Skip to main content

Assessments on Human-Computer Interaction Using Touchscreen as Control Inputs in Flight Operations

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics (HCII 2022)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 13307))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1705 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 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

  3. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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

  5. Kawalkar, A.N.: Touch screen and method for providing stable touches. US Patent App. 13/162,679 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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

  8. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Salvucci, D., Goldberg, J.: Identifying fixations and saccades in eye-tracking protocols (2000). https://doi.org/10.1145/355017.355028

  10. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Durso, F., Sethumadhavan, A.: Situation awareness: understanding dynamic environments. Hum. Factors 50, 442–448 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X288448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  16. 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

  17. 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

  19. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Barrett, K.C., Morgan, J., George, A.: SPSS for Intermediate Statistics: Use and Interpretation. Psychology Press (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Co-financed by the European Union through the European Social Fund (grant POWR.03.02.00-00-I029).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wen-Chin Li .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics