LIBRARY

ARL BLDG 459

APG-AA

An Initial Assessment of the Fit,

Retention, and Visual Display

Characteristics of the Kaiser Proview’”

Head-Mounted Display System

David B. Durbin

ARL-TN-135 MARCH 1999

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
MetaVRTM is a trademark of MetaVR.

ProViewTM is a trademark of Kaiser Electra-Optics, Inc.

SPSS@ is a registered trademark of Statistical Program for the Social Sciences, Inc.

The findings in this report ficial 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.

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator.
Army Research Laboratory

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 2 1005-5425

ARL-TN-135 March 1999

An Initial Assessment of the Fit, Retention, and

Visual Display Characteristics of the Kaiser

ProviewTM Head-Mounted Display System

David B. Durbin

Human Research & Engineering Directorate

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
Abstract

Head-mounted displays (HMDs) are a potentially viable technology

for presentation of the “out-the-window” (OTW) scene for Army

aviation simulators. As part of an effort to evaluate their suitability

for Army aviation, a preliminary assessment of three Kaiser

ProViewTM HMDs was conducted during a simulation exercise at the

U.S. Army Aviation Test Bed, Fort Rucker, Alabama. The assessment

evaluated the fit, retention, and visual display characteristics of the

HMDs. The method used to assess the HMDs included aviator

responses to a usability survey, statistical correlation of survey

responses with head measurements obtained from each aviator,

observation of aviator performance during their missions, and postmission interviews. Most of the fit, retention, and visual display

characteristics of the HMDs were judged to be acceptable by the

Army aviators. Suitability of the HMDs would be improved by an

increase in field of view and the use of lightweight electrical cables to

minimize restriction of head movement and potential for pressureinduced hot spots.
CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

INTRODUCTION................................................ 5

Purpose .................................................. 5

System Description .......................................... 5

METHOD...................................................... 6

Subjects .................................................. 6

Procedure ................................................. 7

Data Collection ............................................. 8

Anthropometry ............................................. 9

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

Limitations of Assessment ...................................... 10

RESULTS...................................................... 10

Fit and Retention ............................................ 10

Visual Display Characteristics ................................... 11

CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

REFERENCES................................................... 13

APPENDICES

A. Correlation of Head Measurements With Aviator Survey Responses

Regarding Fit and Retention of HMDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . 15

B. Aviator Survey Responses Regarding Fit and Retention of HMDs . . . . . . . . 19

C. Aviator Survey Responses Regarding Visual Characteristics of HMDs . . . . . . 23

D. Summary of Aviator Responses Regarding Fit, Retention, and Visual

Display Characteristics of HMDs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

E. Aviator Survey Responses Regarding Motion Sickness Symptoms

Experienced During Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1

F. Total Hours Each Aviator Had Used an HMD Before Assessment . . . . . . . . 35

DISTRIBUTION LIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE . . . ._. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
FIGURES

1. Kaiser ProViewTM 40 HMD ................................... 2

2. Mission Route for HMD Simulation Exercise ....................... 8

TABLES

1. Demographic Characteristics of Aviators .......................... 6

2. Head Measurements of Aviators. ............................... 9

2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Head-mounted displays (HMDs) have potential benefits for use as the “out-the-window”

(OTW) display for Army aviation flight simulators because of their small size and weight,

transportability, and comparatively low costs. However, the human factors characteristics

associated with the usability of HMDs as OTW displays have yet to be fully identified and

evaluated. A preliminary assessment of three Kaiser ProViewTM HMDs was conducted on 8 and 9

October 1998, at the U.S. Army Aviation Test Bed, Fort Rucker, Alabama. The assessment was

requested by the Directorate of Training, Doctrine, and Simulation, U.S. Army Aviation Center,

Fort Rucker, Alabama, and evaluated the fit, retention, and visual display characteristics of the

HMDs during a mission simulation exercise. The assessment was based on aviator responses to a

usability survey, statistical correlation of survey responses with head measurements obtained from

each aviator, observation of aviator performance during their missions, and post-mission

interviews. This report contains a description of the assessment and its findings. Most of the fit,

retention, and visual display characteristics of the HMDs were rated as positive by the aviators.

The usability of the HMDs would be enhanced by an increased field of view and the use of

lightweight electrical cables to minimize restriction of head movement and potential for hot spots.

AN INITIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE FIT, RETENTION, AND VISUAL DISPLAY

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE KAISER PROVIEWTM HEAD-MOUNTED DISPLAY SYSTEM

INTRODUCTION

Purpose

Army aviation is becoming increasingly reliant on simulation to maintain training

proficiency for aircrews. Several research efforts are evaluating the training effectiveness of

various simulation display technologies, including head-mounted displays (HMDs). HMDs

have potential benefits for use as the “out-the-window” (OTW) display for flight simulators

because of their small size and weight, transportability, and comparatively low costs. However,

the human factors characteristics associated with the usability of HMDs as OTW displays have

yet to be fully identified and evaluated. The purpose of this assessment was to conduct an initial

evaluation of the fit, retention, and visual characteristics of three Kaiser ProViewTM HMDs during

a simulation exercise in the Aviation Test Bed, Fort Rucker, Alabama. This assessment was

requested by the Directorate of Training, Doctrine, and Simulation and provides useful insights

about the usability of HMDs as the OTW display for Army aviation flight simulators.

System Description

The three HMDs were models with 40”, 50”, or 60” fields of view (FOVs) (diagonal),

dual liquid crystal displays on which the OTW scene was projected, an adjustable headband made

of semi-rigid plastic, and a lightweight, inertial head tracker mounted on top of the headband (see

Figure 1). The resolution of the liquid crystal displays was 640 by 480 pixels. Electrical

connections were bundled into a single cable that attached to the lower back of the headband.

The HMDs provided user adjustments for display brightness, interpupillary distance, eye relief,

and vertical display alignment. The approximate weight of the HMDs was 1.3 pounds for the

ProViewTM 40 and 50 and 1.7 pounds for the ProViewTM 60. During the simulation exercise, the

HMDs were interfaced with a MetaVRTM image generator that provided an OTW visual scene

(terrain and man-made objects) portrayed to the aviators on the liquid crystal displays.
Figure 1. Kaiser ProViewTM 40 HMD.

METHOD

Subjects

Subjects were eight males who were current or former Army aviators. They represented a

group of highly experienced aviators with an average of 4,300 hours of flight time in Army aircraft.

Five of the aviators also had significant experience using HMDs in a simulation environment. Their

relevant demographic characteristics are listed in Table 1.

Table 1

Demographic Characteristics of Aviators

(N = 8 males)

summary of

demographic

characteristics

Age Total flight

(years) hours

Total hours

aviators have used

an HMD to datea

Corrective lens

worn during

assessment

Mean

Range

44.3

37 to 52

4300

1800 to 6000

203.9b

1.2 to 1200

Yes-3 7%’

No-63%

aSee Appendix F for total HMD hours for each aviator

bMedian total hours = 26.0

CThree aviators wore eyeglasses
Procedure

The assessment was conducted using the HMDs in a fully reconfigurable experimental

device (FRED) simulator located in the Aviation Test Bed, Fort Rucker, Alabama. The FRED

simulators are used primarily for collective task training by the U.S. Army Aviation Center. They

contain generic helicopter flight controls, provide the OTW scene on five 60-inch monitors, and can

be configured to functionally represent the AH-64, OH-58C or D, and UH-60 helicopters. The

FRED simulator used for the HMD simulation exercise was configured to represent an AH-64.

The 60-inch monitors were turned off for the exercise because the HMD provided the OTW scene.

Before entering the simulators to begin their mission, the aviators were briefed about the

purpose of the assessment, and their heads were measured (see Table 2) by personnel from the

Human Research and Engineering Directorate (HRED) of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory

(ARL). In addition, Kaiser personnel provided each aviator with a “hands-on” demonstration of the

method for adjusting the HMD to fit his head and the method for adjusting the position of the

displays. The aviators then entered the simulator, were asked to don the HMDs, perform necessary

adjustments to accommodate their head sizes, and begin their mission.

During the assessment, one aviator flew the simulator in the pilot’s seat while the other

aviator sat in the copilot-gunner’s (CP/G) seat and attempted to acquire and engage targets. A

contractor sat in a third seat close to the pilot’s seat to help with HMD adjustments and to

troubleshoot technical problems that arose during the simulation. The aviator sitting in the CP/G

seat wore the ProViewTM 60, while the aviator sitting in the pilot seat wore the ProViewTM 40 or 50.

At the mid-point of the mission, the aviators switched seats in order to wear the other HMD

models during the mission.

The aviators flew a mission route (see Figure 2) from a forward assembly area (FAA) to a

battle position (BP), attempted to acquire and engage targets in the engagement area (EA), and then

returned to the FAA. In order to maximize the aviators’ exposure to different visual scenes, while

they wore the HMDs, two different terrain databases were used during the mission. On the

outbound leg of the mission, a hilly terrain database with moderate vegetation was used. On the

inbound leg of the mission (after departure from the EA), a desert terrain database modeled after

the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California, was used. Upon completion of their mission,

the aviators exited the simulator, were interviewed by ARL personnel, and completed an 11 -page

survey regarding their assessment of the fit, retention, and visual characteristics of the HMDs.
Figure 2. Mission route for HMD simulation exercise.

The aviators spent an average of 74 minutes in the simulator performing their mission

while wearing the HMDs. Seven aviators wore their flight suits during the assessment, while

the eighth wore civilian clothes. The ambient temperature in the simulator during the assessment

varied between 66” and 69” F. Incident light levels in the simulator were measured at less than

10.0 lux (< 1 .O footcandle).

Data Collection

The methodology used by ARL (HRED) personnel to collect human factors data

included obtaining head measurements from each aviator, administering a usability survey,

observing aviator performance during their missions, and interviewing the aviators after they

completed their flight. The survey was developed in accordance with published guidelines for

proper format and content (Babbitt & Nystrom, 1989; Georgia Institute of Technology, 1994).

A brief pre-test was conducted to refine the survey and to establish its content and face validity.

Survey results were augmented and clarified with observations recorded during missions and with

information obtained during aviator interviews. Because the fit, retention, and visual display

8
characteristics were essentially identical (except for FOV) for the ProViewTM 40, 50, and 60

HMDs, the aviators completed one survey that addressed all three HMDs. The aviators

reported that differences in the FOV between the HMDs were not noticeable and did not affect

the HMDs’ performance. Observations of aviator performance during their missions and a

hands-on evaluation of the HMDs by ARL personnel supported the aviators’ judgments that the

differences in FOV were not noticeable. In the few instances when aviators noted minor

differences among the three HMDs, they reported the differences on the survey.

Anthropometry

Head measurements (see Table 2) were obtained from each aviator for four anthropometric

dimensions including head length, breadth, and circumference, and interpupillary breadth. The

measurements were obtained in accordance with published procedures (Gordon et al., 1989) and

were used to determine how well the HMDs accommodated the range of the aviators’ head sizes.

This was accomplished by constructing a correlation matrix (see Appendix A) matching the

aviators’ head measurements with their survey responses in order to determine any statistically

significant relationships. For example, correlation coefficients were computed to determine

whether aviators with larger head sizes reported significantly more (or fewer) problems with

HMD stability than did aviators with smaller head sizes. The upper percentile ranks for male

soldiers were well represented for head breadth, length, and circumference. The lower percentile

rank for female and male soldiers was represented for interpupillary breadth. Three aviators wore

eyeglasses. This allowed an assessment of how well the eye relief adjustment on the HMDs

accommodated eyeglasses and whether there were any optical distortions because eyeglasses were

worn.

Table 2

Head Measurements of Aviators

Summary of Head

aviator head breadth

measurement data (cm)

Head

length

(cm>

Head

circumference

(in.)

Interpupillary

breadth

(cm>

Mean 15.6 20.0 22.9 6.2

SDa 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.3

Rangev (percentile) 14th to 97th 15th to 92nd 30th to 98th 1st to 65th”

aSD = standard deviation

blst percentile male is equivalent to 3rd percentile female

VRange for Army male soldiers

9
Data Analysis

Survey data were entered into the Statistical Program for the Social Sciences (SPSS@) for

reduction and analysis. Descriptive statistical data including percentages, averages (means), standard

deviations, and medians were generated. The data were further analyzed using a chi-square goodnessof-fit test to determine any statistically significant response trends to survey items. These trends

indicate that the responses provided by the aviators to a particular survey item were not random but

were attributable to a systematic factor such as a strong like or dislike for a particular characteristic

of the HMDs (e.g., display resolution). These trends increase the level of confidence that the

aviators’ responses are accurately measuring a usability characteristic of the HMDs. Because of the

small number of aviators who were surveyed, an exact chi-square probability value was computed for

each survey item. Additionally, a correlation matrix that matched aviator head measurement data

with their survey responses was developed. This helped determine how well the fit and retention

characteristics of the HMDs accommodated the aviators’ range of head sizes.

Limitations of Assessment

Schedule and funding constraints precluded a comprehensive assessment of the Kaiser

ProViewTM HMDs. The entire simulation exercise lasted only 2 days. The amount of time available

for aviator selection and training, flight time with the HMDs in the simulator, and data collection

was very limited. Technical problems with the aviation test bed (AVTB) image generator resulted

in noticeable image lag on the HMD visual scene and caused occasional system crashes. The

aviators were annoyed by the technical problems, but they reported that it did not significantly alter

their judgments about the fit, retention, and visual characteristics of the HMDs. They felt that the

human factors characteristics pertaining to the fit, retention, and visual display were very apparent

and were not obscured by image lag, occasional system crashes, or other technical problems.

RESULTS

Fit and Retention

Overall, the aviators reported that the fit and retention characteristics of the ProViewTM

40, 50, and 60 HMDs were good (see Appendix B). In general, the HMDs

l were quick and easy to adjust,

l maintained adequate stability on the aviators’ heads, even during quick head turns in the

horizontal and vertical axes,

1 0
l did not cause uncomfortable head temperatures,

l had adequate eye relief adjustment to accommodate eyeglasses worn by aviators,

l seldom required adjustment of interpupillary distance during the mission for most of

the aviators,

l had a comfortable center of gravity, and

l induced no upper body discomfort.

However, the aviators reported that the electrical cable that attached to the lower back of

the HMDs partially restricted their head movement. Also, three aviators reported experiencing

occasional hot spots on the back of their heads while wearing the ProViewTM 60. These three

aviators had larger head lengths and circumferences than the other aviators did. The correlation

(see Appendix A) between their larger head lengths and circumferences and the reported frequency

of hot spots was statistically significant [p (r 2 .SlS) < .02, head length], [p (r 2 .799) < .02, head

circumference]. A likely explanation is that the weight of the electrical cable that attached to the

lower back of the ProViewTM 60 headband resulted in localized pressure on the back of the head of

the aviators who had larger head lengths and circumferences.

Visual Display Characteristics

In general, the aviators reported that the resolution, brightness, and color of the images on

the HMD liquid crystal displays were good (see Appendix C). Image flicker was infrequent and

six of the eight aviators reported that the HMDs’ visual scene provided good situational awareness

of their immediate environment (e.g., terrain features). The three aviators who wore eyeglasses

reported that they experienced no optical distortions when viewing the visual display. However,

several aviators reported that the dynamic visual cues needed for flying the simulator at low

altitude were less than adequate. These included depth of the visual field, rate of closure, altitude

and attitude cues. The aviators reported that the limited FOV provided by the HMDs was a

primary factor in contributing to their lack of adequate visual cues. The aviators also reported that

the limited FOV was a significant factor in their rating the simulator as more difficult to fly than

their actual aircraft. Most aviators did not experience motion sickness symptoms while wearing

the HMDs. However, two aviators reported experiencing moderate symptoms of eye fatigue and

nausea during their mission, and one aviator reported experiencing moderate symptoms of

dizziness and nausea (see Appendix D). None of the aviators were forced to discontinue the

mission because of their physiological discomfort. However, since the average mission duration

11
was only 74 minutes, further evaluation would be required to determine if wearing the HMDs for

longer periods of time would induce more severe or disabling motion sickness symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

The Kaiser ProViewTM 40, 50, and 60 HMDs show promise for use as the OTW display

for Army aviation flight simulators. The overall fit and retention characteristics of the HMDs

were rated as positive by the aviators. Most of the visual display characteristics of the HMDs

were also rated as positive. Additionally, ARL personnel observed that the aviators appeared to

be visually “immersed” in the simulation environment throughout their mission. Note, however,

that at low altitude, the visual scene displayed by the HMDs did not provide adequate visual

cues for judging depth of field, rate of closure, and changes in altitude and attitude. The lack of

adequate cueing appeared to be caused primarily by the limited FOV of the HMDs. Kaiser is

currently developing an HMD with a 100” FOV (ProViewTM 100) to help address this issue.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The limitations of the simulation exercise did not allow an in-depth evaluation of the

human factors characteristics of the Kaiser ProViewTM HMDs. However, the survey responses

provided by the Army aviators serve as useful insights about the usability of HMDs as the OTW

display for Army aviation flight simulators. The survey responses also identify potential design

limitations that should be the focus of a comprehensive evaluation. It is recommended that

additional evaluations be conducted to accomplish the following:

1. Quantify the impact that the human factors characteristics of HMDs have on training

effectiveness;

2. Assess the use of HMDs in different operational environments (e.g., high ambient

illumination); and

3. Assess the physiological and performance effects of wearing an HMD for extended

periods of time (e.g., 2 to 4 hours).

To be effective, the evaluation must employ a large sample size of aviators with a wide range of

experience and must assess representative 5th percentile female through 95th percentile male

anthropometric dimensions. The evaluation also should investigate (a) different types of electrical

cables and methods of routing the cables to minimize restriction of head movement and potential

for induced hot spots, and (b) HMDs with larger FOVs (as they become commercially available).

12
REFERENCES

Babbitt, B., & Nystrom, C. (1989). Ouestionnaire construction manual. Fort Hood, TX: U.S.

Army Research Institute.

Georgia Institute of Technology (1994). Method of test for characterization of helmet-mounted

disnlavs for the U.S. Army. Atlanta, GA: Author.

Gordon, C., Churchill, T., Clauser, C., Bradtmiller, B., McConville, J., Tebbetts, I., & Walker, R.

(1989). 1988 anthropometric survev of U.S. Army personnel: Methods and summary

statistics. Yellow Springs, OH: Anthropology Research Project.

13

APPENDIX A

CORRELATION OF HEAD MEASUREMENTS WITH AVIATOR SURVEY

RESPONSES REGARDING FIT AND RETENTION OF HMDS

15

CORRELATION OF HEAD MEASUREMENTS WITH AVIATOR SURVEY

RESPONSES REGARDING FIT AND RETENTION OF HMDS

Head measurements

Survey items regarding

HMD fit and retention

Ease of HMD adjustment

before mission

Time to adjust HMD

Head Interpupillar

Head breadth Head length circumference distance

.ooo -.114 .114 .283

-.113 -.399 -.627 -.170

I

I I 1 I

~ Center of gravity .l 18 .438 .390 .387

Fore & aft stability of HMD .311 .292 .536 .145

Side-to-side stability of HMD .311 .292 .536 .145

Range of head movement -.332 .417 .334 -.415

Hot spots .243 .818* .799* -.007

Temperature .567 .399 .456 .340

FOV adjustment .113 .127 .3 17 .201

Neck comfort .340 -.114 .I71 .227

Shoulder comfort .340 -.114 .I71 .227

Upper back comfort

I I I I

.340 -.114 .171 ,227

Lower back comfort

I I I I

.340 -.114 .171 .227

Arms comfort

*Significant at c1 .05

.340 -.114 .171 .227

1 7

APPENDIX B

AVIATOR SURVEY RESPONSES REGARDING FIT

AND RETENTION OF HMDS

19

AVIATOR SURVEY RESPONSES REGARDING FIT

AND RETENTION OF HMDS

Very difficult Difficult Borderline Easy Very easy

Ease of HMD adjustment

before mission*

0% 0% 0% 37% 63%

< 2 min. 2 to 5 min. 6 to 9 min. 0 to 15 min. > 15 min.

Time to adjust HMD*

63% 37% 0% 0% 0%

Very Very

Center of gravity* uncomfortable Uncomfortable Borderline Comfortable comfortable

--- __-

0% 0% 12% 63% 25%

Very

unstable Unstable Borderline Stable Very stable

Fore & aft stability*

0% 0% 12% 63% 25%

Very

unstable Unstable Borderline Stable Very stable

Side-to-side stability*

0% 0% 12% 63% 25%

Very Somewhat Not

Range of head movement* restrictive restrictive restrictive

0% 88% 12%

Always Most of time Sometimes Rarely Very rarely

Hot spots - -

0% 0% 38% 12% 50%

Very Very

Temperature* uncomfortable Uncomfortable Borderline Comfortable comfortable

-___ --- - -

0% 0% 0% 37% 63%

*Significant at CI .05, indicating a non-random response trend

21
Interpupillary distance

adjustment during mission

Frequently Sometimes Rarely

38%

Never

12% 12% 38%

Very

uncomfortable Uncomfortable

0% 0%

very

comfortable

Upper body comfort

Borderline Comfortable

Neck comfort*

0% 63% 37%

Shoulders comfort*

0% 0% 0% 63% 37%

Upper back comfort*

0% 63% 37%

Lower back comfort*

0% 63% 37%

Arms comfort*

0% 0% 0% 63% 37%

*Significant at 01 .05, indic :ing a non-random response trend

22
APPENDIX C

AVIATOR SURVEY RESPONSES REGARDING VISUAL

CHARACTERJSTICS OF HMDS

23

AVIATOR SURVEY RESPONSES REGARDING VISUAL

CHARACTERISTICS OF HMDS

Very faded Faded Borderline Sharp Very sharp

Sharpness of images

displayed on HMD*

0% 0% 25% 75% 0%

Brightness of visual scene Very Very

displayed on HMD* inadequate Inadequate Borderline Adequate adequate

0% 0% 0% 88% 12%

How often aviators Always Most of time Sometimes Rarely Never

experienced image lag on - -

HMD

0% 25% 25% 37% 12%

Color of displayed images Very Very

on HMD* inadequate Inadequate Borderline Adequate adequate

-__ __-

0% 0% 0% 88% 12%

How often aviators Always Most of time Sometimes Rarely Never

noticed flickering of visual -

scene

0% 0% 25% 50% 25%

Adequacy of visual scene Very Very

on HMD for providing inadequate Inadequate Borderline Adequate adequate

situational awareness*

0% 25% 0% 75% 0%

Ease of “flying” simulator Much more More Same level

using HMD visual scene difficult difficult of difficulty Easier Much Easier

versus flying actual - -

aircraft

38% 50% 12% 0% 0%

. ..^. ._ ^_... . *blgmrlcant at a .U>, indicating a non-random response trend

25
Visual perception cues

Depth

Range*

Rate of closure*

Aircraft altitude and

crttitude cues (while flying

crt low altitude)

Very

inadequate

0%

0%

0%

Very

inadequate

Inadequate Borderline

12% 50%

12% 25%

12% 76%

Inadequate Borderline

Adequate

38%

63%

12%

Adequate

Very

adequate

0%

0%

0%

Very

adequate

Altitude cues 0% 12%

Attitude cues 0% 12%

*Significant at c1 .05, indicating a non-random response trend

38% 50% 0%

38% 50% 0%

26
APPENDIX D

SUMMARY OF AVIATOR RESPONSES REGARDING FIT, RETENTION,

AND VISUAL DISPLAY CHARACTERISTICS OF HMDS

27

SUMMARY OF AVIATOR RESPONSES REGARDING FIT, RETENTION,

AND VISUAL DISPLAY CHARACTERISTICS OF HMDS

Fit and retention characteristics Visual display characteristics

l HMD was easy to adjust before mission.

Adjustment took 62 seconds, on average.

l Images displayed on the HMD had adequate

resolution.

l Fore, aft, and side-to-side stability of HMD

during mission was generally good.

l HMD did not induce uncomfortable head

temperature when worn.

l Brightness of the visual scene on the HMD

was adequate.

l Flickering of images on the HMD visual scene

was minimal.

l Weight distribution (center of gravity) of the l The color of the images displayed on the

HMD on the aviator’s head was reported as HMD was adequate.

comfortable.

l Most aviators seldom had to adjust the

interpupillary distance of the displays during

their mission.

l The visual scene on the HMD provided most

aviators with adequate situational awareness of

their immediate environment.

l Aviators who wore eyeglasses had adequate

eye relief adjustment.

l Wearing the HMD caused no upper body

discomfort for neck, shoulders, back, or arms.

l Three of eight aviators reported occasional

problems with hot spots on the back of their

head while wearing the ProViewTM 60.

l Aviators who wore eyeglasses did not

experience optical distortions of images on the

display.

l Most aviators did not experience motion

sickness symptoms while wearing the HMDs.

l Visual perception cues provided by the HMD

for rate of closure and depth of visual field at

low altitude were less than adequate for most

aviators.

l Range of head movement was somewhat

restricted by cable on back of HMD. l Aircraft altitude and attitude visual cues (at

low altitude) were less than adequate for half of

the aviators.

l Image lag was often noticeable on the HMD

visual scene because of problems with the

AVTB image generator.

l Most aviators reported that flying the

simulator using the HMD was more difficult

than flying an actual aircraft primarily because

of limited FOV.

29

APPENDIX E

AVIATOR SURVEY RESPONSES REGARDING MOTION SICKNESS

SYMPTOMS EXPERIENCED DURING MISSION

AVIATOR SURVEY RESPONSES REGARDING MOTION SICKNESS

SYMPTOMS EXPERIENCED DURING MISSION

Nausea

Dizziness

Headaches

Eye Fafgue

Motion SicknessSymptoms

20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

33

APPENDIX F

TOTAL HOURS EACH AVIATOR HAD USED AN

HMD BEFORE ASSESSMENT

35

TOTAL HOURS EACH AVIATOR HAD USED AN

HMD BEFORE ASSESSMENT

Aviator No. 1 1200 hours*

Aviator No. 2 1.2 hours

Aviator No. 3 1.2 hours

Aviator No. 4 22 hours

Aviator No. 5 75 hours

Aviator No. 6 300 hours

Aviator No. 7 30 hours

Aviator No. 8 1.5 hours

kviator accrued hours as simulation pilot for the Army Research Instit

37

NO. OF

COPIES

2

ORGANIZATION

ADMINISTRATOR

DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFO CENTER

ATTN DTIC OCP

8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD STE 0944

FT BELVOIR VA 22060-62 18

DIRECTOR

US ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY

ATTN AMSRL CS AL TA REC MGMT

2800 POWDER MILL RD

ADELPHI MD 20783-I 197

DIRECTOR

US ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY

ATTN AMSRL CI LL TECH LIB

2800 POWDER MILL RD

ADELPHI MD 207830-l 197

DIR FOR PERSONNEL TECHNOLOGIES

DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF PERSONNEL

300 ARMY PENTAGON 2C733

WASHINGTON DC 203 1 O-0300

OUSD(A)/DDDR&E(R&A)/E&LS

PENTAGON ROOM 3D129

WASHINGTON DC 20301-3080

CODE 1142PS

OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH

800 N QUINCY STREET

ARLINGTON VA 222 17-5000

WALTER REED ARMY INST OF RSCH

ATTN SGRD UWI C (COL REDMOND)

WASHINGTON DC 20307-5 100

DR ARTHUR RUBIN

NATL INST OF STANDARDS & TECH

BUILDING 226 ROOM A3 13

GAITHERSBURG MD 20899

COMMANDER

US ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

ATT-N PER1 ZT (DR E M JOHNSON)

500 1 EISENHOWER AVENUE

ALEXANDRIA VA 22333-5600

DEFENSE LOGISTICS STUDIES

INFORMATION EXCHANGE

AT-l-N DIRECTOR DLSIE ATSZ DL

BLDG 12500

2401 QUARTERS ROAD

FORT LEE VA 23801-1705

NO. OF

COPIES

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

ORGANIZATION

DEPUTY COMMANDING GENERAL

ATTN EXS (Q)

MARINE CORPS RD&A COMMAND

QUANTICO VA 22134

HEADQUARTERS USATRADOC

ATTN ATCD SP

FORT MONROE VA 23651

COMMANDER

USATRADOC

COMMAND SAFETY OFFICE

ATTN ATOS (MR PESSAGNO/MR LYNE)

FORT MONROE VA 2365 l-5000

DIRECTOR TDAD DCST

ATTN ATTG C

BLDG 161

FORT MONROE VA 2365 I-5000

COMMANDER

USA OPERATIONAL TEST & EVAL AGENCY

ATTN CSTE TSM

4501 FORD AVE

ALEXANDRIA VA 22302- 1458

USA BIOMEDICAL R&D LABORATORY

ATTN LIBRARY

FORT DETRICK BUILDING 568

FREDERICK MD 2 1702-50 10

HQ USAMRDC

ATTN SGRD PLC

FORT DETRICK MD 2 170 1

COMMANDER

USA AEROMEDICAL RESEARCH LAB

ATTN LIBRARY

FORT RUCKER AL 36362-5292

US ARMY SAFETY CENTER

ATTN CSSC SE

FORT RUCKER AL 36362

CHIEF

ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

AVIATION R&D ACTIVITY

ATTN PERI IR

FORT RUCKER AL 36362-5354

AIR FORCE FLIGHT DYNAMICS

ATTN AFWAL/FIES/SURVIAC

WRIGHT PATTERSON AFB OH

LAB

45433

39
NO. OF

COPIES ORGANIZATION

NO. OF

COPIES

1 US ARMY NATICK RD&E CENTER

ATTN STRNC YBA

NATICK MA 0 1760-5020

1 US ARMY TROOP SUPPORT CMD

NATICK RD&E CENTER

ATTN BEHAVIORAL SC1 DIV SSD

NATICK MA 0 1760-5020

1 US ARMY TROOP SUPPORT CMD

NATICK RD&E CENTER

ATTN TECH LIBRARY (STRNC MIL)

NATICK MA 0 1760-5040

1 DR RICHARD JOHNSON

HEALTH & PERFORMANCE DIVISION

US ARIEM

NATICK MA 01760-5007

1 LOCKHEED SANDERS INC

BOX MER 24 1583

NASHUA NH 0306 l-0868

1 MEDICAL LIBRARY BLDG 148

NAVAL SUBMARINE MEDICAL RSCH LAB

BOX 900 SUBMARINE BASE NEW LONDON

GROTON CT 06340

1 USAF ARMSTRONG LABCFTO

ATTN DR F WESLEY BAUMGARDNER

SUSTAINED OPERATIONS BRANCH

BROOKS AFB TX 78235-5000

1 AR1 FIELD UNIT FORT KNOX

BUILDING 2423 PER1 IK

FORT KNOX KY 40121-5620

1 COMMANDANT

USA ARTILLERY & MISSILE SCHOOL

ATTN USAAMS TECH LIBRARY

FORT SILL OK 73503

1 COMMANDER

WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE

ATTN STEWS TE RE

WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE NM

88002

1 COMMANDER

WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE

ATTN TECHNICAL LIBRARY

WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE NM

88002

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

ORGANIZATION

USA TRADOC ANALYSIS COMMAND

ATTN ATRC WSR (D ANGUIANO)

WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE NM

88002-5502

STRICOM

12350 RESEARCH PARKWAY

ORLANDO FL 32826-3276

COMMANDER

USA TANK-AUTOMOTIVE R&D CENTER

ATTN AMSTA RS/D REES

WARREN MI 48090

COMMANDER

USA COLD REGIONS TEST CENTER

ATTN STECR TS A

APO AP 96508-7850

PURDUE UNIVERSITY

SERIALS UNIT

CDM KARDEX

1535 STEWART CENTER

WEST LAFAYETTE IN 47907- 1535

GOVT PUBLICATIONS LIBRARY

409 WILSON M

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

MINNEAPOLIS MN 55455

DR RICHARD PEW

BBN SYSTEMS AND TECH CORP

10 MOULTON STREET

CAMBRIDGE MA 02138

DR HARVEY A TAUB

RSCH SECTION PSYCH SECTION

VETERANS ADMIN HOSPITAL

IRVING AVENUE & UNIVERSITY PLACE

SYRACUSE NY 13210

DR ROBERT C SUGARMAN

132 SEABROOK DRIVE

BUFFALO NY 14221

DR ANTHONY DEBONS

IDIS UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH

PITTSBURGH PA 15260

MR R BEGGS

BOEING-HELICOPTER CO

P30-18

PO BOX 16858

PHILADELPHIA PA 19 142

40
NO. OF NO. OF

ORGANIZATION COPIES COPIES

1 DR ROBERT KENNEDY

ESSEX CORPORATION SUITE 227

1040 WOODCOCK ROAD

ORLANDO FL 32803

1 DR NANCY ANDERSON

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

COLLEGE PARK MD 20742

1 DR BEN B MORGAN

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA

PO BOX 25000

ORLANDO FL 32816

1 LAWRENCE C PERLMUTER PHD

UNIV OF HEALTH SCIENCES

THE CHICAGO MEDICAL SCHOOL

DEPT OF PSYCHOLOGY

3333 GREEN BAY ROAD

NORTH CHICAGO IL 60064

1 DR ARTHUR S KAMLET

BELL LABORATORIES

6200 EAST BROAD STREET

COLUMBUS OH 43213

1 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS

PORTFOLIO ENGINEERING CENTER

HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING

ATTN MR A J ARNOLD STAFF PROJ ENG

ENGINEERING BLDG

30200 MOUND RD BOX 9010

WARREN MI 4SO90-9010

1 GENERAL DYNAMICS

LAND SYSTEMS DIV LIBRARY

PO BOX 1901

WARREN MI 48090

1 DR LLOYD A AVANT

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY

AMES IA 50010

1 DR MM AYOUB DIRECTOR

INST FOR ERGONOMICS RESEARCH

TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY

LUBBOCK TX 79409

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

ORGANIZATION

MR KENNETH C CROMBIE

TECHNICAL LIBRARIAN E 104

DELCO SYSTEMS OPERATIONS

6767 HOLLISTER AVENUE

GOLETA CA 93117

MR WALT TRUSZKOWSKI

NASA/GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER

CODE 588.0

GREENBELT MD 20771

DIRECTOR

US ARMY AEROFLIGHT DYNAMICS DIR

ATTN SAVRT AF D (A W KERR)

AMES RESEARCH CENTER (MS 215-I)

MOFFETT FIELD CA 94035-1099

DR NORMAN BADLER

DEPT OF COMPUTER & INFORMATION

SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

PHILADELPHIA PA 19104-6389

COMMANDER

US ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE

NATICK MA 01760-5007

HQDA (DAPE ZXO)

ATTN DR FISCHL

WASHINGTON DC 203 10-0300

HUMAN FACTORS ENG PROGRAM

DEPT OF BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING &

COMPUTER SCIENCE

WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY

DAYTON OH 45435

COMMANDER

USA MEDICAL R&D COMMAND

ATTN SGRD PLC (LTC K FRIEDL)

FORT DETRICK MD 21701-5012

PEO STANDARD ARMY MGMT

INFORMATION SYSTEM

ATTN AS PES STOP C-3

FT BELVOIR VA 22060-5456

PEO ARMORED SYS MODERNIZATION

US ARMY TANK-AUTOMOTIVE CMD

ATTN SFAE ASM S

WARREN MI 48397-5000

41
NO. OF

COPIES ORGANIZATION

1 PEO COMBAT SUPPORT

A-l-l-N AMCPEO CS

US ARMY TANK AUTOMOTIVE CMD

WARREN MI 48397-5000

1 PEO INTELLIGENCE & ELECTRONIC

WARFARE

ATTN AMCPEO IEW

VINT HILL FARMS STATION BLDG 197

WARRENTON VA 22186-5115

1 PEO COMMUNICATIONS

ATTN SFAE CM RE

FT MONMOUTH NJ 07703-5000

1 PEO AIR DEFENSE

ATTN SFAE AD S

US ARMY MISSILE COMMAND

REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 35898-5750

1 PEO STRATEGIC DEFENSE

PO BOX 15280 ATTN DASD ZA

US ARMY STRATEGIC DEFENSE CMD

ARLINGTON VA 22215-0280

1 PROGRAM MANAGER RAH-66

ATTN SFAE AV

BLDG 5300 SPARKMAN CENTER

REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 35898

1 JON TATRO

HUMAN FACTORS SYSTEM DESIGN

BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON INC

PO BOX 482 MAIL STOP 6

FT WORTH TX 76101

1 CHIEF CREW SYSTEMS INTEGRATION

SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT M/S S3258

NORTH MAIN STREET

STRATFORD CT 06602

1 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

ARMAMENT SYSTEMS DEPT RM 1309

ATTN HFiMANPRINT R C MCLANE

LAKESIDE AVENUE

BURLINGTON VT 05401-4985

1 JOHN B SHAFER

250 MAIN STREET

OWEGO NY 13827

1 OASD (FM&P)

WASHINGTON DC 2030 l-4000

NO. OF

ORGANIZATION COPIES

1 COMMANDANT

US ARMY ARMOR SCHOOL

ATTN ATSB CDS (MR LIPSCOMB)

FT KNOX KY 40121-5215

1 COMMANDER

US ARMY SIGNAL CTR & FT GORDON

ATTN ATZH CDM

FT GORDON GA 30905-5090

1 DIRECTOR

US ARMY AEROFLIGHT DYNAMICS DIR

MAIL STOP 239-9

NASA AMES RESEARCH CENTER

MOFFETT FIELD CA 94035-1000

1 PROJECT MANAGER SIGNALS WARFARE

ATTN SFAE IEW SG (ALAN LINDLEY)

BLDG P-181

VINT HILL FARMS STATION

WARRENTON VA 22 186-5 116

1 COMMANDER

MARINE CORPS SYSTEMS COMMAND

ATTN CBGT

QUANTICO VA 22 134-5080

1 DIRECTOR AMC-FIELD ASSIST IN

SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

ATTN AMC-FAST (RICHARD FRANSEEN)

FT BELVOIR VA 22060-5606

1 COMMANDER

US ARMY FORCES COMMAND

ATTN FCDJ SA BLDG 600

AMC FAST SCIENCE ADVISER

FT MCPHERSON GA 303306000

1 COMMANDER

1 CORPS AND FORT LEWIS

AMC FAST SCIENCE ADVISER

ATTN AFZH CSS

FORT LEWIS WA 98433-5000

1 HQ III CORPS & FORT HOOD

OFFICE OF THE SCIENCE ADVISER

ATTN AFZF CS SA

FORT HOOD TX 76544-5056

1 COMMANDER

HQ XVIII ABN CORPS & FORT BRAGG

OFFICE OF THE SC1 ADV BLDG 1-1621

ATTN AFZA GD FAST

FORT BRAGG NC 28307-5000

42
NO. OF

COPIES

1

QRGANIZATION

SOUTHCOM WASHINGTON FIELD OFC

19 19 SOUTH EADS ST SUITE LO9

AMC FAST SCIENCE ADVISER

ARLINGTON VA 22202

HQ US SPECIAL OPERATIONS CMD

AMC FAST SCIENCE ADVISER

ATTN SOSD

MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE

TAMPA FL 33608-0442

HQ US ARMY EUROPE AND 7TH ARMY

ATTN AEAGX SA

OFFICE OF THE SCIENCE ADVISER

APO AE 09014

COMMANDER

HQ 2 1 ST THEATER ARMY AREA CMD

AMC FAST SCIENCE ADVISER

ATTN AERSA

APO AE 09263

COMMANDER

HEADQUARTERS USEUCOM

AMC FAST SCIENCE ADVISER

UNIT 30400 BOX 138

APO AE 09128

HQ 7TH ARMY TRAINING COMMAND

UNIT #28130

AMC FAST SCIENCE ADVISER

ATTN AETT SA

APO AE 09114

COMMANDER

NO. OF

COPIES

1

1

1

1

10

1

1

HHC SOUTHERN EUROPEAN TASK FORCE

ATTN AESE SA BUILDING 98

AMC FAST SCIENCE ADVISER

APO AE 09630 1

COMMANDER

US ARMY PACIFIC

AMC FAST SCIENCE ADVISER

ATTN APSA

FT SHAFTER HI 96858-5LOO

1

COMMANDER

US ARMY JAPAN/IX CORPS

UNIT 45005 ATTN APAJ SA

AMC FAST SCIENCE ADVISERS

APO AP 96343-0054

1

AMC FAST SCIENCE ADVISERS

PCS #303 BOX 45 CS-SO

APO AP 96204-0045

ORGANIZATION

MS DIANE UNGVARSKY

HHC 2BDE 1AD

UNIT 23704

APO AE 09034

DR SEHCHANG HAH

DEPT OF BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES &

LEADERSHIP

BUILDING 60 1 ROOM 281

US MILITARY ACADEMY

WEST POINT NEW YORK 10996-1784

US ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

ATTN PER1 IK (DOROTHY L FINLEY)

2423 MORANDE STREET

FORT KNOX KY 40 12 l-5620

NAICDXLA

4180 WATSON WAY

WRIGHT PATTERSON AFB OH

45433-5648

ARL HRED AVNC FIELD ELEMENT

ATTN AMSRL HR MJ (D DURBIN)

PO BOX 620716 BLDG 514

FT RUCKER AL 36362-0716

ARL HRED MICOM FIELD ELEMENT

ATTN AMSRL HR MO (T COOK)

BUILDING 5400 ROOM C242

REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 35898-7290

ARL HRED USAADASCH FLD ELEMENT

ATT-N AMSRL HR ME (K REYNOLDS)

ATTN ATSA CD

5800 CARTER ROAD

FORT BLISS TX 79916-3802

ARL HRED ARDEC FIELD ELEMENT

ATTN AMSRL HR MG (R SPINE)

BUILDING 333

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000

ARL HRED ARMC FIELD ELEMENT

AT-IN AMSRL HR MH (C BIRD)

BLDG 1002 ROOM 206B

FTKNOX KY 40121

ARL HRED CECOM FIELD ELEMENT

ATTN AMSRL HR ML (J MARTIN)

MYER CENTER RM 3C214

FT MONMOUTH NJ 07703-5630

43

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 of informatron. Send comments re arding this burden estimate or any other aspect Of this

collection of information, including sug

Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, e

estions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate or Information 3 Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson

A 22202.4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Papenvok Reduction Project (0704-0188). Washington. DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

March 1999 Final

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

An Initial Assessment of the Fit, Retention, and Visual Display Characteristics of the

Kaiser Proviewm Head-Mounted Display System AM% 622716.H700011

PR: lL162716AH70

6. AUTHOR(S) PE: 6.27.16

Durbin, D.B. (ARL)

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS

U.S. Army Research Laboratory

Human Research & Engineering Directorate

ATTN AMSRL HR MJ

Fort Rucker. AL 36362-0716

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESSIES)

U.S. Army Research Laboratory

Human Research & Engineering Directorate

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 2 10055425

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

ARL-TN-135

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

Head-mounted displays (HMDs) are a potentially viable technology for presentation of the “out-the-window” (OTW) scene for

Army aviation simulators. As part of an effort to evaluate their suitability for Army aviation, a preliminary assessment of three

Kaiser ProViewTM HMDs was conducted during a simulation exercise at the U.S. Army Aviation Test Bed, Fort Rucker,

Alabama. The assessment evaluated the fit, retention, and visual display characteristics of the HMDs. The method used to assess

the HMDs included aviator responses to a usability survey, statistical correlation of survey responses with head measurements

obtained from each aviator, observation of aviator performance during their missions, and post-mission interviews. Most of the

fit, retention, and visual display characteristics of the HMDs were judged to be acceptable by the Army aviators. Suitability of

the HMDs would be improved by an increase in field of view and the use of lightweight electrical cables to minimize restriction

of head movement and potential for pressure-induced hot spots.

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

anthropometry head-mounted display human factors

50

Army aviation simulation 16. PRICE CODE

7. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified

~I^..~^.~ c,.- *CL0 ,0^.. n on\

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 45 aL.a.II”a.I” r”llll LJO (“a”. r-07,

Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18

299-l 02