Tactile Cues for Orienting Pilots During Hover Over Moving Targets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Providing information via the tactile sensory system allows the pilot to increase awareness without further taxing the visual and auditory perceptual systems. In this study, tactile cues were presented to pilots for target orientation during a simulated helicopter extraction over a moving target. The efficacy of the cues provided by the tactile system was assessed under various conditions (rested vs. fatigued, clear vs. degraded visual environment). METHODS: This study employed a mixed-model 2(4) factorial design, including one between-subjects variable (training amount: minimal, additional) and three within-subjects variables (state: rested, fatigued; visual environment: clear, degraded; tactile cue belt: active, inactive). Across 2 d under the 4 test conditions, 16 UH-60 rated, healthy aviators completed 8 sessions of 10-min stabilized hovering maneuvers over a moving target. All flights were conducted in a UH-60 flight simulator. RESULTS: Subjects were able to stay closer to the target when the tactile cuing system was active (M = 31.14 ft, SE = 3.17 ft) vs. inactive (M = 36.33 ft, SE = 2.84 ft). Likewise, subjects rated their situation awareness as greater when the tactile system was active vs. inactive. DISCUSSION: The results support the efficacy of the tactile system in providing directional cues for maintaining pilot performance during a hover maneuver over a moving target.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".