525brims Uav Model Compa

8/20/2019 525brims Uav Model Compa

1/14

(2003). In the Proceedings of the 12th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Si!lation" #$%. Instit!te for Si!lation ' raining.

Comparing Three Variants of a

Computational Process Model of Basic Aircraft Maneuvering

Jerry T. Ball 2

Kevin A. Gluck 1

Michael A. Krusmark 2

Stuart M. Rodgers1

1ir *orce Research +a,orator- 2+3 Co!nications

arfighter raining Research /ivision" 030 S. ent St." Mesa" #212%01 4S

(all eail addresses are irst.last!"illiams.a.mil )

e-5ords6

Cognitive Modeling" no5ledge /ifferences" Strateg- /ifferences" 47

ABSTRACT6 A key o#$ective o cognitive modeling research at the Air %orce Research &a#oratory's (arighter

Training Research )ivision is to #e a#le to e*+lore the eects o #ackground kno"ledge and task strategies on

+erormance and learning o skills relevant to accom+lishing the Air %orce mission. ,n +ursuit o that o#$ective-

this +a+er com+ares three variants o a com+utational +rocess model o #asic aircrat maneuvering. All threevariants are em#odied +erormance models im+lemented in the AT/R cognitive modeling architecture. The model

variants o+erate a 0redator A Synthetic Task 3nvironment 4ST35. 3ach model variant im+lements a dierent

com#ination o #ackground kno"ledge and task strategy or com+leting the #asic maneuvering task. The three

variants o the model are called Model ariant 0 40erormance only5- Model ariant 0 4ontrol and 0erormance5 and Model ariant %0 4ontrol %ocus and 0erormance5. Model ariant 0 lacks the kno"ledge o

control instrument settings ty+ically availa#le to e*+ert +ilots and only considers +erormance indicators in

com+leting the #asic maneuvering task. Model ariant 0 has kno"ledge o control instrument settings needed to

accom+lish various +erormance o#$ectives and uses that kno"ledge as +art o a crosscheck strategy "hichincludes attending e6ually to control and +erormance indicators. Model ariant %0 also has kno"ledge o

control instrument settings- #ut has a dierent crosscheck strategy "hich includes ocusing on control instruments

until they are correctly set- in addition to normal crosschecking across control and +erormance indicators. This

+a+er documents eorts to use these model variants to e*+lore the relative eects o dierences in kno"ledge and task strategy on +ilot +erormance in A #asic maneuvering.

1.

Introduction

8e- o,9ective of cognitive odeling research at the ir

*orce Research +a,orator-:s arfighter raining

Research /ivision (*R+;plore

the effects of ,ac8gro!nd 8no5ledge and tas8 strategieson perforance and learning of s8ills relevant to

accoplishing the ir *orce ission. C!rrentl-" the

division:s Perforance and +earning Models (P+M)

Research Progra is foc!sed on the !se of a S-nthetic

as8 =nvironent (S=) 5hich incl!des a high%fidelit-

si!lation of a Predator 4ninha,ited ir 7ehicle (47)

a!gented 5ith ,asic ane!vering" landing and

reconnaissance tas8s and data collection facilities. e are

!sing the 47 S= as a test,ed for cond!cting epirical

research and creating e,odied cognitive odels of 47

pilot perforance and learning. 4ltiatel-" the goal is to

!se this and other odels to develop odeling g!idelines

for detailed and ps-chologicall- realistic representations

of h!an ,ehavior in cople>" d-naic 5arfighting

doains.

his paper 5ill ,egin ,- setting the conte>t for o!r

cop!tational cognitive odeling research thro!gh soe ,ac8gro!nd inforation on the S=" piloting a 47" and

the C%R cognitive odeling architect!re 5hich 5e are

!sing. It then introd!ces the three odel variants" Model

7ariant P (Perforance ?nl-)" Model 7ariant CP

(Control and Perforance)" and Model 7ariant C*P

(Control *oc!s and Perforance)" and descri,es the

representations and processes ,!ilt into each variant of

the odel. he paper contin!es 5ith a coparison of the

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/14

perforance of the odel variants 5ith each other and in

the case of odel variants CP and C*P" 5ith h!an

perforance data. he paper concl!des 5ith a disc!ssion

of the relevance of the research for 5arfighter training.

2. Background on the UAV STE

he core of the S= is a realistic si!lation of the flight

d-naics of the Predator R@%1 S-ste A 47. his

core aerod-naics odel has ,een !sed to train ir

*orce Predator pilots at Indian Springs ir *ield in

evada. B!ilt on top of the core Predator odel are three

s-nthetic tas8s6 the Basic Maneuvering Task- in 5hich a

pilot !st a8e ver- precise" constant%rate changes in

airspeed" altit!de and;or heading the &anding Task in

5hich the 47 !st ,e g!ided thro!gh a standard

approach and landing and the Reconnaissance Task in

5hich the goal is to o,tain si!lated video of a gro!ndtarget thro!gh a sall ,rea8 in clo!d cover. he design of

these s-nthetic tas8s is the res!lt of a !niD!e

colla,oration ,et5een ,ehavioral scientists and e>pert

pilots of the 47. he ai in developing the tas8s 5as to

identif- iportant aspects of the 47 pilot:s overall tas8

Easpects that ta> the 8e- cognitive and ps-chootor

s8ills reD!ired ,- a 47 pilot. he- are tas8s that lend

theselves to la,orator- st!d-" -et do not fall pre- to

oversiplifications. he design philosoph- and

ethodolog- are descri,ed in F1G. ests !sing ilitar-

and civilian pilots sho5ed that e>perienced 47 pilots

perfor ,etter in the S= than pilots 5ho are highl-

e>perienced in other aircraft ,!t have no 47e>perience" indicating that the S= is realistic eno!gh to

tap 47%specific pilot s8ill F2G. *ig!re 1 provides a vie5

of the 47 S=. he 47 S= consists of a t5o

onitor pilot station 5ith attached stic8 (right hand)"

throttle (left hand) and r!dder (not sho5n).

Basic ane!vering is the foc!s of the c!rrent odeling

effort. he tas8 reD!ires the 47 pilot to fl- seven

distinct ane!vers 5hile tr-ing to iniiHe root%ean%

sD!ared deviation (RMS/) fro ideal perforance on

altit!de" airspeed" and heading. *or each ane!ver" a trial

starts 5ith a 10%second straight and level lead%in period

as the pilot prepares to e>ec!te the ane!ver. t the end

of this lead%in period" the tied trial (either 0 or &0

seconds) ,egins and the pilot is reD!ired to ane!ver the

aircraft at a constant rate of change 5ith regard to one or

ore of the three flight perforance paraeters. he

initial three ane!vers reD!ire the pilot to change one

paraeter 5hile holding the other t5o constant. *or

e>aple" in Mane!ver 1 the goal is to red!ce airspeed

fro $ 8nots to 2 8nots at a constant rate of change"

5hile aintaining altit!de and heading" over a 0%second

trial. S!,seD!ent ane!vers increase in cople>it- ,-

reD!iring the pilot to fl- trials that change in

co,inations of t5o paraeters. Mane!ver A" for instance" is a constant%rate 1#0° left t!rn" 5hile

si!ltaneo!sl- increasing airspeed fro 2 to $ 8nots

and holding altit!de constant. he final ane!ver

reD!ires changing all three paraeters si!ltaneo!sl-"

decreasing altit!de fro 1300 to 1000 feet" increasing

airspeed fro 2 to $ 8nots" and changing heading left

2$0° over a &0%second trial.

a,le 16 47 Basic Mane!vers

Mane!ver irspeed ed in the vertical and

horiHontal center. he hatched line crossing the reticle is

the horiHon line" 5hich oves !p and do5n relative to

the reticle to indicate changes in pitch" and also rotates

aro!nd its center point to indicate changes in ,an8.

t the end of a trial" the res!lts for the altit!de" airspeedand heading deviations are displa-ed graphicall-" 5ith

act!al and desired val!es on each perforance paraeter

plotted across tie. @!antitative RMS/s provide

n!erical feed,ac8 for trac8ing perforance. vie5 of

the feed,ac8 screen follo5ing copletion of Mane!ver 1

is sho5n in *ig!re 3.


3/14

*ig!re 16 47 S=

*ig!re 26


4/14

*ig!re 3 *eed,ac8 screen (right onitor)

3. Piloting the UAV.

he instr!entation provided 5ith ost aircraft"

incl!ding the 47" consists of t5o different t-pes of

indicators6 perforance indicators and control indicators.Perforance indicators reflect the ,ehavior of the aircraft

and incl!de airspeed" heading" altit!de and vertical speed

indicators. Control indicators reflect the settings of the

controls 5hich affect the ,ehavior of the aircraft and

incl!de pitch" ,an8 and engine speed (RPM) indicators.

d9!stents to the controls have a first order effect on

the control indicators and a second order effect on the

perforance indicators. hat is" a control ad9!stent 5ill

iediatel- ,e reflected ,- the relevant control indicator.

his control ad9!stent 5ill affect the ,ehavior of the

aircraft" 5hich 5ill ,e reflected in the perforance

indicators as a second order effect after soe dela-.

ccording to the ir *orce Man!al on Instr!ent *lightFG" a 8e- to e>pert flight perforance is 8no5ledge of

the appropriate control settings needed to o,tain desired

flight perforance. *or e>aple" a pitch of 3 degrees and

an engine RPM of A300 5ill aintain straight and level

flight of the 47 at $ 8nots over a range of altit!des

and e>ternal conditions. he e>pert pilot need onl- set the

appropriate pitch and engine RPM to o,tain the desired

perforance" s!,9ect to onitoring and ad9!stent ,ased

on varia,le flight conditions li8e 5ind and air press!re.

+ac8ing 8no5ledge of control settings" novice pilots !st

rel- on the perforance indicators to control the aircraft.

tent ,an8 ad9!stents"

5hich f!rther coplicates piloting of the aircraft.

Besides 8no5ledge of control instr!ent settings" e>pert

pilots are vigilant in aintaining a5areness of the stat!s

of all indicators. his is t-picall- accoplished ,- eans

of a crosschec8 across indicators eplo-ing either a h!,

and spo8e pattern or a ro!nd ro,in pattern or soe

i>t!re of the t5o. /!ring this crosschec8" it is iportant

not to foc!s too !ch attention on perforance indicators

and to 8eep control indicators in the crosschec8.

4. Background on ACT-R.

he toic Coponents of ho!ght Rational (C%R)

cognitive odeling architect!re and developent

environent FA"G is a po5erf!l" -et ps-chologicall-

constrained" tool for the developent of cop!tational

cognitive odels. C%R is ,eing !sed ,- researchers

aro!nd the glo,e to develop and test cognitive odels

covering a 5ide range of ,ehaviors.

C%R 7ersion is a Coon +isp ,ased

ipleentation of the C%R architect!re. It incl!des a

prod!ction s-ste integrated 5ith a declarative eor-

s-ste. he distinction ,et5een proced!ral and

declarative eor- is a cornerstone of C%R and is

s!pported ,- e>tensive epirical evidence. C%R is a

h-,rid architect!re 5hich provides s-,olic prod!ctions

and declarative eor- ch!n8s and s!,s-,olic

echaniss for prod!ction selection and declarative

eor- ch!n8 activation and retrieval. Prod!ction

selection and declarative eor- ch!n8 activation and

selection are ipleented as highl- parallel processes"

ho5ever" once selected" prod!ction e>ec!tion is serialE

onl- one prod!ction can ,e e>ec!ted at a tie. hese

s-,olic and s!,s-,olic coponents and echaniss

provide the cognitive infrastr!ct!re needed to odel

h!an ,ehavior at a lo5 eno!gh grain siHe to odel the

tie co!rse of cognition at the illisecond level. his

a8es it possi,le to odel real%tie h!an perforance

in C%R. C%R 7ersion also provides a percept!al%

otor s-ste for interacting 5ith the e>ternal 5orld


5/14

5hich a8es it possi,le to develop e,odied odels of

cognition. he interface ,et5een the prod!ction s-ste"

declarative eor- and percept!al%otor s-ste is

coordinated ,- a collection of ,!ffers. Recent research

efforts have foc!sed on apping the C%R architect!re

to vario!s ,rain str!ct!res and fMRI st!dies have ,een

cond!cted to validate that apping.

he 47 pilot odel represents real challenges and

opport!nities for the !se of C%R in the developent of

cop!tational cognitive odels. he challenge of

integrating C%R 5ith an e>isting real%5orld si!lation

environent has not ,een !nderta8en ,- an-

researchers. he cople>it- of the tas8 of piloting a

47 is significantl- greater than the cople>it- of the

la,orator- tas8s that provide the historical roots of the

C%R architect!re and its odeling co!nit-. he

opport!nit- to ta8e advantage of recent enhanceents to

C%R that s!pport e,odied cognition offers the

prospect of ore ecologicall- valid odels" and in fact

a8es possi,le the entire research progra of 5hich the

5or8 descri,ed here is a coponent.

5. The Three Model Variants

In the interest of e>ploring the effects of differences in

doain 8no5ledge and tas8 strategies on perforance" a

odel of ,asic ane!vering has ,een ipleented 5ith

three distinct variants. he three variants of the odel are

called Model 7ariant P (Perforance onl-)" Model

7ariant CP (Control and Perforance) and Model 7ariant

C*P (Control *oc!s and Perforance).

Model 7ariant P lac8s the 8no5ledge of control

instr!ent settings t-picall- availa,le to e>pert pilots and

as a res!lt onl- considers perforance indicators and the

,an8 angle indicator in copleting the ,asic ane!vering

tas8. no5ledge of ,an8 angle settings is provided ,-

e>plicit instr!ction to participants and is ass!ed to ,e

availa,le to Model 7ariant P. Model 7ariant P centers its

crosschec8 on the cloc8 and selects fro aong the

follo5ing indicators6 airspeed" heading" altit!de" vertical

speed and ,an8 angle. *ig!re Aa sho5s the concept!al

design of Model 7ariant P. /!ring an attend%assess%ad9!st

c-cle" Model 7ariant P selects an indicator to attend"

locates the indicator on the pert pilots fro novice pilots. he first

coparison (Model 7ariant P vs. Model 7ariant CP) is

intended to e>plore this 8no5ledge difference.

ltho!gh Model 7ariant CP has 8no5ledge of

appropriate control settings" it does not foc!s on a control

indicator !ntil the correct val!e is achieved. Rather" ita8es a control ad9!stent and contin!es 5ith the

noral crosschec8 5itho!t chec8ing to see if the

ad9!stent has had the intended effect !ntil the ne>t tie

the control indicator is attended as part of the noral

crosschec8.

+i8e Model 7ariant CP" Model 7ariant C*P has

8no5ledge of appropriate control instr!ent settings.


6/14

he second coparison (Model 7ariant CP vs. Model

7ariant C*P) is intended to e>plore the effect on

perforance of !sing a strateg- of foc!sing on control

instr!ent settings. o soe e>tent" foc!sing on control

instr!ents disr!pts the noral crosschec8 across

perforance and control indicators. /espite this

disr!ption" foc!sing on control instr!ents a- iprove

perforance since it allo5s the pilot to coplete the

correct setting for a control instr!ent prior to res!ing

a noral crosschec8.

*ig!re Aa6 Model 7ariant P *ig!re A,6 Model 7ariant CP

Model 7ariant P Crosschec8

(perforance J ,an8 angle onl-)

find

attend

encode

setdeviation

select

indicator

assess;

ad9!st

retrieve

desired

Model 7ariant CP Crosschec8

(perforance;control)

find

attend

encode

setdeviation

select

indicator

assess;

ad9!st

retrieve

desired

=sta,lish%Control

(control)Crosschec8

(perforance;control)

find

attend

encode

select

control

indicator

set

deviation

find

attend

encode

set

deviation

select

indicator

assess;

ad9!st

assess;

ad9!st

retrieve

desired


7/14

*ig!re Ac6 Model 7ariant C*P


8/14

5.1 Declarative Knowledge

he odel variants have declarative 8no5ledge in

addition to that descri,ed a,ove. he ost iportant of

these declarative 8no5ledge ch!n8s are disc!ssed ,elo5.

he goal ch!n8 contains the 8no5ledge" or lin8s to the8no5ledge" needed to fl- the 47. It is organiHed

hierarchicall- in ters of the top%level 8no5ledge

relevant to fl-ing in general" 8no5ledge relevant to

anaging control instr!ents" and 8no5ledge relevant to

onitoring perforance indicators. coon odeling

practice in C%R odels is to restrict the siHe of

declarative eor- ch!n8s to 3% slots (or pieces) of

inforation. In the case of the goal ch!n8 for the 47

pilot odel" ho5ever" 5e fo!nd this to ,e !nanagea,l-

restrictive. here is 9!st too !ch inforation a,o!t the

pilot:s cognitive state and the aircraft:s ph-sical state that

needs to ,e availa,le in the goal ch!n8 for decision

a8ing.

?n the other hand" having all aircraft state data availa,le

to the odel variant at all ties 5o!ld ,e too po5erf!l.

e are not creating an a!topilot. e are creating odel

variants intended to replicate act!al h!an perforance.

herefore" the prod!ctions are designed in s!ch a 5a-

that" at an- one tie" onl- a fe5 slots in the goal ch!n8

are act!all- !sed. *or e>aple" if the odel variant has

9!st attended to airspeed" then the c!rrent%airspeed slot is

availa,le to the odel variant. Slots 5ith val!es fro

previo!s attend%assess%ad9!st c-cles are not ass!ed to

,e availa,le" and ne5 val!es !st ,e encoded fro the

indicators or retrieved fro eor-. h!s" altho!gh thegoal ch!n8 has a siHea,le n!,er of slots" onl- a fe5 of

the have availa,le val!es at an- one tie.

/!ring the (noral) crosschec8 attend%assess%ad9!st

c-cle" each odel variant !st decide 5hich indicator to

attend ne>t. ransitions fro one indicator to the ne>t are

odeled 5ith crosschec8%intent ch!n8s that ap fro the

c!rrent indicator to the ne>t indicator. Retrieval of a

crosschec8%intent ch!n8 deterines the ne>t indicator to

,e attended ,ased on the c!rrent indicator" the ane!ver

,eing perfored" and the tie%segent. llo5ing the

ane!ver 5hich is ,eing perfored to infl!ence this

selection res!lts in ore freD!ent attention to indicators

5hose desired val!es are changing d!ring the co!rse of

the ane!ver.


9/14

specified at the start of the c-cle. Retrieval of the desired

setting for the control instr!ent is onl- necessar- on the

first loop thro!gh the c-cle. he desired val!e is availa,le

in the goal ch!n8 on s!,seD!ent loops so long as the

sae control instr!ent is in foc!s. ?ther5ise" the

esta,lish%control attend%assess%ad9!st c-cle is patterned

after the crosschec8 attend%assess%ad9!st c-cle.

t the ,eginning of a ane!ver" follo5ing the lead%in

period" all odel variants e>ec!te a series of prod!ctions

to transition fro the straight and level lead%in period to

the ane!ver period. hese transitions !st ,e learned

since the- are ane!ver specific and do not reflect

general aviator 8no5ledge. pert pilots.

5.3 Parameter Settings

variet- of paraeters in C%R can ,e odified to

infl!ence the ,ehavior of a odel FA" G. Most paraeters

have esta,lished defa!lts or coonl- !sed val!es. ?ne

of the long%ter architect!ral goals in the C%R

co!nit- is to settle on defa!lt" or at least Kcoonl-

accepted"L val!es for all paraeters" in order to f!rther

constrain odel ipleentations. his research has ,enefited fro that goal.

he C%R paraeters are organiHed into s!,s-stes.

s!,s-ste is ena,led in order to ta8e advantage of the

paraeters it incl!des. In the odel variants descri,ed

here" the s!,s-,olic cop!tation s!,s-ste and the

,ase level learning s!,s-ste are ena,led and the

paraeters 5ithin these s!,s-stes have ,een set to

defa!lt or coonl- accepted val!es as sho5n in ta,le 2.

a,le 26 47 Pilot Model Paraeters

Paraeter 7al!e

4tilit- oise (σ 4) 1 (coon)

oal eight (( ) 1 (defa!lt)

+atenc- *actor ( % ) 1 (defa!lt)

Retrieval hreshold (N) 1 (coon)/eca- Rate (d ) 0. (defa!lt)

ctivation oise (σ ) 0.2 (coon)

he ,ase level learning coponent is !sed to esta,lish

the ,ase level activation of declarative eor- ch!n8s

corresponding to the location of control and perforance

indicators. hese ,ase levels correspond to those

e>pected for e>pert 47 pilots. ctivation noise is !sed

to add stochasticit- to the selection of the crosschec8%

intent ch!n8s that deterine 5hich indicator 5ill ,eattended to ne>t. he partial atching and other learning

s!,s-stes of C%R and their associated paraeters are

not c!rrentl- ,eing !sed.

6. Verification of Knowledge and Strategy

Differences.

s verification that the three odel variants reall- reflect

the 8no5ledge and tas8 strateg- differences ,eing

considered" *ig!re copares the attention fi>ation

freD!encies of each variant.

*ig!re 6 ttention *i>ation Mean O for P" CP and C*P

s *ig!re sho5s" Model 7ariants CP and C*P spend

significantl- ore tie attending to control indicators

and !ch less tie attending to perforance indicators"

relative to Model 7ariant P" t (A1$) #.00" + Q .001 and

t (A1$) 3#.3&" + Q .001 respectivel-. ltho!gh !ch less

draatic" Model 7ariant C*P spends significantl- ore

tie attending to control indicators than Model 7ariant

CP" t (A1$) .A&" + Q .001" and significantl- less tie

ie

Control

Perforance

M e a n O o

f * i > a t i o n 100O

$O

0O

2O

0O

Model

P

CP

C*P


10/14

attending to perforance instr!ents" t (A1$) A.13" + Q .

001. hese differences in attention fi>ation freD!enc-

reflect the 8no5ledge and tas8 strateg- coparisons of

interest.

7. Comparing Knowledge Differences

o copare the effect of 8no5ledge of control instr!ent

settings on perforance" Model 7ariant P is copared to

Model 7ariant CP. o eval!ate overall perforance on a

trial" a coposite eas!re of deviation fro desired

altit!de" airspeed" and heading 5as cop!ted. ?n each

trial" RMS/s 5ere cop!ted for altit!de" airspeed" and

heading. Beca!se these perforance eas!res are on

different scales" RMS/s 5ere converted to H%scores

5ithin class. he res!lting standardiHed RMS/s 5ere

added together for each trial" res!lting in a standardiHed

s! RMS/. *ig!re presents the Mean and &O

Confidence Interval for overall perforance of the odelvariants on 20 trials in each of the seven ,asic

ane!vers" averaged across trials 5ithin a ane!ver.

s *ig!re sho5s" a significant ain effect of odel

variant on perforance is o,served" % (1"2) &A.01" +

Q .001" 5ith perforance of Model 7ariant CP

significantl- ,etter than Model 7ariant P on of the $ane!vers. ?n ane!ver $" the ean perforance of

Model 7ariant P is slightl- ,etter" altho!gh 5ithin the

&O Confidence Interval of Model 7ariant CP.

*ig!re 6 Model P vs. Model CP

no5ledge of appropriate control settings is cr!cial to

pilot perforance on of the $ ane!vers. he

perforance of Model 7ariant P 5as poor eno!gh on

an- trials that the aircraft 5as at ris8 of entering an

!nsta,le state.


11/14

*ig!re $6 Model CP vs. Model C*P

s *ig!re $ sho5s" a significant ain effect is fo!nd ,et5een Model 7ariants CP and C*P" % (1"2) 3$." + Q .001" 5ith

perforance of Model 7ariant C*P significantl- ,etter

than Model 7ariant CP on ane!vers 2" 3" A" " and $" ,!t

not on ane!vers 1 and . hen perforing a noral

crosschec8E5hich Model 7ariant CP is liited toEif an

ad9!stent is ade" the effect of that ad9!stent is not

considered !ntil the ne>t tie an indicator 5hich reflects

the ad9!stent is attended. It is possi,le that several

seconds a- pass ,efore that occ!rs. If a siHea,le

ad9!stent is needed" the f!ll ad9!stent is not

accoplished on a single attend%assess%ad9!st c-cle. (snoted a,ove" this is needed to avoid overcorrecting and

p!tting the aircraft into oscillation.). his a8es it

diffic!lt for Model 7ariant CP to recover fro large

deviations and the perforance of Model 7ariant CP

degrades significantl- on the ore diffic!lt ane!vers

(especiall- those involving heading changes).

9. Comparison with Human Data

he coparison of odel variants is !sef!l to the e>tent

that the odel variants acc!ratel- odel the aspects of

h!an perforance !nder consideration. Is Model

7ariant P an acc!rate odel of novice pilot ,ehavior at

least 5ith respect to the lac8 of 8no5ledge of control

instr!ent settings /oes the coparison of Model7ariant P 5ith Model 7ariant CP reflect this 8no5ledge

Is Model 7ariant CP or C*P a ,etter odel of e>pert pilot

,ehavior 5ith respect to the control foc!s tas8 strateg-

coparison of the attention fi>ation freD!encies of

Model 7ariant C*P 5ith the e-e fi>ation freD!encies

collected fro t5o SM=s in preliinar- research on

ane!vers 1" 2 and 3 s!ggests that Model 7ariant C*P

foc!ses ore attention on control indicators than is

evident in the e-e fi>ation data fro the t5o SM=s"

altho!gh there is considera,le varia,ilit- ,et5een the

SM=s. Model 7ariant CP" 5hich does not foc!s on

control instr!ents" coes closer to odeling the

fi>ation freD!encies of these t5o SM=s. ation data fro these SM=s are -et to ,e anal-Hed.

In the interest of 8eeping the three odel variants

copara,le" all three variants 5ere ipleented 5ith

inial variation other than the variation relevant to the

coparisons" nael-" 8no5ledge of control instr!ent

settings and control foc!s tas8 strateg-. his eant that

the perforance of Model 7ariant P co!ld not ,e

Mane!ver

$A321

M e a n S !

o f R M S / s ( H )

3

2

1

0

%1

%2

Model

CP

C*P

Mane!ver

$A321

M e a n S ! o f R M S / s ( H )

A

2

0

%2

%A


12/14

iproved ,- changing the initial control ad9!stents at

the start of a trial to copensate for the fail!re of Model

7ariant P to achieve straight and level flight d!ring the

lead%in periodEaltho!gh novice pilots a- learn s!ch

copensator- settings. Moreover" even

novice pilots attain reasona,le perforance on the ,asicane!vers given eno!gh trials" ho5ever" there is a h!ge

learning c!rve" 5ith perforance on earl- ane!vers

D!ite a,-sal. iven the 5ide range of perforance

varia,ilit- fro trial to trial and choices ade to 8eep the

odel variants copara,le" it is diffic!lt to deterine

5hat h!an data co!ld ,e copared to that of Model

7ariant P. s a res!lt" Model 7ariant P 5ill not ,e directl-

copared to h!an data.

o validate the ,ehavior of Model 7ariants CP and C*P"

5e copare the perforance of the odel variants

against the perforance of the seven SM=s in the larger st!d- entioned a,ove. *ig!re # copares the

perforance of the SM=s against Model 7ariants CP and

C*P on all seven ane!vers. coposite eas!re of

perforance 5as cop!ted to copare overall

perforance aong SM=s and Model 7ariants. *or each

SM= on each trial" RMS/s for altit!de" airspeed" and

heading 5ere screened for o!tliers" converted to H%scores"

and s!ed to generate standardiHed s! RMS/s. e>t"

to a8e odel and SM= data copara,le" thro!gh a

siple linear transforation" odel data for each

perforance eas!re 5ere converted to H%scores !sing

the sae eans and standard deviations that 5ere !sed to

cop!te H%scores for SM= data. he res!lting H%scores

on RMS/s for altit!de" airspeed" and heading 5ere added

together. *inall-" aggregate eans 5ere cop!ted on

standardiHed s! RMS/s for all passed trials of each

SM= on each ane!ver" and for all trials of each odel

on each ane!ver. h!s" *ig!re # depicts eans and

&O confidence intervals of standardiHed s! RMS/s

for a saple of $ SM=s on passed trials on each

ane!ver. /epicted for Model 7ariants CP and C*P on

each ane!ver are eans of standardiHed s! RMS/s

cop!ted fro the 20 trials copleted. Mean

perforance of odel variants CP and C*P can ,e

considered point predictions of perforance of highl-copetent 47 pilots ipleenting different control

foc!s strategies.

*ig!re #6 Model 7ariants CP and C*P vs. SM=s

s *ig!re # sho5s" the ,ehavior of Model 7ariant C*P

falls 5ithin the &O confidence interval of the SM=s on

trials 2" 3" A" and $. Model 7ariant C*P is significantl-

,etter than the SM=s on ane!ver 1 and significantl-

5orse than the SM=s on ane!ver . here appears to ,e

a learning effect not capt!red in the odel in that Model

7ariant C*P does ,etter than the SM=s on ane!vers 1"2and 3 and 5orse than the SM=s on ane!vers " and $.

Model 7ariant CP onl- coes close to SM= perforance

on ane!ver 3 and is significantl- 5orse than SM=

perforance on all ane!vers e>cept ane!ver 1. It

sho!ld ,e noted that the SM= data are for passed trials

onl-E5hich f!rther avoids pro,les 5ith o!tliers and

iniiHes learning effectsE5hereas the odel data is

for all trials. If 5e aggregate across ane!vers as 5ell as

trials 5ithin ane!ver" 5e see that Model 7ariant C*P

falls 5ell 5ithin the confidence interval of the SM=s"

5hereas Model 7ariant CP does not (see *ig!re &).

*ig!re &6 Perforance data aggregated across ane!vers

?verall" Model 7ariant C*P copares !ch ,etter to

SM= perforance than does Model 7ariant CP. plain the o,servation in o!r preliinar- research that

Model 7ariant C*P attends to control indicators orethan o!r t5o SM=s on ane!vers 1" 2" and 3 ?ne of

those SM=s alost never attended to the RPM indicator.

pert pilots have 8no5ledge of the position

of the ar in setting the throttle and stic8 and receive

proprioceptive feed,ac8 fro these instr!ents. C%R

C*PCPSM=s

M e a n S !

o f R M S / s (

1.0

0.0

%1.0

%2.0


13/14

does not c!rrentl- s!pport the odeling of proprioceptive

feed,ac8. s a res!lt" Model 7ariant C*P (and CP) !st

rel- e>cl!sivel- on the inforation provided ,- the

control indicators to anage control instr!ent settings.

onetheless" foc!sing on control instr!ent settingsE

5hether via control indicators or via proprioceptive

feed,ac8Eis li8el- to ,e iportant to overall perforance.

10. Relevance to Pilot Training

he anal-sis of the perforance of the odel variants

s!ggests that 8no5ledge of control instr!ent settings

co,ined 5ith a control foc!s strateg- leads to the ,est

perforance on the ,asic ane!vers. hether or not a

control foc!s strateg- is !sed" 8no5ledge of control

instr!ent settings is cr!cial to pilot perforance.

itho!t this 8no5ledge" Model 7ariant P is !na,le to

aintain sta,le aircraft ,ehavior on an- trials.

he coparison of the three odel variants deonstrates

the !tilit- of !sing cop!tational process odels to

assess the effects of 8no5ledge and tas8 strateg- on

perforance. Cop!tational process odels can ,e !sed

to cond!ct ver- precisel- controlled st!dies of the effects

of 8no5ledge and strateg- differences on h!an

perforance in cople> environents. itho!t s!ch

odels" those st!dies reD!ire h!an participants that

!st ,e caref!ll- trained to have the desired 8no5ledge

or !se the desired strateg-. he !se of h!an participants

is considera,l- ore tie cons!ing and e>pensive" and

considera,l- less 5ell controlled. he e>perienter has

less confidence that the h!an participants are !sing the

desired 8no5ledge;strateg-. ?nce the relative erits of

different 8no5ledge and tas8 strategies are assessed via

cop!tational cognitive odels" the res!lts can ,e !sed

to a8e changes to training progras in order to iprove

5arfighter readiness.

11. Acknowledgments

e than8 the ir *orce ?ffice of Scientific Research for their s!pport. his research is f!nded ,- *?SR grant

02=rgonoic Societ-.

F2G Schrei,er" B. ." +-on" /. R." Martin" =. +." '

Confer" ico State 4niversit-. t coprehension" and the

odeling of h!an ,ehavior in cople> environents.

#V$% &"'C# is a Research Ps-chologist at the ir


Research /ivision in Mesa" . /r. l!c8 earned a Ph/

in Cognitive Ps-cholog- fro Carnegie Mellon

4niversit- in 1&&&.


14/14

ST' R)*&RS is a +ie!tenant Colonel in the 4nited

States ir *orce and is the /ep!t- Coander of the ir


Research /ivision (

525brims Uav Model Compa

Documents

Transcript of 525brims Uav Model Compa