of the title) Alternative Directional Modalities in Support of Wayfinding (U)

4. AUTHORS (First name, middle initial and last name. If military, show rank, e.g. Maj. John E. Doe.) Jason K. Kumagai; David W. Tack ; Heather J. Colbert

5. DATE OF PUBLICATION 6a NO. OF PAGES 6b. NO. OF REFS (Month and year of publication of document.) (Total containing information, including (Total cited in document.) Annexes, Appendices, etc.) July 2005 1 102

7. DESCRIPTIVE NOTES (The category of the document, e.g. technical report, technical note or memorandum. If appropriate, enter the type of report, e.g. interim, progress, summary, annual or final. Give the inclusive dates when a specific reporting period is covered.) Contract Report

8. SPONSORING ACTIVITY (The names of the department project office or laboratory sponsoring the research and development − include address.) Sponsoring: DLR 5, NDHQ OTTAWA,ON K1A OK2 Tasking:

9a. PROJECT OR GRANT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable 9b. CONTRACT NO. (If appropriate, the applicable number under which research and development project or grant under which the document was the document was written.) written. Please specify whether project or grant.) W7711−007685/001/TOR 12QG01

10a. ORIGINATOR'S DOCUMENT NUMBER (The official 10b. OTHER DOCUMENT NO(s). (Any other numbers under which document number by which the document is identified by the originating may be assigned this document either by the originator or by the activity. This number must be unique to this document) sponsor.) DRDC Toronto CR−2005−068 SIREQ #19

11. DOCUMENT AVAILABILIY (Any limitations on the dissemination of the document, other than those imposed by security classification.) Defence departments in approved countries − Document has initial limited distribution through Exploitation Manager − TTCP and NATO countries and agencies − Unlimited after initial limited distribution

12. DOCUMENT ANNOUNCEMENT (Any limitation to the bibliographic announcement of this document. This will normally correspond to the Document Availability (11), However, when further distribution (beyond the audience specified in (11) is possible, a wider announcement audience may be selected.)) Other − Document to have initial Limited announcement

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED

DOCUMENT CONTROL DATA (Security classification of the title, body of abstract and indexing annotation must be entered when the overall document is classified)

13. ABSTRACT (A brief and factual summary of the document. It may also appear elsewhere in the body of the document itself. It is highly desirable that the abstract of classified documents be unclassified. Each paragraph of the abstract shall begin with an indication of the security classification of the information in the paragraph (unless the document itself is unclassified) represented as (S), (C), (R), or (U). It is not necessary to include here abstracts in both official languages unless the text is bilingual.) (U) The aims of this study were: to determine the information requirements for effective wayfinding in wooded terrain during both day and night conditions; to determine the utility of each of three different display modalities (visual, auditory, and tactual) for enhancing wayfinding capabilities; to assess the effectiveness of wayfinding systems that provide both location and directional information (2D) as compared to systems that provide only location information (1D); to determine the benefits and/or drawbacks of providing ‘distance from the waypoint’ information; to identify the interface design issues associated with each modality; and to determine the requirements for design optimization and future experimentation. Twelve infantry soldiers were required to navigate routes using the FIND (Future Infantry Navigation Device) system for enhanced wayfinding information in three different display modalities: visual, auditory, and tactile displays. For each modality, two systems were tested. The first was a one−dimensional system (1D) that provided information on the location of the waypoint, and how far the soldier had to turn in order to face the waypoint. The second was a two−dimensional system (2D) that provided the same information as the 1D system as well as directional information indicating the quickest way to turn in order to face the waypoint. The current in−service condition of using a compass and pace counting was piloted at night on a shortened route. To simulate the tactical demands of operational wayfinding, soldiers were required to engage enemy targets and navigate around obstacles enroute. Data collection included questionnaires, focus groups, performance measures and Human Factors (HF) observer assessments. Overall, participants indicated that all of the FIND displays were very easy to learn and were perceived to be very accurate. Participants felt the 1D modalities were effective, but the 2D were noticeably better. As a whole, participants disliked the visual modality because it frequently required adjustment, obstructed view, and interfered with the rifle sight. Participants liked the auditory modality because there it did not restrict their visual field. Many participants liked the tactile modality because it allowed other simultaneous tasks while moving (e.g. visual search for targets, listening for communications and enemy movements). Some soldiers, however, also maintained the importance of using a compass and retaining the associated skills. Performance measures indicated that the FIND system was superior to the compass method for locating the waypoints accurately, both in bearing and distance. Of the FIND modalities, there were no statistical differences between modality, dimension, or time conditions for distance traveled or accuracy of waypoint estimation performance results. Participants also took longer to complete a leg when using a compass compared to the FIND modalities. The FIND system did not adversely affect the ability of the soldiers to perform visual searching, or detection and engagement tasks. Areas of future research suggested by this trial include investigating additional information for wayfinding, 3D auditory displays, as well as alternative visual and tactile displays. Hardware, software, and several methodological improvements that could be used in future research are also explored.

14. KEYWORDS, DESCRIPTORS or IDENTIFIERS (Technically meaningful terms or short phrases that characterize a document and could be helpful in cataloguing the document. They should be selected so that no security classification is required. Identifiers, such as equipment model designation, trade name, military project code name, geographic location may also be included. If possible keywords should be selected from a published thesaurus, e.g. Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms (TEST) and that thesaurus identified. If it is not possible to select indexing terms which are Unclassified, the classification of each should be indicated as with the title.) (U) wayfinding; display modalities; visual display; auditory display; tactual; tactile; tactor; Future Infantry Navigation Device (FIND); Soldier Information Requirements Technology Demonstration Project; SIREQ TD; navigation