Abstract
The developing technology on innovative touchscreen applied in the cockpit can integrate control inputs and outputs on the same display in flight operations. Flight systems could be updated by modifying the touchscreen user interface without the complicated processes on reconfiguring cockpit panels. There is a potential risk on touchscreen components constrained by the issues associated with inadvertent touch, which may be defined as any system detectable touch issued to the touch sensors without the pilot’s operational consent. Pilots’ visual behaviours can be explored by using eye trackers to analyze the relationship between eye scan patterns and attention shifts while conducting monitoring tasks in flight operations. This research aims to evaluate human-computer interactions using eye tracker to investigate the safety concerns on implementation of touchscreen in flight operations. The scenario was set to conduct an instrument landing on the final approach using future system simulator. Participants were required to interact with all the control surfaces and checklists using the touchscreens located on different areas in the cockpit. Each participant performed landing scenario as pilot-flying (PF) and pilot-monitoring (PM) in random sequence. Currently PF and PM perform different tasks related to control inputs and control outputs monitoring in the flight deck. The PF’s primary obligation is to fly the aircraft’s flight path, and the PM’s main responsibility is to monitor the aircraft’s flight path and cross-check to the PF’s operational behaviours. By analyzing participants’ visual behaviours and scanning patterns, the findings on HCI related to applying touchscreen for future flight deck design would be applicable. There are some benefits on the implementation touchscreen for future flight deck design if the human-centred design principle can be integrated in the early stage.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Cockburn, A., et al.: Design and evaluation of braced touch for touchscreen input stabilisation. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 122, 21–37 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2018.08.005
Zammit-Mangion, D., Becouarn, L., Aymeric, B., Fabbri, M., Bader, J.: A single interactive display concept for commercial and business jet cockpits (2011). https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2011-7062
Komer, J.L., Gepner, J.E., Hogan, R.K., Mabie, T.D.: Avionics control and display unit having cursor control mode of operation. US Patent App. 13/438,613. US Patent App. 13/438,613 (2013)
Dodd, S., Lancaster, J., Miranda, A., Grothe, S., DeMers, B., Rogers, B.: Touch screens on the flight deck: the impact of touch target size, spacing, touch technology and turbulence on pilot performance. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 58, pp. 6–10 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931214581002
Kawalkar, A.N.: Touch screen and method for providing stable touches. US Patent App. 13/162,679 (2012)
Ahlstrom, U., Friedman-Berg, F.J.: Using eye movement activity as a correlate of cognitive workload. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 36, 623–636 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2006.04.002
Yu, C.-S., Wang, E., Li, W.-C., Braithwaite, G.: Pilots’ visual scan patterns and situation awareness in flight operations. Aviation 85 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3357/ASEM.3847.2014
Kuo, F.-Y., Hsu, C.-W., Day, R.-F.: An exploratory study of cognitive effort involved in decision under framing—an application of the eye-tracking technology. Decis. Support Syst. 48, 81–91 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2009.06.011
Salvucci, D., Goldberg, J.: Identifying fixations and saccades in eye-tracking protocols (2000). https://doi.org/10.1145/355017.355028
Li, W.-C., Zhang, J., Le Minh, T., Cao, J., Wang, L.: Visual scan patterns reflect to human-computer interactions on processing different types of messages in the flight deck. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 72, 54–60 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2019.04.003
Durso, F., Sethumadhavan, A.: Situation awareness: understanding dynamic environments. Hum. Factors 50, 442–448 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X288448
McColeman, C.M., Blair, M.R.: The relationship between saccade velocity, fixation duration, and salience in category learning. Vis. Cogn. 21, 701–703 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2013.844965
Kilingaru, K., Tweedale, J., Thatcher, S., Jain, L.: Monitoring pilot “Situation Awareness.” J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. Appl. Eng. Technol. 24, 457–466 (2013). https://doi.org/10.3233/IFS-2012-0566
Li, W.-C., Horn, A., Sun, Z., Zhang, J., Braithwaite, G.: Augmented visualization cues on primary flight display facilitating pilot’s monitoring performance. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 135, 102377 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2019.102377
Klatzky, R.L., Lederman, S.J.: Touch. In: Weiner, I., Healy, A., Proctor, R. (eds.) Handbook of Psychology, vol. Experimental Psychology, pp. 152-176. Wiley, Hoboken (2013)
Cockburn, A., et al.: Turbulent touch: touchscreen input for cockpit flight displays. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, Colorado, USA, pp. 6742–6753. Association for Computing Machinery (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025584
Korek, W.T., Mendez, A., Asad, H.U., Li, W.-C., Lone, M.: Understanding human behaviour in flight operation using eye-tracking technology. In: Harris, D., Li, W.-C. (eds.) HCII 2020. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 12187, pp. 304–320. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49183-3_24
Kassner, M., Patera, W., Bulling, A.: Pupil: an open source platform for pervasive eye tracking and mobile gaze-based interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing: Adjunct Publication, Seattle, Washington, pp. 1151–1160. Association for Computing Machinery (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2638728.2641695
Li, W.-C., Yu, C.-S., Braithwaite, G., Greaves, M.: Pilots’ attention distributions between chasing a moving target and a stationary target. Aerosp. Med. Hum. Perform. 87, 989–995 (2016). https://doi.org/10.3357/AMHP.4617.2016
Barrett, K.C., Morgan, J., George, A.: SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Interpretation. Psychology Press (2005)
Haase, R.F.: Classical and partial eta square in multifactor ANOVA designs. Educ. Psychol. Measur. 43, 35–39 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448304300105
Carroll, M., Dahlstrom, N.: Human computer interaction on the modern flight deck. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 37, 585–587 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1890495
Coutts, L.V., et al.: Future technology on the flight deck: assessing the use of touchscreens in vibration environments. Ergonomics 62, 286–304 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2018.1552013
Acknowledgements
Co-financed by the European Union through the European Social Fund (grant POWR.03.02.00-00-I029).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Li, WC., Liang, YH., Korek, W.T., Lin, J.J.H. (2022). Assessments on Human-Computer Interaction Using Touchscreen as Control Inputs in Flight Operations. In: Harris, D., Li, WC. (eds) Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics. HCII 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 13307. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06086-1_25
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06086-1_25
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-06085-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-06086-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)