摘要: The purpose of this experiment was to investigate operator performance in an environment which was conducive to visual-proprioceptive conflict. More specifically, the intent was to determine the relative ability of pilot, navigato... 展开 The purpose of this experiment was to investigate operator performance in an environment which was conducive to visual-proprioceptive conflict. More specifically, the intent was to determine the relative ability of pilot, navigator, and nonrated Air Force officer groups to maneuver a simulated remotely piloted vehicle (RPV) from a simulated airborne control station (i.e., a mother ship). The vehicle and/or the station were given gust-like disturbances on pitch and/or roll. In a between-groups design, the performance of the three groups of subjects was compared under two conditions of conflict (e.g., visual roll right and roll left motion; visual roll right and pitch-up motion), nonconflict, motion only, and no motion. To maintain adequate performance, it was necessary for the subjects to disregard sensations of motion. The results revealed that the two conditions of conflict engendered the highest proportion of control errors (e.i., reversal, and axis errors) by all subjects, regardless of experience, but pilots tended to make more errors than nonpilots. The part experience of pilots did not help them overcome the effects of conflict as measured by control errors, but it did help them reduce response latencies. Motion cues appear to play not only an alerting role, but also provide information on the direction of attitude changes. This research indicated no advantage of training pilots, as opposed to nonpilots, to perform airborne control of RPVs as represented by the conditions of this experiment. Such training should be conducted in the presence of motion cues. (Author) 收起