An Evaluation of Human Performance with a Large Area Touchscreen in a Simulated Rotary Wing Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents results of a human machine interface (HMI) evaluation that examined representative flight deck tasks with a large area touchscreen installed in a ride quality simulator that replicated rotary wing vibration profiles. Touchscreens have made their way onto the flight deck of many fixed-wing aircraft and recently into rotary-wing cockpits as well. As such, there is a need to better understand how task performance is impacted by the unique vibratory environment encountered in helicopters. A large area touchscreen (LAD) was evaluated by 14 pilots conducting various touch tasks (target selection, data entry, swiping, long press and zoom), under three varying levels of vibration with and without flight gloves. Performance was assessed objectively (time to completion, touch accuracy, error rates) and subjectively (usability, musculoskeletal discomfort, and video footage). Design recommendations are made for display interface design, including target size, data entry and use of gestures. This study was reviewed and approved by an independent Institutional Review Board for the protection of human subjects.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".