Tactile Displays and Detectability of Vibrotactile Patterns 

as Combat Assault Maneuvers are Being Performed 

by Andrea S. Krausman and Timothy L. White 

ARL-TR-3998 December 2006 

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. 
i 

NOTICES 

Disclaimers 

The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position 

unless so designated by other authorized documents. 

Citation of manufacturer’s or trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or 

approval of the use thereof. 

DESTRUCTION NOTICE⎯Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to 

the originator. 
Army Research Laboratory 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425 

ARL-TR-3998 December 2006 

Tactile Displays and Detectability of Vibrotactile Patterns 

as Combat Assault Maneuvers are Being Performed 

Andrea S. Krausman and Timothy L. White 

Human Research and Engineering Directorate, ARL 

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. 
ii 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the 

burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. 

Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid 

OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

 December 2006 

2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

 June 2006 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

 Tactile Displays and Detectability of Vibrotactile Patterns as Combat Assault 

 Maneuvers are Being Performed 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

 62716AH70 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

 Andrea S. Krausman and Timothy L. White (both of ARL) 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

Human Research and Engineering Directorate 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

 REPORT NUMBER 

ARL-TR-3998

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT 

 NUMBER(S) 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

14. ABSTRACT 

This study examined the issues related to tactile displays and the detectability of vibrotactile patterns as combat assault 

maneuvers were being performed. Three obstacles were used in this study: tires, windows, and high crawl. A baseline 

condition, in which participants received tactile patterns while standing, was also included in the analysis. In the baseline 

condition, participants detected and identified 100% of the tactile patterns. Analysis of the obstacle data showed that the 

obstacles had a significant effect on the detection and identification of the tactile signals. Participants detected 62.5% of the 

tactile patterns during the high crawl, which was significantly lower than for the tires and windows, with 92% and 88% of 

signals detected, respectively. With regard to the correct identification of tactile patterns, participants correctly identified 51% 

of the patterns during the high crawl, as compared to 88.5% for the tires and 77% for the windows. There were no significant 

differences in the response times. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

 human factors; tactile; tactile displays; vibrotactile 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

 Andrea S. Krausman 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified 

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified 

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified 

17. LIMITATION

OF ABSTRACT 

 SAR 

18. NUMBER

OF PAGES 

 25 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 

 410-278-5933 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
iii 

Contents 

List of Figures v 

List of Tables v 

1. Background 1 

2. Objective 2 

3. Method 2 

3.1 Participants ......................................................................................................................2 

3.2 Instrumentation................................................................................................................3 

3.2.1 500-meter Mobility-Portability Course (Known Distance [KD] Range)............3 

3.2.2 Tactile System .....................................................................................................4 

3.2.3 Tactile Patterns ....................................................................................................6 

3.2.4 Soldier Equipment...............................................................................................8 

3.3 Experimental Design .......................................................................................................8

3.3.1 Independent Variables.........................................................................................8 

3.3.2 Dependent Variables ...........................................................................................9 

3.4 Procedures .......................................................................................................................9 

3.5 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................10 

4. Results 10 

4.1 Baseline Data.................................................................................................................10 

4.1.1 Percent Detected............................................................................................................10 

4.1.2 Percent Correct..............................................................................................................10 

4.1.3 Response Time ..............................................................................................................10 

4.2 Obstacle Data ................................................................................................................10 

4.2.1 Percent Detected................................................................................................10 

4.2.2 Percent Correct ..................................................................................................11 

4.2.3 Response time....................................................................................................11 

4.3 Tactile Patterns..............................................................................................................12 

5. Discussion and Conclusions 12 

6. References 14 

Distribution 15 
v 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. 500-meter mobility-portability course.............................................................................3 

Figure 2. Tires.................................................................................................................................4 

Figure 3. Windows..........................................................................................................................4 

Figure 4. High crawl. ......................................................................................................................4 

Figure 5. Tactile back configuration...............................................................................................5 

Figure 6. Tactile belt configuration. ...............................................................................................5 

Figure 7. Back display patterns (numbers represent the sequence of activation)...........................6 

Figure 8. Belt display patterns (numbers represent the sequence of activation). ...........................7 

Figure 9. Mean percent detected by obstacle................................................................................11 

Figure 10. Mean percent correct by obstacle................................................................................11 

Figure 11. Percent correct identification for each pattern.............................................................12 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Signal durations. ...............................................................................................................8 

Table 2. Standard fighting load.......................................................................................................8 

Table 3. IBA component weights (lb).............................................................................................8 

Table 4. Independent variables. ......................................................................................................9 

Table 5. Equipment presentation order...........................................................................................9 
vi 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 
1 

1. Background 

The skin is the body’s largest organ, yet it is the most underused sense for displaying information 

in human-computer interfaces (Brewster & Brown, 2004). Our sense of touch can be both 

informative and intuitive. For example, a tap on the shoulder instinctively tells you that someone 

is behind you, his or her location, and that s/he wants your attention (Castle & Dobbins, 2004). 

The skin shows potential as an effective medium to communicate information, which has led to 

the development of tactile displays. 

Tactile displays have existed for several years, but it is only recently that their potential has been 

explored. Empirical evidence suggests that tactile displays are an effective method of alerting 

pilots about possible threats or other situations that may occur during a mission, especially when 

the visual channel is already overloaded or unavailable (Gilliland & Schlegel, 1994). Tactile 

displays are also promising for navigation tasks (Jones & Nakamura, 2003; van Erp, 2005; Elliott, 

Redden, Krausman, Carstens, & Pettitt, 2005) and as an aid for pilots experiencing sensory 

disorientation while flying (Raj, Kass, & Perry, 2000). There are several inherent advantages to 

tactile displays, namely, tactile messages are silent, yet can be perceived by the user, and tactile 

displays provide an alternate information channel for those situations when the use of visual or 

auditory displays is not practical (van Veen & van Erp, 2003). 

Although vibrotactile displays are becoming increasingly common in everyday devices such as 

mobile phones, pagers, and game controllers, the vibrations used in these devices do not fully 

capture the potential of vibration as a means of communicating (Brewster & Brown, 2004). 

Encoding information into tactile patterns or “tactons” may be a method of exploiting the benefits of vibrotactile technology as a communication medium. An area of particular interest to the 

military is using tactile patterns to relay information to the Soldier. For example, military hand 

signals, if translated into tactile patterns, would allow their visual channel to remain free and 

allow Soldiers to maintain greater distances from one another. In one study, Pettitt, Redden, and 

Carstens (2006) evaluated Soldiers’ abilities to interpret and respond to tactile and visual hand 

signals. Participants received tactile and visual hand and arm signals as they negotiated an 

individual movement techniques (IMT) course while wearing their standard uniforms and body 

armor. Tactile signals were presented via a belt worn around the waist, which contained eight 

tactors spaced at equivalent points. Results demonstrated that Soldiers were able to receive, 

interpret, and accurately respond to the tactile commands faster than to the conventional hand 

and arm signals. Soldiers also commented they were better able to focus more attention on 

negotiating obstacles and on area situation awareness (SA) when receiving tactile signals than 

when maintaining visual contact with their leaders in order to receive standard hand and arm 

signals. Jones, Lockyer, and Piateski (2006) investigated the ability of participants to recognize 

and respond to tactile navigation patterns presented to the lower back. In their study, participants 
2 

were able to recognize and correctly respond to the patterns with almost perfect accuracy. Results 

of these studies suggest that tactile patterns may be an effective means of communicating information to the Soldier. However, one issue that has not been adequately addressed in the literature 

is how different types of tactile displays affect tactile pattern recognition, especially when we 

consider the types of tasks that Soldiers perform during combat operations. The goal of the 

present study is to investigate these issues. 

2. Objective 

The objectives explored within this study were to determine 

(a) how the configuration of tactile displays affects the detection and recognition of tactile 

patterns. 

Hypothesis: Detection and correct identification of tactile patterns with the back display will 

be superior to the belt display because the back display uses a 4x4 array of tactors that 

provides a degree of redundancy. 

(b) to what extent different combat maneuvers affect the detection and recognition of tactile 

patterns. 

Hypothesis: Maneuvers that require more body movement will affect detection and 

recognition of tactile patterns. 

(c) how wearing body armor with small arms protective insert (SAPI) plates affects the 

detection and recognition of tactile patterns. 

Hypothesis: The weight of the body armor pressing on the tactors in the belt and back display 

will make detection and identification of tactile patterns difficult. 

(d) if any of the six tactile patterns have higher identification rates. 

Hypothesis: Identification rates will be similar for the six tactile patterns. 

3. Method 

3.1 Participants 

Ten non-commissioned officers (NCOs) volunteered to participate in this study. Participants were 

from the 11C military occupational specialty (MOS) from Fort Stewart, Georgia. All participants 

were free from any injury or medical problem that would preclude them from participating. The 
3 

voluntary, fully informed consent of the persons used in this research was obtained as required by 

32 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 219 and Army Regulation (AR) 70-25. The investigators 

adhered to the policies for the protection of human subjects as prescribed in AR 70-25. Participants 

did not receive monetary compensation for their participation and were free to withdraw from the 

study at any time without penalty. A coding scheme was used to identify the data by participant 

number only (e.g., Subject 1) to maintain confidentiality. All photographs taken during the course of 

the study were modified to ensure that participants could not be identified. 

3.2 Instrumentation 

3.2.1 500-meter Mobility-Portability Course (Known Distance [KD] Range) 

The mobility-portability course (see figure 1) consists of 19 individual obstacles spread over a 

twisting course about 500 meters long. The obstacles have been chosen to subject the participants 

to the kinds of maneuvers they should expect to perform in combat, such as running, jumping, 

climbing, balancing, negotiating buildings, stairs, windows, and crawling. For the purposes of this 

study, three obstacles were used: tires (see figure 2), windows (see figure 3), and high crawl (see 

figure 4). These obstacles were chosen because they provide ample time for several tactile 

patterns to be sent and are most likely to interfere with pattern perception. 

Figure 1. 500-meter mobility-portability course. 
4 

 

 Figure 2. Tires Figure 3. Windows. 

Figure 4. High crawl. 

3.2.2 Tactile System 

The wireless tactile control unit (WTCU) developed by Dr. Lynette Jones at the Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology (MIT) under the Advanced Decision Architectures Collaborative 

Technology Alliance (ADA CTA) was used to present tactile signals. The system consists of a 

tactile display with a receiver unit that was mounted on each participant’s body. A wireless 

control unit is used to control the motors in the tactile array. Each tactor is sealed with glue and 

then molded in a plastic block 18.4 mm long, 17 mm wide, and 6 mm thick. The plastic 
5 

encasement makes the motor more robust and increases the contact area between the motor and the 

skin. The tactors produce a vibration that is similar to a pager or cell phone vibrating. For this 

experiment, two tactile display configurations were used: a 4x4 array that was mounted on a 

stretch fabric (used for athletic clothing) and fitted comfortably around the lower torso on a waist 

band (see figure 5), and a belt that contained eight tactors was positioned at the cardinal compass 

points (see figure 6). The cardinal compass points include north, northeast, east, southeast, south, 

southwest, west, and northwest. The tactile display is powered by a 9-V battery. Both displays 

were worn over the participants’ undershirts. The 4x4 array display was worn on the lower back, 

with the tactors positioned on both sides of back to avoid the spine’s indentation. The belt display 

was worn around the participants’ lower abdomen, just above their navel. 

Figure 5. Tactile back configuration. 

Figure 6. Tactile belt configuration. 
6 

3.2.3 Tactile Patterns 

Six tactile patterns were created for each display type (see figures 7 and 8). The back display 

patterns were used in a similar experiment (Jones et al., 2006) and have been demonstrated to have 

high accuracy in terms of user responses. The belt display patterns were created to be similar in 

meaning to the back patterns but with fewer tactors. The tactile signals lasted about 2 seconds. 

The vibrations and the inter-stimulus intervals are outlined in table 1. Participants received the 

tactile patterns while performing three of the obstacles on the mobility-portability course. 

 Turn Right Turn Left 

 Move Forward Turn Around 

 1,2,3,4 

 Stop at Next Obstacle Stand in Place 

Figure 7. Back display patterns (numbers represent the sequence of activation). 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

3 

3 

3 

4 

4 

4 

4 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

3 2 

3 

3 

3 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

3 3 3 3

4 4 4 4 

1,2,3,4 

4 4 4

1 1 1 

2 2 2 2 

3 3 3 3 

4 
7 

 Move Forward Turn Around 

Figure 8. Belt display patterns (numbers represent the sequence of activation). 

Stand in Place Stop at Next Obstacle 

Front Front 

1,2,3,4 

1,2,3,4 

3,4 

2

1

2 

1 1 

2 2 

1

Front Front 

3,4 

Turn Right Turn Left 

Front Front 

1

2

2

1

3,4 

1 

2

2

1 

3,4 
8 

Table 1. Signal durations. 

Signal Active Delay Active Delay Active Delay Active Total 

Turn Right 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 

Turn Left 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 

Move Forward 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 

Turn Around 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 

Stop at Next Obstacle 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 2.2 

Stand In Place 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.5 2.3 

3.2.4 Soldier Equipment 

The Soldiers completed this assessment while wearing a standard fighting load and interceptor 

body armor (IBA) with SAPI plates, as detailed in table 2. They carried a training device simulating the M4 carbine as they completed the obstacles on the obstacle course. The standard fighting 

load weighed 37.90 lb. 

The IBA consists of an outer tactical vest (OTV) with front and rear SAPI plates. The weights 

for each component are shown in table 3. Soldiers did not wear deltoid auxiliary protection or 

side plate inserts for this experiment. 

Table 2. Standard fighting load. 

Item Description 

Underclothing and socks 

Battle dress uniform (BDU) 

Belt with buckle 

Boots 

Army combat helmet 

Canteen with cover, and 1 quart of water (two-each) 

Hand grenades (two-each inert) 

Individual first aid kit 

Ammunition pouches (two) 

M4 carbine mockup 

Table 3. IBA component weights (lb). 

Size OTV SAPI SAPI x 2 Total 

Small 6.95 4.75 9.50 16.45 

Medium 7.66 5.45 10.90 18.56 

Large 8.38 6.25 12.50 20.88 

X-Large 9.51 7.10 14.20 23.71 

3.3 Experimental Design 

3.3.1 Independent Variables 

The experimental design was a mixed design with three independent variables (see table 4). The 

presentation order for the type of equipment configuration was counterbalanced (see table 5). 

Order of obstacles was randomly determined. 
9 

3.3.2 Dependent Variables 

The dependent variables were the percentage of tactile patterns detected, percentage of correctly 

identified patterns (calculated with the percentage of tactile patterns detected), and response time 

to detect and identify patterns. 

Table 4. Independent variables. 

Independent Variable Levels Type 

Equipment configuration 1. BDU + fighting load 

2. BDU + fighting load +IBA 

Within subjects 

Obstacle 1. Baseline 

2. Tires 

3. High Crawl 

4. Windows 

Within subjects 

Tactile display 1. Belt 

2. Back 

Between subjects 

Table 5. Equipment presentation order. 

Participant Obstacle 1 Obstacle 2 Obstacle 3 

1 (Belt) A,B B,A A,B 

2 (Back) B,A, A,B B,A 

3 (Belt) A,B B,A A,B 

4 (Back) B,A, A,B B,A 

5 (Belt) A,B B,A A,B 

6 (Back) B,A, A,B B,A 

7 (Belt) A,B B,A A,B 

8 (Back) B,A, A,B B,A 

9 (Belt) A,B B,A A,B 

10 (Back) B,A, A,B B,A 

A = BDU + load + IBA 

B = BDU + load 

3.4 Procedures 

Before beginning the experiment, each participant completed a volunteer affidavit and received a 

short briefing about the experimental purpose, procedures, and equipment. Following the orientation, participants completed a training session which consisted of two phases. In the first phase, 

participants were introduced to the specific obstacles that were used during the experiment and 

were given the opportunity to negotiate each obstacle to ensure that they understood the proper 

techniques involved. In the second phase, participants were given a paper copy of the back or belt 

tactile patterns and received a brief explanation of the tactile patterns they would receive during the 

experiment. Next, participants were given random tactile patterns and were asked to verbalize 

which tactile pattern they received (e.g., say “turn right”). Participants were corrected if errors 

were made. The training session lasted approximately 10 minutes for each participant. Once the 

participants had a clear understanding of the patterns (i.e., reached 100% accuracy), the experiment 

began. 
10 

During the experiment, each participant donned the back or belt tactile systems and an equipment 

ensemble (see table 4). Next, participants completed the baseline condition for each equipment 

configuration. In the baseline condition, participants received tactile patterns while standing still 

and verbally indicated which pattern they received. The participants then began the moving conditions. Participants received 12 tactile patterns as they moved through each obstacle and verbally 

indicated which pattern they received. Each participant completed six runs through the windows, 

six runs through the tires, and four runs through the high crawl. The total time to complete the 

experiment was approximately 2 hours. 

3.5 Data Analysis 

Separate mixed model analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted on the percent detected, 

percent correct, and response time data. Equipment configuration, obstacle, and tactile display 

were the independent variables for all analyses. Statistical significance was concluded when 

p < 0.05. Significant effects were examined post hoc with the least significant difference (LSD) 

test. 

4. Results 

4.1 Baseline Data 

4.1.1 Percent Detected 

Participants detected 100% of the tactile patterns during the baseline trials. 

4.1.2 Percent Correct 

Participants correctly identified 100% of the tactile patterns during the baseline trials. 

4.1.3 Response Time 

No significant differences in response time were found for the baseline trials F(1, 8) = 3.78, 

p = .0877. 

4.2 Obstacle Data 

4.2.1 Percent Detected 

Analysis of the data showed that the obstacles had a significant effect on the detection of tactile 

signals, F(2, 32) = 10.23, p = .0004. Post hoc tests revealed a significantly lower percentage of 

signals detected during the high crawl than during the tires and windows (see figure 9). No equipment, display, or any factor interaction effects were significant. 
11 

4.2.2 Percent Correct 

Analysis of the data showed that the obstacles had a significant effect on the identification of 

tactile signals, F(2, 32) = 16.93, p < .0001. Post hoc tests revealed a significantly lower percentage of identified signals during the high crawl than during the tires and windows (see figure 10). 

No equipment, display, or any factor interaction effects were significant. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

High Crawl Tires Windows

Obstacle

Percent detected

Figure 9. Mean percent detected by obstacle. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

High Crawl Tires Windows

Obstacle

Percent correct

Figure 10. Mean percent correct by obstacle. 

4.2.3 Response time 

No significant effects on response time were found. 
12 

4.3 Tactile Patterns 

A brief examination of the pattern data was performed to identify if there were any patterns that 

resulted in poorer performance (see figure 11). Turn right and turn left resulted in the best performance and stop was the pattern with the worst performance. 

90.5 93.3

87.9

84.1

80.4

88.3

0

25

50

75

100

Turn right Turn left Move

forward

Turn around Stop Stand in

place

Tactile pattern

Percent correct

Figure 11. Percent correct identification for each pattern. 

5. Discussion and Conclusions 

One of the challenges in designing tactile displays is ensuring that the user reliably perceives the 

signals, even when s/he may be engaged in other mentally or physically demanding tasks. The 

present study investigated how tactile display configuration and physically demanding tasks (i.e., 

combat assault maneuvers) affect the detection and recognition of tactile patterns. Participants 

received six tactile patterns while maneuvering through the high crawl, tires, and windows. The 

type of tactile display (belt and back) did not affect detection and identification of the tactile 

patterns. Wearing the body armor with SAPI plates did not affect performance either. It was 

hypothesized that performance with the back display would be superior to that with the belt display 

because there were more tactors on the display, allowing for a greater degree of redundancy in the 

patterns. Furthermore, we expected that the additional weight from the body armor with plates 

would press on the tactors and make it difficult for the participants to feel the vibrations. However, 

the data from the present study do not support these assumptions. 

With respect to the detection and identification of tactile patterns, baseline data indicated that 

participants detected and correctly identified 100% of the patterns, with no differences in 

response time. For the experimental data, participants detected 62.5% of the tactile patterns 
13 

during the high crawl, which was significantly lower than the tires and windows, with 92% and 

88% of signals detected, respectively. With regard to the correct identification of tactile patterns, 

participants correctly identified 51% of the patterns during the high crawl, as compared to 88.5% 

for the tires and 77% for the windows. Jones et al. (2006) performed a similar study using tactile 

patterns as a navigation aid. In their study, eight tactile navigation patterns were presented to 

participants via a torso-mounted 4x4 tactile array. Participants were able to recognize the 

patterns with almost perfect accuracy in a laboratory setting and while navigating through a 

predetermined course in a parking lot. Performance in the present study was evaluated during 

more challenging field conditions, in which the detection and accurate identification of the tactile 

signals proved more difficult. Performance with the tires and windows was somewhat degraded, 

and further research is needed to determine what pattern parameters can be modified to increase 

the accuracy to an acceptable level, especially when we consider that tactile displays may be 

relaying valuable information (i.e., navigation, communication) to the Soldier. 

Of the six patterns presented, turn left and turn right resulted in the best performance with 93.3% 

and 90.5% correctly identified, respectively, followed by stand in place (88.3%), move forward 

(87.9%), and turn around (84.1%). Stop at next obstacle resulted in the worst performance with 

80.4% identification. The differences between the tactile pattern with the highest and lowest 

correct identifications were rather small (only 13%). Futhermore, all identification rates were 

above 80%, which demonstrates the ability of tactors to communicate several different meaningful 

patterns to the user. Additional work is necessary to determine if changing the signal characteristics (i.e., location of tactor firing, duration of signal, and number of tactors firing simultaneously) would ensure correct identification of a larger percentage of patterns. 

In summary, the results of the present study provide additional insight into the factors that affect 

tactile pattern recognition. Future work should investigate the benefits of increasing the signal 

strength and determining how modifying the parameters and configuration of the tactile patterns 

affects detection and identification. 
14 

6. References 

Brewster, S.; Brown, L.M. Tactons: Structured Tactile Messages for Non-Visual Information 

Display. In Proceedings of the 5th Australasian User Interface Conference, 2004, 28, 15-23. 

Castle, H.; Dobbins, T. Tactile Displays for Enhanced Performance and Safety. In Proceedings 

of the 11th SAfE (Europe) Symposium, Lyon, France, SAfE Europe, Bracknell, UK, 2004. 

Elliott, L.R.; Redden, E.; Krausman, A.; Carstens, C.; Pettitt, R. Multi-modal Displays to Support 

Army Infantry Decision Making and Performance. In Proceedings of the 7th International 

Naturalistic Decision Making Conference. Amsterdam: The Netherlands, 2005. 

Gilliland, K.; Schlegel, R.E. Tactile Stimulation of the Human Head for Information Display. 

Human Factors 1994, 36, 700-717. 

Headquarters, Department of the Army. Use of Volunteers as Subjects of Research; AR 70-25; 

Washington, DC, 1990. 

Jones, L.A.; Lockyer, B.; Piateski, E. Tactile Display and Vibrotactile Pattern Recognition on 

the Torso. Advanced Robotics, in press. 

Jones, L. A.; Nakamura, M. Haptic Displays: The Tactile Vest. In Proceedings of the 

Collaborative Technology Alliances Conference, 2003. 

Office of the Secretary of Defense. Protection of Human Subjects, 32 Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 219, Washington, DC, 1999. 

Pettitt, R.A.; Redden, E.S.; Carstens, C. C. A Comparison of Hand and Arm Signals to a Covert 

Tactile Communication System in a Dynamic Environment; ARL-TR-3838; U.S. Army 

Research Laboratory: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 2006. 

Raj, A.; Kass, S.; Perry, J. Vibrotactile Displays for Improving Spatial Awareness. In 

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 2000, 181-184. 

van Erp, J.B. Presenting Directions With a Vibro-Tactile Torso Display. Ergonomics 2005, 4, 

302-313. 

van Veen, H.; van Erp, J. Tactile Melodies in User Interfaces. In Proceedings of the Human 

Factors and Ergonomics Society 47th Annual Meeting, 2003, 751-754. 
15 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 1 DEFENSE TECHNICAL 

 (PDF INFORMATION CTR 

 ONLY) DTIC OCA 

 8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD 

 STE 0944 

 FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218 

 1 US ARMY RSRCH DEV & ENGRG CMD 

 SYSTEMS OF SYSTEMS 

 INTEGRATION 

 AMSRD SS T 

 6000 6TH ST STE 100 

 FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-5608 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 IMNE ALC IMS 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRD ARL CI OK TL 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 2 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRD ARL CI OK T 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 ARL HRED AVNC FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MJ D DURBIN 

 BLDG 4506 (DCD) RM 107 

 FT RUCKER AL 36362-5000 

 1 ARL HRED AMCOM AUN FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MO 

 BLDG 5400 RM C242 J MINNINGER 

 REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 35898-7290 

 1 ARL HRED AMCOM MSL FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MD T COOK 

 BLDG 5400 RM C242 

 REDSTONE ARS AL 35898-7290 

 1 ARL HRED USAADASCH FLD ELMT 

 ATTN ATSA CD 

 5800 CARTER ROAD 

 FORT BLISS TX 79916-3802 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 1 ARL HRED ARDEC FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MG R SPINE 

 BUILDING 333 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000 

 1 ARL HRED ARMC FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MH C BURNS 

 BLDG 1002 ROOM 117 

 1ST CAVALRY REGIMENT RD 

 FT KNOX KY 40121 

 1 ARL HRED CECOM FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MA J MARTIN 

 MYER CENTER RM 2D311 

 FT MONMOUTH NJ 07703-5630 

 1 ARL HRED FT BELVOIR FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MK J REINHART 

 10125 KINGMAN RD 

 FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-5828 

 1 ARL HRED FT HOOD FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR S MIDDLEBROOKS 

 MV HQ USAOTC 

 91012 STATION AVE ROOM 111 

 FT HOOD TX 76544-5073 

 1 ARL HRED FT HUACHUCA FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MY M BARNES 

 2520 HEALY AVE STE 1172 BLDG 51005 

 FT HUACHUCA AZ 85613-7069 

 1 ARL HRED FLW FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MZ A DAVISON 

 199 E 4TH ST STE C TECH PARK BLDG 2 

 FT LEONARD WOOD MO 65473-1949 

 1 ARL HRED NATICK FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MQ M R FLETCHER 

 NATICK SOLDIER CTR BLDG 3 

 AMSRD ARL NSC SE E 

 NATICK MA 01760-5020 

 1 ARL HRED SC&FG FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MS C MANASCO 

 SIGNAL TOWERS RM 303A 

 FORT GORDON GA 30905-5233 

 1 ARL HRED STRICOM FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MT C CHEN 

 12350 RESEARCH PARKWAY 

 ORLANDO FL 32826-3276 
16 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 1 ARL HRED TACOM FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MU M SINGAPORE 

 6501 E 11 MILE RD MAIL STOP 284 

 BLDG 200A 2ND FL RM 2104 

 WARREN MI 48397-5000 

 3 ARL HRED USAIC FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MW E REDDEN 

 L ELLIOTT R PETTITT 

 BLDG 4 ROOM 332 

 FT BENNING GA 31905-5400 

 1 ARL HRED USASOC FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MN R SPENCER 

 DCSFDI HF 

 HQ USASOC BLDG E2929 

 FORT BRAGG NC 28310-5000 

 1 ARL HRED FT LEAVENWORTH FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MP 

 D UNGVARSKY 

 BATTLE CMD BATTLE LAB 

 415 SHERMAN AVE UNIT 3 

 FT LEAVENWORTH KS 66027-2326 

 1 ARL HRED AMEDD FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MM V RICE 

 BLDG 4011 RM 217 

 1750 GREELEY RD 

 FT SAM HOUSTON TX 78234-5094 

 1 ARL HRED SPO 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR M M STRUB 

 6359 WALKER LANE STE 100 

 ALEXANDRIA VA 22310 

 1 ARL HRED JFCOM FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MJF D BARNETTE 

 JFCOM JOINT EXPERIMENTATION J9 

 JOINT FUTURES LAB 

 115 LAKEVIEW PKWY STE B 

 SUFFOLK VA 23535 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL CI OK TECH LIB 

 BLDG 4600 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL CI OK TP S FOPPIANO 

 BLDG 459 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MB J NAWLEY 

 BLDG 459 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR M F PARAGALLO 

 BLDG 459 

 6 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR SB 

 A KRAUSMAN 

 BLDG 459