Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T23:00:57.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Visual aspects of advanced sensors and helmet-mounted displays

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

P. J. Morgan-Warren  and
M. Woodcock
P. J. Morgan-Warren*
Affiliation:
School of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK Royal Air Force Centre of Aviation Medicine, RAF Henlow, Bedfordshire, UK
M. Woodcock
Affiliation:
Royal Air Force Centre of Aviation Medicine, RAF Henlow, Bedfordshire, UK
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Visually coupled systems such as helmet mounted displays are designed to improve aircrew situational awareness by providing timely flight, targeting and other information overlaid on real or sensor-derived views of the external environment. Data can be presented in monocular, biocular or binocular fashion and are associated with visual conflicts and potential ophthalmic problems. Restricted sensor spectrum, limits of resolution, inherent system latency, the displaced visual input from remote sensors and restricted field of view may contribute to ophthalmic symptoms in aircrew. Disruption to binocularity and reliance on monocular cues for depth perception and hyperstereopsis from sensor-induced convergence disparity may cause distance estimation problems, whereas inappropriate accommodative stimuli and ocular dominance factors are common causes of eyestrain. Binocular rivalry from discordant imagery to each eye may compromise visual performance via several mechanisms. This article discusses the potential visual problems associated with visually coupled systems and the challenges of integrating complex systems with the aircrew interface.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 118 , Issue 1200 , February 2014 , pp. 155 - 168
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Melzer, J.E. Toward the HMD as a cognitive prosthesis. Head- and Helmet-Mounted Displays XIII: Design and Applications. Proc SPIE, 6955, 69550L, 2008.Google Scholar
2. Bayer, M.M., Rash, C.E. and Brindle, J.H. Introduction to helmet-mounted displays. In Helmet-Mounted Displays: Sensation, Perception and Cognition Issues, Chapter 3, US Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory, 2009.Google Scholar
3. Rash, C.E., Bayer, M.M., Harding, T.H. and McLean, W.E. Visual helmet-mounted displays In Helmet-Mounted Displays: Sensation, Perception and Cognition Issues, Chapter 4. US Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory, 2009.Google Scholar
4. Gull, F.C. and Herd, G.R. An evaluation of proposed causal mechanisms for ‘ejection associated’ neck injuries, Aviat Space Environ Med, 1989, 60, pp A26-47.Google Scholar
5. James, F.K. and Chris, B. Effect of Head-Mounted Displays on Posture, Human Factors, 2007, 49, pp 797–804.Google Scholar
6. Rash, C.E. A 25-year retrospective review of visual complaints and illusions associated with a monocular helmet-mounted display, Displays, 2008, 29, pp 70–80.Google Scholar
7. Rash, C.E., Heinecke, K., Francis, G. and Hiatt, K.L. Visual perceptual issues of the Integrated Helmet and Display Sighting System (IHADSS): Four Expert Perspectives. Head- and Helmet-Mounted Displays XIII: Design and Applications. Proc SPIE, 6955, 69550D, 2008.Google Scholar
8. Rash, C.E., McClean, W.E. and Mozo, B.T. ET AL Human Factors and Performance Concerns for the Design of Helmet-Mounted Displays. US Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory, 1999.Google Scholar
9. Smith, S.D. Cockpit seat and pilot helmet vibration during flight operations on aircraft carriers. Aviat Space Environ Med, 2004, 75, pp247–254.Google Scholar
10. Temme, L.A., Kalich, M.E. and Curry, I.P. ET AL Visual perceptual conflicts and illusions. In Helmet-Mounted Displays: Sensation, Perception and Cognition Issues, Chapter 12. US Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory, 2009.Google Scholar
11. Carter, J.L. Visual Evoked Potentials. In Daube, J.R. and Rubin, D.I. (Eds), Clinical Neurophysiology 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2009.Google Scholar
12. Amin, M.S. and Konrad, H. Vestibuloocular Reflex Testing. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1836134-overview#a01 Accessed 30 May 2013.Google Scholar
13. Joint Strike Fighter: DoD actions needed to further enhance restructuring and address affordability risks. United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees, GAO-12-437, June 2012.Google Scholar
14. Kanski, J.J. Clinical Ophthalmology: A Systematic Approach 6th Ed., Elsevier, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2007.Google Scholar
15. Greene, D.A. Night vision pilotage system feld-of-view (FOV)/resolution tradeoff study flight experiment report. Fort Belvoir, VA: US Army Night Vision Laboratory. NV1-26, 1988.Google Scholar
16. Crowley, J.S., Haworth, L., Szoboszlay, Z. and Lee, A. Helicopter pilot estimation of self-altitude in a degraded visual environment. Presented at the Aerospace Medical Association Annual Scientifc Meeting, Atlanta GA, USA, 1997.Google Scholar
17. Zuckerman, J. Perimetry. J.B.Lippincott Company, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1954.Google Scholar
18. Sandor, P.B. and Leger, A. Tracking with a restricted field of view: performance and eye-head coordination aspects, Aviat Space Environ Med, 1991, 66, pp1026-31.Google Scholar
19. Kenyon, R.V. and Kneller, E.W. Human performance and field of view. Proc SID, (XXIII), pp 290-3, 1992.Google Scholar
20. Wells, M.J. and Venturino, M. Head movements as a function of field-of-view size on a helmet-mounted display. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA, USA: Human Factors Society Inc, pp 91–95, 1989.Google Scholar
21. Kasper, E.F., Haworth, L.A. and Szoboszlay, Z.P. ET AL Effects of in-flight field of view restriction on rotorcraft pilot head movement. Head-Mounted Displays II, Proc SPIE, 1997, (3058), pp 34–45.Google Scholar
22. Eurofighter Typhoon Technical Guide. http://www.eurofighter.com/fileadmin/web_data/downloads/misc/TechGuideENG.pdf Accessed 3 April 2013.Google Scholar
23. Hale, S. and Piccione, D. Pilot performance assessment of the AH-64 helmet display unit. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, USA: US Army Human Engineering Laboratory, Technical Note, pp 1–90, 1989.Google Scholar
24. Elkington, A.R., Frank, H.J. and Greaney, M.J. Clinical Optics, 3rd ed, Blackwell, Oxford, USA 1999.Google Scholar
25. Flanagan, P., Stuart, G.W. and Gibbs, P. Hyperstereopsis in helmet-mounted NVDs: absolute distance perception. In Bellingham, Washington: Proceedings of Head- and Helmet-Mounted Displays XII: Design and Applications, SPIE, (6557), 65570J-1 – 65570J-7, 2007.Google Scholar
26. Flanagan, P., Stuart, G.W. and Gibbs, P. Hyperstereopsis in helmet-mounted NVDs: time to contact estimation. In Bellingham, Washington: Proceedings of Head- and Helmet-Mounted Displays XII: Design and Applications, SPIE, (6557), 65570O-1 – 65570K-7, 2007.Google Scholar
27. Priot, A-E., Hourlier, S. and Giraudet, G. ET AL Hyperstereopsis in night vision devices: basic mechanisms and impact for training requirements. Helmet- and Head-Mounted Displays XI: Technologies and Applications. Proc SPIE 6224, 62240, 2006.Google Scholar
28. Kalich, M.E., Harding, T.H. and Rash, C.E. Perceptual design tradeoff considerations for viewing I2and FLIR with current helmet-mounted displays. Head- and Helmet-Mounted Displays XIII: Design and Applications. Proc SPIE, 6955, 69550F, 2008.Google Scholar
29. Edgar, G.K., Pope, J.C.D. and Craig, I.R. Visual accommodation problems with head-up and helmet-mounted displays, Displays, 1994, 15, pp 68–75.Google Scholar
30. Westheimer, G. Accommodation measurements in empty visual field, J Opt Soc Am, 1957, 47, pp 714-8.Google Scholar
31. Owens, D.A. The resting state of the eyes, Am Sci, 1984, 72, pp 378-87.Google Scholar
32. Behar, I., Wiley, R.W. and Levine, R.R. ET AL Visual survey of Apache aviators (VISAA). Fort Rucker, AL: US Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory. USAARL Report No. 90-15, 1990.Google Scholar
33. Cheng, C.Y., Yen, M.Y. and Lin, H.Y. ET AL Association of ocular dominance and anisometropic myopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci, 2004, 45, pp 2856–2860.Google Scholar
34. Beaten, A. Left Side, Right Side: A Review of Laterality Research. Yale University Press, New Haven, USA, 1985.Google Scholar
35. Crowley, J.S. Cerebral laterality and handedness in pilots: Performance and selection implications, USAFSAM-TP-88-11, Brooks AFB, Texas: School of Aerospace Medicine, USAF Systems Command, 1989.Google Scholar
36. Verona, R.W., Johnson, J.C. and Jones, H. Head aiming/tracking accuracy in a helicopter environment, USAARL Report No. 79-9, Fort Rucker, AL, 1979.Google Scholar
37. Hershberger, M.L. and Guerin, D.F. Binocular rivalry in helmet-mounted display applications. Dayton, OH: Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory. AMRL-TR-75-48, 1975.Google Scholar
38. Hiatt, K.L., Rash, C.E. and Heinecke, K. Visual issues associated with the use of the Integrated Helmet and Display Sighting System (IHADSS) in the Apache helicopter – three decades in review. Head- and Helmet-Mounted Displays XIII: Design and Applications. Proc SPIE, 6955, 69550C, 2008.Google Scholar
39. Patterson, R., Winterbottom, M. and Pierce, B. Binocular rivalry and head-worn displays, Human Factors, 2007, 49, pp1083-96.Google Scholar
40. Rash, C.E., Suggs, C.L. and Mora, J.C. ET AL Visual Issues Survey of AH-64 Apache aviators (year 2000). Fort Rucker, AL: US Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory. USAARL Report No 2002-02, 2002.Google Scholar
41. Crowley, J.S. Human factors of night vision devices: Anecdotes from the field concerning visual illusions and other effects. Fort Rucker, AL: US Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory. USAARL Report No 91-15, 1991.Google Scholar
42. Hiatt, K.L., Rash, C.E., Harris, E.S. and McGilberry, W.H. Apache aviator visual experiences with the IHADSS helmet-mounted display in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Fort Rucker, AL: US Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory. USAARL Report No 2004-20, 2004.Google Scholar
43. Qian, N. and Ersen, R.A. A physiological model for motion-stereo integration and a unified explanation of Pulfrich-like phenomena, Vision Research, 1997, 37, pp1683–1698.Google Scholar