Individual Background and Inset Fields

\

Right | ge
Background

TT,

Left 18°

Background

y

| 83.1°
Combined Background and Inset Fields
38°
(eackground
Overlap
Leit Right
Background Background

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the background and inset fields of the
fiber optic helmet-mounted display. (The relative scale among the
objects is accurate.)

ll



was no statistically significant difference for the Control Group
between pretest and posttest performance on the Part 1
Questionnaire (t(5) = 1.00, p>.10, 1-tailed). On the Part 2
Questionnaire the Control Group scored 1.00 at pretest and 1.67
at posttest out of a total possible score of 22. There was no
statistically significant difference between pretest and posttest
performance for the Part 2 Questionnaire (t(5) = 2.00, .10>p>.05,
1-tailed). The results consistently showed no statistically
significant improvement from pretest to posttest for the Control

Group.

Table 4

Comparison of Pretest versus Posttest Scores (and Percent
Correct) on Instruments Measuring Knowledge of Hanchey Army
Heliport for Both Groups

Group” Pretest Posttest
Hanchey 7
Part 1 Questionnaire
Mean 1.00 (6%) 16.83 (94%)
sD 1.41 1.34
Part 2 QuestionnaireTM
Mean 1.00 (5%) 20.67 (94%)
sD 1.41 2.98
Control
Part 1 Questionnaire
Mean 0.50 (3%) 0.67 (4%)
sD 0.76 1.11
Part 2 Questionnaire
Mean 1.00 (5%) 1.67 (8%)
sD 1.41 1.70

N = 6 each group

"Pretest versus posttest: p<.001

Qther measures. In addition to the instruments reported
above, the Hanchey Group provided two other measures of their
knowledge of HAH during the posttest phase of the experiment.
First, they participated in the Hanchey Army Heliport Walking
Navigation Test. Then they rated the amount of knowledge they
thought they had gained in their exploration of the HAH-VE on the
Hanchey Army Heliport Knowledge Rating Form.

32



working heliport. ARI agreed to adhere to all heliport safety
rules upon requesting access to Hanchey. Second, in an earlier
practice test this navigation walk was found to be an impractical
measure of performance for members of the Control Group. In
order to complete the task an uninformed participant must
literally search until he or she has found the goal location and
both waypoints and then return to the initial position and
perform the task. This can take an inordinate amount of time and
produce an impossibly large number of wrong turns. The HAH isa
large, complex, detailed area to be searched on foot under the
hot Alabama sun. Third, for an uninformed member of the Control
Group this navigation walk becomes a search task rather than one
of navigation-from-memory. This is a different task than the one

ostensibly being measured.

Next, the members of the Hanchey Group filled out the
Hanchey Army Heliport Knowledge Rating Form. This form asked
each participant to rate the amount of knowledge they gained in
the HAH-VE. When finished, participants were transported back to
ARI to complete the Presence Questionnaire.

Presence Questionnaire, debrief, question and answer. Upon
their return to ARI all participants completed the Presence
Questionnaire. After finishing the questionnaire each
participant was fully debriefed as to the nature of the research,
the experimental design, his/her role and group membership, and
any questions were answered. After releasing the participant the
goggles were cleaned with isopropyl alcohol in preparation for
the next day’s experiment.

Results

Scoring

Objective keys and reliable scoring procedures were created
for the five instruments which measured knowledge of HAH. These
instruments were: Pretest Part 1 Questionnaire, Pretest Part 2
Questionnaire, Posttest Part 1 Questionnaire, Posttest Part 1
Object Placement Test, and Posttest Part 2 Questionnaire.
Responses recorded on these instruments were scored individually
by both authors (DJ, DW). Scorer DJ, being the experimenter, was
aware of which group (Hanchey or Control) each participant was a
member of during scoring. Scorer DW was blind as to the group
membership of participants. As shown in Table 2 interscorer
reliability was almost perfect. Scores used in later analyses
were those of DJ.

28



The results showed that all participants exuded confidence
as they performed both trials with zero wrong turns and with no
wasted time spent deciding or searching. The mean times to reach
the goal points were lower for the members of the Hanchey Group
than were those times recorded for the experimenter who not only
designed the test routes but who was intimately familiar with
both the virtual and the physical HAH. Some participants walked
the routes so rapidly, in fact, that the (older) experimenter--
following with his stopwatch and clipboard--had to admonish them
to slow down so he could keep up. The participants showed no
difficulty whatsoever transferring the knowledge gained in the
virtual environment to the navigation task in the actual
environment.

These objective measures of performance were consistent with
the self reports of the Hanchey Group participants. At the end
of the posttest, while still at HAH, participants were given an
opportunity to rate the amount they learned in the HAH-VE on a
five-point scale. The mean self rating was 4.83 or "Very Much."
The anchoring description provided for this rating was: "I
learned a great deal in the virtual environment. I feel highly
knowledgeable about Hanchey now." Consistent with their posttest
performance participants believed they had learned a substantial
amount from their exploration of the virtual Hanchey.

In summary, this research has employed three types of
measures to investigate whether virtual environment technology
can be used to provide terrain familiarization training to
soldiers. The three measurement types were: questionnaire-based
tests of knowledge administered both at the actual terrain
location and at a remote location; performance-based navigation
tests conducted at the actual terrain location; and self reports
of amount learned. All measures consistently showed high levels
of learning. There does not appear much room for doubt that
terrain information can be transmitted via virtual environment
technology. Whether this technology is efficient or cost—
effective relative to other media used for such training is a
subject for further research.

Presence

All participants rated the amount of presence they
experienced using the questionnaire developed by Witmer and

Singer (1994). There was no statistically significant difference
in rated presence between the Hanchey Group and the Control Group
(see Table 5). This is an understandable result since the only

difference between the virtual experiences provided the two
groups was the content of the virtual environments. The Hanchey
Group explored the HAH-VE while the Control Group explored a
section of the Ariz-VE. Even these different locations were
similar in general ways. For example, both environments
contained a similar density of artifacts (buildings, towers,

37



the battlefield. They can take a bird’s eye view and watch the
battle unfold from above. They can observe the battle from the
friendly (or hostile) commander’s position. They can even hook
their viewpoint to one of the players, either friendly or
hostile, and tag along wherever that player goes. This stealth
capability as it currently exists in the Close Combat Test Bed at
Fort Knox is described by Atwood, Winsch, Quinkert, and Heiden
(1994). Cosby (1993) speculates how this capability may be used
after the turn of the century if present trends continue.

Mowafy and Miller (1993) describe a training program called
the Virtual Environment Debrief Interface which employs this
capability of variable viewpoint to provide feedback to fighter
pilots after flying a simulated air intercept mission. The
virtual environment contains the ownship, the target, and their
respective flight trajectories portrayed as color-coded
streamers. Pilots can view the air intercept replay record from
the cockpit of their ownship, the cockpit of the target, or from
an external viewpoint. Participants can move around within the
VE and view their performance from many external perspectives.
Models of expert fighter pilots performing the identical air
intercept scenarios are also available to be viewed. The purpose
of this training program is to train pilots in the ability to
visualize the geometry of an air intercept while the target
aircraft is still beyond visual range.

A related, potential advantage of VE technology for training
is the inherent three dimensionality of the display medium.
virtual environments offer the possibility of being able to train
3-D tasks directly using a 3-D medium--rather than using 2-D
drawings, slides, or standard computer displays. Mowafy and
colleagues (Mowafy & Congdon, 1994; Mowafy & Miller, 1993; Mowafy
& Thurman, 1993) are exploring this capability in their training
programs at the Air Force Armstrong Laboratory. They are using
VE technology to provide trainees with an opportunity to learn
the spatial relationships of their air combat tasks directly
rather than through 2-D transformations of 3-D events. The 3-D
Virtual Environment Debrief Interface (VirDI) has been described
above (Mowafy & Miller, 1993). An initial experiment
investigating the training effectiveness of the VirDI was carried
out by Mowafy and Thurman (1993). The VirDI was compared to two
other feedback display conditions and to a no feedback control
condition. The authors reported a small advantage in air
intercept performance favoring the VirDI. Mowafy and Congdon
(1994) describe the Virtual Environment Ground Command/Control
Training Center. This VE is used to train ground control
intercept operators in the tasks necessary to maintain
surveillance over the airspace observed by ground-based and
airborne radar systems. Participants are able to move throughout
this 3-D VE, monitor the activities of all aircraft in real time,
and perform basic ground control intercept operator tasks.



Date. #
Familiarization with Virtual Environments

Pretest Part 2 Questionnaire

I am going to remove your goggles. Hold your head and eyes
steady and pointed forward. Do not turn your head to the left or
the right. Do not move from this spot. I am going to ask you
some questions. Please answer all questions. Guessing is
permitted. If you do not know an answer and do not wish to
guess, say "don’t know."

a. Do you see the "Warrior Country" logo? Yes No

1. Where is the control tower located relative to your position?
To your front, back, left, or right? DK

2. Where is the fire station located relative to your position?
To your front, back, left, or right? DK

3. Which helicopter type or types are parked to your left?
AH-64 Apache AH-1 Cobra CH-47 Chinook OH-58 Kiowa

UH-60 Blackhawk UH-1 Huey TH-67 Creek RAH-66 Comanche
DK

4. Which helicopter type or types are parked to your right?
AH-64 Apache AH-1 Cobra CH-47 Chinook OH-58 Kiowa

UH-60 Blackhawk UH-1 Huey TH-67 Creek RAH-66 Comanche

DK

5. Where is Cobra Hall relative to your position? To your
front, back, left, or right? DK

6. Where is the beacon tower relative to your position? To your
front, back, left, or right? DK .

7. Where is the antenna pole relative to your position? To your
front, back, left, or right? DK



Date #

Familiarization with Virtual Environments

Pretest Part 1 Questionnaire

Please answer all questions. Circle the correct answer where
appropriate. Guessing is permitted. If you do not know what the
answer is and do not wish to guess, write "DK" for don’t know.

1. Which helicopter type (types) is (are) based on the West ramp
at Hanchey Army Heliport?

2. Which helicopter type (types) is (are) based on the East ramp
at Hanchey Army Heliport?

3. In which compass orientation are the helicopters parked on
the West ramp at Hanchey? North-South orientation or East-West
orientation?

4. In which compass orientation are the helicopters parked on
the East ramp at Hanchey? North-South orientation or East-West
orientation?

5. How many helipads are located on the West ramp of Hanchey?

6. How are these helipads identified or designated? (That is,
list the identification or designation of each of these
helipads.)

7. Which traffic pattern is at a higher altitude? West Hanchey
traffic pattern or East Hanchey traffic pattern?

8. How many windsocks are located at Hanchey?



Date #

Familiarization with Virtual Environments
Posttest Part 1 Object Placement Test

Use the generalized diagram of Hanchey Army Heliport provided.
Place the following objects on the diagram in their correct
locations. Guessing is permitted. If you do not know the answer
and do not wish to guess, leave the question blank and go on.
Please read through all questions first before answering any.
1. Put a "WS" wherever a windsock is located.
2. Put a "CT" where the control tower is located.

3. Put a "BT" where the beacon tower is located.

4. Label each helipad with its appropriate identifying
designation.

5. Put an "FT" where the fuel tanks are located.

6. Put a "CH" where Cobra Hall is located.

7. Put a "WCH" where the Windjammers Chinook Hall is located.
8. Put an "HWC" where the Warrior Country hangar is located.
9. Put an "H" where each of the other two hangars are located.

10. Put an "FE" where each of the two field elevation signs are
located.

11. Put an "FS" where the fire station is located.

12. Put the appropriate helicopter types, by name or
alphanumeric designation, on the appropriate sides of the ramp.

A-11



Date #
Familiarization with Virtual Environments
Hanchey Army Heliport Walking Navigation Test
PRACTICE WALK. [Starting Point: Warrior Country hangar reset
position] There are two field elevation signs on this heliport.
Please walk to and stand under the nearest field elevation sign.

Use the shortest route without passing through any buildings.
Do you understand? Yes No

Time Wrong Turns

Judged Confidence Level

1 Unsure, looking, searching, halting steps
In between 1 and 3
Sure, confident, not searching, direct path

2
3

WALK 1. [Starting Point: Under field elevation sign on Warrior
Country hangar] Please walk to the two silver natural gas tanks,
passing on your way first the two blue port-a-potties then the
other field elevation sign. Use the shortest route without
passing through any buildings.

Do you understand? Yes No

Time Wrong Turns

Judged Confidence Level
1 Unsure, looking, searching, halting steps

2 = In between 1 and 3
3 = Sure, confident, not searching, direct path
WALK 2. [Starting Point: Two silver natural gas tanks] Please

walk to the front of Cobra Hall, passing on your way first the
satellite receiver dish and then the entrance to Windjammers
Chinook Hall. Use the shortest route without passing through any
buildings.

Do you understand? Yes No

Time Wrong Turns.

Judged Confidence Level

1 = Unsure, looking, searching, halting steps
2 = In between 1 and 3
3 = Sure, confident, not searching, direct path

A-15



APPENDIX

Forms, questionnaires, and other measures of performance



*PAOGE WOIT pamMaTA UaYM JUaWUOITAUS TeNIITA

qaodtpay Away Aayouey aya ut yuasa. sainjeay Teotskyd yse8iey, Jo wei8erp atesg -z aansty

ag
“o
uz
az

cx
]

B
15

25-10

ox

on

oa
o

zn
xs
=2

b



The Walking Navigation Test measured the time taken, the
number of wrong turns made, and the judged confidence level of
each participant while performing two self-guided navigation
trials on the actual HAH. In the first test trial the mean time
taken to walk from initial location to goal location was 315.50
seconds. No participant made any wrong turns (mean = 0). All
participants were judged to have a confidence level of 3 or
"sure" (mean = 3). By comparison, the experimenter (DJ) who
designed the walking test and was intimately familiar with the
route from actual experience required 335 seconds to walk the
test route during a preexperimental calibration trial. Four of
the six Hanchey Group participants walked the route in less time
than the experimenter, based only on their knowledge of HAH
acquired in the VE.

In the second test trial the mean time taken by the Hanchey
Group participants was 475.33 seconds. Again, no participant
made any wrong turns (mean = 0) and all participants were judged
to have a confidence level of 3 or "sure" (mean = 3). Again, by
comparison, the experimenter who designed the test required 490
seconds to walk the route during a preexperimental calibration
trial. Three of the six participants completed this trial route
in less time than the experimenter, based only on their knowlege
of HAH acquired in the VE.

All members of the Hanchey Group filled out the HAH
Knowledge Rating Form which required them to rate the amount of
knowledge they had gained in the VE. Five of the six
participants rated their knowledge gained as 5 ("Very Much") and
one rated his at 4 ("Much") for a mean group rating of 4.83.

Presence Questionnaire

All participants were administered the Presence
Questionnaire in order to assess their degree of psychological
immersion or presence in the virtual environment they explored.
Presence Questionnaire ratings are presented in Table 5 for each
group separately and for both groups combined. There was no
statistically significant difference between the Hanchey Group
and the Control Group in presence ratings (t(10) = 1.08, p>.10,
2-tailed; Mann-Whitney U(6,6) = 12, p>.10, 2-tailed). The mean
presence rating for both groups combined was 157.75.

33



FOREWORD

The research discussed in this report was performed by the
Simulation Team of the U.S. Army Research Institute for the
Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) Rotary-Wing Aviation
Research Unit at Fort Rucker, Alabama. ARI is committed to
enhancing aviation training in the Army. A cornerstone of this
commitment is the Simulator Training Research Advanced Testbed
for Aviation (STRATA). The STRATA training research objectives
are to (1) determine the minimal levels of simulator fidelity
required to meet specific task training objectives, (2) define
the most effective training strategies for flight simulator
technology and training program design to attain and sustain
combat readiness for individual tasks and collective training,
and (3) delineate the effective ways to train for new operational
equipment, tactics, techniques, and procedures based on realistic
simulations of battlefield environments.

STRATA has a modular component design so that it can be
reconfigured quickly and extensively to emulate a range of
training devices--from procedures trainers to full mission
simulators. Among STRATA’s features are (1) an automated
interactive tactical environment, (2) a head- and eye-tracked
helmet-mounted display providing for immersion in a computer-
generated environment, and (3) the capability to link to
Distributed Interactive Simulations (DIS) as a functional node.
A proof of concept demonstration of this networking capability
was performed on 29 March 1994 when STRATA was linked to five
Apache simulators residing in Mesa, Arizona using DIS protocol
2.03.

For the present research, STRATA’s flexibility was exploited
as a prototype virtual environment training system. Recently,
virtual environment technologies have been proposed to provide
training in such critical military tasks as premission planning
and mission rehearsal. This research represents an attempt to
validate empirically the capabilities of virtual environment
systems to provide training in external terrain, familiarization.

This research was presented to the Department of Defense
Training Technology Technical Group at their meeting in Palo
Alto, California in May 1994.

ZITA M. SIMUTIS EDGAR M. JOHNSON
Deputy Director Director
(Science and Technology)



All participants were told that they were to have three
exploration sessions of thirty minutes each. They were
instructed to learn as much as they could about the VE because
they would be asked questions later. They were reminded that
they could stop for a break at any time if they wanted a rest, if
their helmet developed a "hot spot," or if they began to feel
uncomfortable.

Experience in the VE began at the gasoline station reset
position in the Ariz-VE for all participants regardless of group.
All were instructed to practice controlling their virtual carpet
using the two joysticks. After three minutes of joystick control
practice in this vicinity, participants were told to return to
the initial location by pushing the reset button.

Up until now the procedure was the same for members of both
groups. At this point participants who were members of the
Control Group were told to begin their first thirty minute
exploration session. Participants in the Hanchey Group were
teleported from the reset point in the Ariz-VE to the reset point
in the HAH-VE by the experimenter at the EOS. They were told to
begin their first thirty minute exploration session. Members of
the Control Group completed three thirty minute exploration
sessions in the Ariz-VE and members of the Hanchey Group
completed three thirty minute exploration sessions in the HAH-VE.
Sessions were separated by a break of fifteen minutes. During
the break each participant was helped off with the FOHMD and got
out of the simulator cockpit.

Posttest. Immediately at the end of the third exploration
session, the participant completed the Posttest Part 1
Questionnaire. This questionnaire was identical to the Pretest
Part 1 Questionnaire except for its title. Next the participant
was asked to fill out the Posttest Part 1 Object Placement Test.
This posttest had no pretest counterpart. Both of these posttest
activities took place at ARI.

Then each participant was again taken by the’ experimenter to
the HAH. The participant again donned opaque goggles prior to
getting within sight of Hanchey. Upon arrival at Hanchey, the
participant was lead to the same location facing the Kiowa
hangar. This was also the same location as the reset point in
*hne HAH-VE. Here the participant was once again instructed to
stand still with head and eyes fixed forward. With the
experimenter positioned in front of the participant, the
participant removed the goggles (which were not used again that
day). The experimenter read the instructions for the Posttest
Part 2 Questionnaire (see Appendix) and then administered it to
the participant. The Posttest Part 2 Questionnaire was identical
to the Pretest Part 2 Questionnaire except for its title. The
instructions, administration, and scoring procedures were
likewise identical to those already described for the pretest

26



instantaneous background field of view (FOV) is 127 degrees
horizontal and 66 degrees vertical. However, since the helmet
employs an infrared head tracking system and presents imagery
wherever the pilot looks, the effective field of regard is 360
degrees. Infrared eye tracking positions the left and right high
resolution insets at the center of the viewer’s gaze. These
insets subtend 24 degrees horizontal and 18 degrees vertical.
Resolution of the background displays is 5.0 arcminutes while
resolution of the insets is 1.5 arcminutes. Each left and right
background displays 512 lines, 524,000 pixels, and 1200 polygons.
Each inset displays 1024 lines, 1,048,000 pixels, and 1200
polygons. Luminance is greater than 35 footlamberts. Contrast
ratio is 50 to 1. The FOHMD weighs five pounds but part of this
weight is supported by three wires which, though attached to the
structure of the simulator, allow full freedom of movement. (The
standard Apache flight helmet, the Integrated Helmet and Display
Sight Sub-system or IHADSS, also weighs five pounds.) A helmet
is custom fitted and optically calibrated to each participant.

All control of the simulator is exercised from the
Experimenter-Operator Station (EOS). An experimenter can
initiate simulator scenarios, monitor participants in their
cockpits, communicate with participants over the intercom, and
observe via repeaters the visual scene presented to either
cockpit. The Interactive Tactical Environment Management System
is used to create scenarios, control multiple intelligent
synthetic players (both friendly and hostile), control weapons,
terrain, and weather. The Blue-Red Team Station allows the .
experimenter to control any player in the scenario from the EOS.
There is also a Database Management System and Data Recording and
Analysis Station, which support tactical scenario generation and
performance measurement. A visual database modeling workstation
can be used to modify existing visual databases and create new
ones.

Experiment-specific features of STRATA. The pilot cockpit

was used in this experiment. No flight instruments or flight
controls were used. They were covered by a black blanket.
Cockpit lights and power were turned off. The G-seat was not
used. No vestibular or proprioceptive cues to motion were
present in this experiment. Ventilation remained on.

Two joysticks were attached to the seat at a comfortable
armchair height--one on the left and one on the right. The left
joystick controlled up and down movement. The right joystick
controlled forward and backward movement as well as left and
right turns. A button on the right joystick was the reset
button. Pushing this button caused the image generator to
reposition the participant to a particular location in each
virtual environment.

12



Figure 3. HAH-VE: OH-58 Kiowa hangar.

Figure 4. HAH-VE: Cobra Hall and buildings to the north.

18



exterior, large, relatively permanent, distinctive, or important
to the flight mission of the heliport. If features were judged
to be critical either for identification, navigation, or flight

safety they were included.

Considerable time and effort were expended to acquire the
basic physical and flight pattern knowledge required to model
Hanchey. Multiple visits to HAH were undertaken by the database
modeling and research staff. Subject matter experts were

consulted. Defense Mapping Agency data were acquired. Maps were
analyzed. U.S. Army Aviation Center (USAAVNC) flight regulations
were examined. Measurements were made of all permanent and
semipermanent structures at HAH. Videotape and photographic
records were made of the entire heliport and all structures both

from the ground and from the air.

A two-dimensional, bird’s eye view of the largest physical
features incorporated in the HAH-VE is presented in Figure 2.
Objects presented in this diagram are drawn to scale. This
figure is presented with north at the top. The HAH is roughly
tt shaped. The long axis of HAH is oriented generally east-west
and is presented left-right in the figure. The shorter axis of
Hanchey is oriented generally north-south and is presented top-
bottom in the figure. The HAH is situated on a plateau with the
ground surrounding the flat tarmac sloping gently away. This is
also modeled in the virtual Hanchey where the stem of the "T"
(the HAH "panhandle") slopes downhill to the south.

All objects in the virtual Hanchey environment were modeled
to actual size and presented in their actual locations. Colors
were tuned to match the colors recorded in photographs and on
videotape, where feasible. All signs and logos were texture
mapped onto buildings in their correct positions.

Among the physical features modeled in the HAH-VE were all
nineteen helipads (including one VIP pad), all correctly
designated, complete with all aircraft parking ramps, taxi lanes,
and overrun areas. All thirty permanent or semipermanent
buildings were modeled, including three large hangars, Cobra
Hall, Chinook Hall, classroom buildings, storage buildings, the
fire station, the operations building, the snack bar, and the
guard shack. Critical flight related structures were modeled,
including the control tower, the beacon tower, the antenna pole,
all three windsocks, and all four fuel tanks. Miscellaneous,
distinctive objects were also modeled, including two fire trucks,
two natural gas tanks, one water tank, one satellite receiver
dish, and all paved automobile parking lots. Some buildings had
large, distinctive signs or logos mapped onto them. The Apache
hangar had two large Apache logos--one facing east and one west.
The Chinook hangar had a large field elevation sign facing east.
The Kiowa hangar had a large "Warrior Country" logo and a large
field elevation sign both facing south. Chinook Hall had its

14



counterpart.

Up to this point the posttest procedures were the same for
members of both groups. At this time participants in the Control
Group were transported back to ARI to complete the Presence
Questionnaire. Members of the Hanchey Group provided further
information as to their knowledge of the HAH.

Members of the Hanchey Group were next administered the
Hanchey Army Heliport Walking Navigation Test. This transfer
test measured participants’ knowledge of the physical features of
the HAH gained in the virtual environment by asking them to use
this knowledge to navigate from one location to another at the
actual HAH. This test consisted of one short practice walk and
two walks for data collection.

The experimenter read the instructions for the navigation
test (see Appendix) while the participant remained stationary
facing the Kiowa hangar. The practice walk required the
participant to walk from the initial position at the southwest
portion of the Kiowa hangar to the nearest field elevation sign
which was located on the southeast portion of the same hangar.
The experimenter followed directly behind the participant, with
stopwatch and clipboard, recording time in seconds, number of
wrong turns, and judged confidence level of the participant. The
goal position (field elevation sign) was clearly visible from the
initial position and, therefore, this walk did not measure the
participant’s knowledge of HAH. This practice walk was included
to confirm that the participant understood the procedure and to
position him/her appropriately for the data collection walk to
follow. Experimental data were not collected. None of the goals
or waypoints for the following two data collection walks were
visible during this practice walk.

The first navigation test walk required the participant to
walk from an initial position under the field elevation sign to
the two silver natural gas tanks, passing in order two specific
landmarks, and using the shortest route without entering any
buildings. Neither the goal nor the waypoints were visible from
the initial position or from each other. The second navigation
test walk required the participant to walk from an initial
position at the two silver natural gas tanks to the front of
Cobra Hall, passing in order two specific landmarks, and using
the shortest route without entering any buildings. Again,
neither the goal nor the waypoints were visible from the initial
position or from each other. The experimenter followed directly
behind the participant recording the three measures of
performance during both test walks.

This navigation test was not given to members of the Control
Group for a number of reasons. First, it was not considered safe
to have a demonstrably naive participant wandering around a busy,

27



was neutral for the test.

Hypotheses. Knowledge of the Hanchey Army Heliport: The
two groups were not expected to differ significantly in their
knowledge of Hanchey at pretest. The Hanchey Group was expected
to show significantly more knowledge of the HAH at posttest than
the Control Group. The Hanchey Group was expected to improve
significantly from pretest to posttest. The Control Group was
expected not to improve significantly from pretest to posttest.
Presence: The two groups were not expected to differ
significantly in their rated presence as a function of which
virtual environment they explored.

STRATA. The experiment was conducted using ARI’s STRATA.
STRATA is a sophisticated research simulation facility designed
to address issues pertaining to simulator training effectiveness
and the training system complexity needed to accomplish specific
training objectives. It is modular and can be reconfigured to
represent different training devices with different visual,
motion, cockpit, and aeromodel subsystems. For a detailed
description of STRATA see Kurts and Gainer (1991). For a
description of research conducted to validate STRATA see Stewart
(1994). A recent report by Stewart, Wightman, and Gainer (1993)
discusses future research planned to be conducted in STRATA. The
immediate objective of the research program is to employ STRATA
to address four major issues: (a) the minimal level of fidelity
required to meet training objectives; (b) the most effective (in
terms of outcome and cost) use of flight simulation technology to
attain and sustain combat readiness; (c) the most effective ways
of defining the use of new operational equipment, tactics,
techniques, and procedures in a realistic threat environment; and
(d) incorporate lessons learned through STRATA into the
development of modular, portable simulation systems.

Method

Participants

Twelve participants were randomly assigned either to the
Hanchey Group or to the Control Group. Six were assigned to each
group. All participants were soldiers from aviation units at
Fort Rucker. All were volunteers and all signed the Volunteer
Agreement Affidavit (DA Form 5303-R, May 88). Criteria for
selection to this experiment were that participants be soldiers
from Fort Rucker who had never visited the Hanchey Army Heliport.
Gender, rank, and military occupational specialty were irrelevant
for this experiment and were not included as criteria for
selection. Table 1 presents a demographic summary of the
participants in this experiment.



Date #
Familiarization with Virtual Environments

Posttest Part 2 Questionnaire

I am going to remove your goggles. Hold your head and eyes
steady and pointed forward. Do not turn your head to the left or
the right. Do not move from this spot. I am going to ask you
some questions. Please answer all questions. Guessing is
permitted. If you do not know an answer and do not wish to
guess, say "don’t know."

a. Do you see the "Warrior Country" logo? Yes No

1. Where is the control tower located relative to your position?
To your front, back, left, or right? DK

2. Where is the fire station located relative to your position?
To your front, back, left, or right? DK

3. Which helicopter type or types are parked to your left?
AH-64 Apache AH-1 Cobra CH-47 Chinook OH-58 Kiowa

UH-60 Blackhawk UH-1 Huey TH-67 Creek RAH-66 Comanche
DK

4. Which helicopter type or types are parked to your right?
AH-64 Apache AH-1 Cobra CH-47 Chinook OH-58 Kiowa

UH-60 Blackhawk UH-1 Huey TH-67 Creek RAH-66 Comanche

DK

5. Where is Cobra Hall relative to your position? To your
front, back, left, or right? DK

6. Where is the beacon tower relative to your position? To your
front, back, left, or right? DK

7. Where is the antenna pole relative to your position? To your
front, back, left, or right? DK



USING VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS FOR TERRAIN FAMILIARIZATION:
VALIDATION

Introduction

Background

It is commonly acknowledged in the military that everything
except actual combat is simulation. Simulation is generally
meant to refer to one of three classes of activity, either alone
or in combination (e.g., Drabczuk & Tarr, 1993; Singley, 1993).
"Live" simulation is concerned with real equipment in the field.
Field exercises at the National Training Center with soldiers and
vehicles instrumented with the Multiple Integrated Laser
Engagement System are an example of this class of simulation.
"Constructive" simulation refers to wargames, models, and
analytical tools such as Janus and TACWAR. These models
typically run faster than real time on mainframe computers and
are used to simulate large unit operations. "Virtual" simulation
refers to systems and soldiers in simulators fighting on
synthetic battlefields. One example of this class of simulation
is the Simulation Networking (SIMNET) system wherein soldiers in
simulators fight as units in a computer-generated (i.e.,
synthetic) environment. Another example of virtual simulation is
aircraft simulators, which have a relatively long history in the
military (e.g., Hays & Singer, 1989; Wiener & Nagel, 1988).

These three classes of simulation will be linked in the
Army’s current approach to simulation design called Distributed
Interactive Simulation or DIS. The official definition of DIS is
reported by Drabezuk and Tarr (1993) as "DIS is a synthetic
environment (at one time described as the ‘Electronic
Battlefield’) within which humans may interact through
simulations at multiple sites networked using compliant
architecture, modeling, protocols, standards and data bases" (p.
33). Another useful definition is given by Bell, Mastaglio, and
Moses (1993):

Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS): The technology of
linking simulators and workstations representing a diverse
set of weapons platforms and combat elements over local
area, wide band, and long haul networks. Linked nodes are
able to operate within a shared synthetic environment and
experience common outcomes from combat events. (p. 28)

This report discusses issues and research relevant to the virtual
simulation component of DIS.

Virtual reality and virtual environments. The short history
of virtual reality and virtual environments has already been
amply documented from a number of different perspectives (e.g.,

1



the Hanchey Group participants themselves thought they had
learned in the virtual Hanchey environment.

All participants filled out the Presence Questionnaire
developed by Witmer and Singer (1994). This questionnaire is
presented in the Appendix. Presence was defined by Witmer and
Singer as the subjective experience of being in one environment
(there) when one is physically in another environment (here).
The experience of presence in the VE was measured by this
instrument. The questionnaire contained thirty-two questions,
each of which required marking an "X" along a seven-point,
Likert-type scale. Scoring instructions for this questionnaire
as well as evidence of its validity and reliability were provided
in Witmer and Singer (1994). Higher scores meant greater
reported presence.

Procedure

General. Participation in this experiment required soldiers
to be scheduled for two visits to ARI on each of two separate
days. Day one activities included helmet fitting and
preorientation. This took less than an hour. Day two activities
were the experiment proper and included experimental orientation,
pretest, exploration of the virtual environment, posttest,
Presence Questionnaire, debrief, and question and answer. Day
two began when each soldier arrived at ARI at 0700 hours and
continued until approximately 1230 hours. One soldier was run in
the experiment per day.

Helmet fitting and preorientation. Upon arrival at ARI,
participants met with the experimenter (DJ) who checked to make
sure that they had never visited the HAH, confirmed the date and
time for their participation in the experiment proper, and
briefed them in general terms on the nature of the research and
what would be required of them. Participants were then fitted
for a helmet to support the FOHMD and had the optics calibrated
for their eyes. After fitting and calibration each helmet was
labelled with the name of the participant and then stored ina
recorded location for use during the experiment. At no time
during these activities were participants allowed to enter either
the simulator bay or the EOS.

Experimental orientation. Upon arrival at ARI on the day of
the experiment participants were briefed on the nature of the
research, their place in the research, and what was required of
them. Questions were answered, where appropriate. Participants
were told that there was going to be a pretest followed by self-
guided exploration of a VE and then a posttest. Participants
were not told that there were two groups (Hanchey, Control) and
were not told their group identity. Then participants signed the
Volunteer Agreement Affidavit. Participants then completed and

24



21. How well could you move or manipulate objects in the virtual
environment?

| | | | | | | |
NOT AT ALL SOMEWHAT EXTENSIVELY

22. To what degree did you feel confused or disoriented at the
beginning of breaks or at the end of the experimental session?

I | | I_- | \ | |
NOT AT ALL MILDLY VERY
DISORIENTED DISORIENTED

23. How involved were you in the virtual environment experience?

| I ! | | | | |
NOT MILDLY COMPLETELY
INVOLVED INVOLVED ENGROSSED

24. How distracting was the control mechanism?

| | | | | | | \
NOT AT ALL MILDLY VERY
DISTRACTING DISTRACTING

25. How much delay did you experience between your actions and
expected outcomes?

I | | | | I |
NO DELAYS MODERATE LONG
DELAYS DELAYS

26. How quickly did you adjust to the virtual environment
experience?

| I | | | | | |
NOT AT ALL SLOWLY LESS THAN
ONE MINUTE

27. How proficient in moving and interacting with the virtual
environment did you feel at the end of the experience?

NOT REASONABLY VERY
PROFICIENT PROFICIENT PROFICIENT

A-22



Pushing the reset button while in the HAH-VE would
immediately reposition the participant to a location in front of
the southwest section of the OH-58 Kiowa hangar facing north.
From this position the participant could clearly see the Warrior
Country logo painted on the side of the building. This reset
location--including the view of the logo--was the same position
from which the Pretest Part 2 and Posttest Part 2 Questionnaires
were administered on the visits to the actual HAH during the

experiment (see Procedure below).

STRATA did not allow participants to pass underground while
in the HAH-VE. Seated on the virtual carpet with the left
joystick all the way down, a participant’s minimum eyelevel was
set at two feet above ground level. A participant had only to
look down to see whatever terrain feature was below this
eyelevel.

The Arizona virtual environment (Ariz-VE) was located one
million feet (189.39 miles) east of the HAH-VE in the same
database. The two VEs were separated by empty space and were, of
course, not intervisible. Having both the Hanchey and the
Arizona environments in the same database meant that participants
could be "teleported" from one to the other in a matter of
seconds under experimenter control from the EOS.

The Ariz-VE was one terrain module taken from STRATA’s
Arizona database. This module was a square measuring 10.08 miles
on aside. It was centered east of Phoenix and included part of
Mesa, Arizona. The Ariz-VE contained urban, residential, and
desert terrain. The three terrain types included appropriate
types and densities of buildings, businesses, churches, houses,
towers, playgrounds, automobiles, roads, parking lots, signs,
streams, and vegetation. The Ariz-VE did not contain any
aircraft or moving models.

The 3-D, north-pointing compass arrow was also present in
the lower center FOV in the Ariz-VE. It functioned exactly the
same as it did in the HAH-VE. Pushing the reset button while in
the Ariz-VE would immediately reposition the participant to a
location in front of a particular gasoline station in the
residential terrain. As in the HAH-VE, STRATA did not allow
participants to pass underground while in the Ariz-VE. Minimun
eyelevel was again set at two feet above ground level.

Forms, questionnaires, and other measures of performance.

All participants filled out and signed the Volunteer Agreement
Affidavit (DA Form 5303-R, May 88). Information in this form
served to identify the participant, the research, the
experimenter, the agency, and to guarantee that all participants
knew they were participating voluntarily and could withdraw at
any time.

21



USING VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS FOR TERRAIN FAMILIARIZATION:
VALIDATION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Requirement:

To determine if virtual environment technology can be used to
familiarize soldiers with a geospecific location that they have
never previously visited. Can important terrain information be
transmitted via this medium? Will this information transfer to
the actual, physical location?

Procedure:

The design was a two-group, pretest-posttest training
validation experiment. The domain modeled in the virtual
environment was the Hanchey Army Heliport (HAH) located at Fort
Rucker, AL. Both groups received pretests and posttests on their
knowledge of the HAH. Between pretest and posttest members of
both groups explored a virtual environment. The Hanchey Group
performed 90 minutes of self-guided exploration of the virtual
HAH, while the Control Group spent an equal period of time
exploring a neutral virtual environment (a section of Arizona).

Findings:

At pretest the groups did not differ in their knowledge of the
Hanchey Army Heliport. At posttest the group which had explored
the virtual Hanchey knew significantly and substantially more
about the heliport. Upon transfer to the actual HAH, members of
the Hanchey Group were able to navigate in a minimum of time and
without errors from location to location. It was concluded that
virtual environment technology is a valid medium for training
soldiers in terrain familiarization.

Utilization of Findings:

Research such as this is necessary to establish the validity
of virtual environments for training military tasks where the
geospecific location is crucial--tasks such as premission
planning, mission rehearsal, and special operations. These
results were presented at the 8th Department of Defense Training
Technology Technical Group Meeting at Palo Alto, California in
May, 1994. Given the validation of the basic concept, future
research will examine the effectiveness of virtual environment
technology vis-a-vis other training media.

vii



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to
the following employees of Anacapa Sciences Incorporated (ASI),
CAE Electronics Limited (CAE), and the Army Research Institute
(ARI). The contributions of their time, effort, expertise, and
creativity made possible the timely execution of this technically
demanding research effort.

ASI--Gary W. Coker, Steven K. Lewis, and Michael E. Couch
CAE--Fred Zalzal, Rolf Beutler, and Dale Weiler

ARI--MAJ William Cc. Barker and Thomas L. Preston

vi



Table 1

Demographic Description of Experimental Participants”

Gender Rank
Male: 10 Officers: 4
Female: 2 CPT (2)
1LT (1)
Age (years) 2LT (1)
Mean: 28.33 Warrant Officers: 5
Median: 27 cw2 (1)
Range: 23 - 39 Wo1 (4)
Enlisted: 3
Aviator CPL (1)
Yes: 7 PFC (1)
No: 5 PVT (1)
“N= 12

Apparatus and Materials

A_general description of STRATA. STRATA is currently
configured as an AH-64A Apache helicopter. There are two
separated cockpits, pilot and copilot-gunner, constructed from
salvaged AH-64A cockpits. Both cockpits contain fully functional
and integrated flight instruments, sensors, displays, and mission
packages. Flight controls are linked between the cockpits.
Flight controls produce accurate force feedback. The simulator
flies as an Apache due to accurate aerodynamic modeling. Motion
cueing is provided to both cockpits by means of hydraulically
actuated pneumatic G-seats. The cockpits communicate via
intercom. Both cockpits are continuously ventilated with cooled
air.

Imagery for both out-the-window views as well as all sensor
displays is provided by an Evans and Sutherland ESIG-1000 image
generator. This image generator uses eleven channels distributed
over three eyepoints (pilot, copilot-gunner, and sensor). There
are two infrared post processors for both Apache forward looking
infrared radiation (FLIR) sensor displays. Image update rate is
60 Hz.

In the pilot cockpit out-the-window scenes are presented via
a fiber optic helmet-mounted display (FOHMD). This display
presents four channels of visual information--left and right
background and left and right inset (see Figure 1). The

10



CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Demographic Description of Experimental
Participants ........ee06- secre eet e eee eee eees 10
2. Interscorer Reliability of Scorers DJ and DW........ 29
3. Comparison of Scores (and Percent Correct) of Hanchey
Group and Control Group on Instruments Measuring
Knowledge of Hanchey Army Heliport Before and After
Experience in the Virtual Environment ......-+-++++++ .31
4. Comparison of Pretest versus Posttest Scores (and
Percent Correct) on Instruments Measuring Knowledge
of Hanchey Army Heliport for Both Groups..... cece eee 32
5. Mean Presence Questionnaire Ratings for Hanchey
Group, Control Group, and Combined .........-.++4+ wee 34
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the background and inset fields
of the fiber optic helmet-mounted display. (The
relative scale among the objects is accurate.) .....11
2. Scale diagram of largest physical features present
in the Hanchey Army Heliport virtual environment
when viewed from above .......--+---5 ee eeee errs 15
3.  HAH-VE: OH-58 Kiowa hangar .........-- been eee eees 18
4. HAH-VE: Cobra Hall and buildings to the north .....18
5. HAH-VE: AH-64 Apache hangar in foreground with
control tower in background .....eee ewes eee veer eece . 19
6. HAH-VE: AH-64 Apache helicopter with fuel tanks
in background ........ rrr we ceeee we ceeee 19
7.  HAH-VE: CH-47 Chinook helicopter ....... sac weeee «+. 20
8. HAH-VE: Buildings at north end of field........... 20



"Chinook Hall Windjammers" logo complete with CH-47 silhouette
facing east. Cobra Hall had its large, distinctive "Cobra Hall"
logo complete with green cobra snake on a red background facing
south.

Included among the physical features of the HAH to be
modeled were the helicopters based there. There are four
helicopter types based at Hanchey. These are the AH-64 Apache,
the AH-1 Cobra, the OH-58 Kiowa, and the CH-47 Chinook. The
Apache is based on the west side of HAH, while the other three
types are based on the east side. Dozens of these four
helicopter types are parked at Hanchey on any given day. The
HAH-VE included one exemplar of each of the four helicopter
types. All helicopters were parked on their appropriate side of
Hanchey and in their correct orientation. The Apache was parked
in row B on the west side of HAH-VE in the north-south
orientation. The Cobra was parked in row F on the east side of
HAH-VE in the east-west orientation. The Kiowa was parked in row
E on east HAH-VE in the east-west orientation. The Chinook was
parked in row H on east HAH-VE in the east-west orientation.

During the experiment, all four helicopters cycled through
their respective traffic patterns in sequence continuously. One
by one each helicopter would start its rotor turning, move from
its parking place to the taxi lane, taxi to its assigned
departure helipad, pick up to a hover, depart along its departure
lane and climb to traffic pattern altitude, and then fly the
crosswind, downwind, base, and final approach legs of the traffic
pattern. Each helicopter would then approach and hover over its
assigned landing pad, land, taxi to its assigned parking space,
park in the correct orientation, and stop its rotor. At this
point another helicopter’s rotor would begin to turn and it would
perform its traffic pattern flight sequence. This continuous
cycle was performed in the order Cobra, Kiowa, Chinook, and
Apache. It continued as long as the HAH-VE was enabled.

All phases of the traffic pattern from park through flight
back to park were carried out in accordance with USAAVNC flight
regulations. All speeds, altitudes, distances, departure lanes,
and approach lanes were accurate virtual representations of the
actual flight rules followed at the HAH. For example, the
traffic pattern altitude for the west Hanchey pattern is 500 feet
mean sea level (MSL) but 800 feet MSL for the east Hanchey
pattern. The HAH field elevation is 311 feet MSL.

One of the key advantages of VE technology is the capability
to make data visible. A salient virtual feature of the HAH-VE
was not a physical feature of the actual HAH. A large, red, 3-D
compass arrow was always present in the lower center field of
view. This arrow pointed to magnetic north and had a white "N"
painted on it. This arrow always pointed north no matter how the
participant turned the FOHMD or moved the virtual carpet.

16



re

U.S. Army Research Institute
for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Research Report 1686

Using Virtual Environments for Terrain
Familiarization: Validation

David M. Johnson and Dennis C. Wightman
U.S. Army Research Institute

19960226 031

November 1995

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.



REFERENCES

Alluisi, E. A. (1991). The development of a technology for
collective training: SIMNET, a case history. Human Factors,
33(3), 343-362.

Atwood, N. K., Winsch, B. J., Quinkert, K. A., & Heiden, C. K.

(1994). Catalog of training tools for use in Distributed
Interactive Simulation (DIS) environments (ARI Research

Product 94-12). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute
for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A282 841)

Aukstakalnis, S., & Blatner, D. (1992). Silicon mirage: The art
and science of virtual reality. Berkeley: Peachpit Press.

Baum, D. R. (1992). Virtual training devices: Illusion or
reality? Proceedings of the 14th Interservice/Industry
Training Systems and Education Conference, 892-903.

Bell, H. H., Mastaglio, T. W., & Moses, F. (1993). Using
distributed interactive simulations for joint service
training. Military Simulation & Training, 5, 28-30.

Cosby, L. N. (1993). The Commander-In-Chief’s first virtual
battle 2001. Army Research, Development & Acquisition
Bulletin, PB _70-93-3, 12-14.

Drabezuk, J. S., & Tarr, R. W. (1993). Distributed Interactive
Simulation (DIS): A new way for the Army. Army Aviation,
42(7), 32-38.

Ellis, S. R. (1991). Nature and origins of virtual environments:

A bibliographical essay. Computing Systems in Engineering,
2(4), 321-347.

Gaito, J. (1980). Measurement scales and statistics: Resurgence
of an old misconception. Psychological Bulletin, 87(3), 564-
567. :

Hays, R. T., & Singer, M. J. (1989). Simulation fidelity in
training system design. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Held, R. M., & Durlach, N. I. (1992). Telepresence. Presence,
1(1), 109-112.

Kennedy, R. S., Lane, N. E., Berbaum, K. S., & Lilienthal, M. G.
(1993). Simulator Sickness Questionnaire: An enhanced method
for quantifying simulator sickness. The International Journal
of Aviation Psychology, 3(3), 203-220.

39



Virtual environments in aviation simulation. Aviation
simulation and training technologies are generally recognized as
key intellectual and technical precursors to VE technologies.
The contributions of these earlier aerospace developments to
virtual environments have been discussed by many authors (e.g.,
Aukstakalnis & Blatner, 1992; Ellis, 1991; Moshell, 1993;
Pimentel & Teixeira, 1993; Rheingold, 1991). Critical
technologies such as computer-generated imagery, immersive
widescreen and helmet-mounted displays, and motion cueing were
developed for and continue to be used in commercial and military
aviation simulation and training. The first virtual environment
system was developed in 1982 by U.S. Air Force scientists and
called the Visually Coupled Airborne Systems Simulator or VCASS
(cf. Pimentel & Teixeira, 1993; Rheingold, 1991). VCASS was a
prototype VE cockpit for fighter aircraft. It included a
computer-generated environment based on Department of Defense
digitized terrain databases presented via an immersive, head-
tracked, stereoscopic, fiber-optic, helmet-mounted display.
Targets could be acquired by eye-tracking technology and engaged
by voice command (computer speech recognition) or virtual trigger
pull (tactile glove). Since 1986 scientists at the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Ames Research Center
have been working on the techniques and technology for real time
processing of virtual 3-D acoustic displays (Pimentel & Teixeira,
1993; Wenzel, 1992). The Convolvotron system, now widely used in
VE laboratories worldwide, was developed as a direct result of
this research program.

Besides these purely technical contributions, aviation
simulations themselves can be considered a particular subset of
VE systems (cf. Baum, 1992). Modern, sophisticated, full-mission
aviation simulators immerse their pilots in a computer-generated
environment with which they interact as they would when piloting
the actual, physical aircraft. The Army Research Institute for
the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) owns and operates such a
virtual environment, full-mission, helicopter simulator. This
Simulator Training Research Advanced Testbed for Aviation
(STRATA) is described in the Method section. It utilizes a
helmet-mounted display and a fully functional cockpit to immerse
pilots in a computer-generated environment where they can fly,
fight, and communicate just as they would when performing an
actual mission.

Virtual environments and training. There are many
capabilities inherent to VE technology which may prove valuable
for training. One of these capabilities is the VE itself. Any
environment that can be programmed into a database is capable of
being visualized by the participant. Real world constraints do
not need to apply to these created worlds. For example, virtual
environments exist for the visualization of objects such as
molecules which are normally too small to be seen. Virtual
environments exist for the visualization of objects such as

3



Aukstakalnis & Blatner, 1992; Ellis, 1991; Krueger, 1991;
Pimentel & Teixeira, 1993; Rheingold, 1991). There is, however,
a certain amount of ambiguity and overlap in the meaning of the
terms "virtual reality" and "virtual environments." Virtual
reality is sometimes defined as the experience of being immersed
in an interactive, three-dimensional, computer-generated
environment (e.g., Pimentel & Teixeira, 1993; U.S. Army Research
Office, 1992). Other times virtual reality is defined as a
computer-generated, interactive, three-dimensional environment in
which a person is immersed (e.g., Aukstakalnis & Blatner, 1992;
Mogal, 1993; Pausch, 1993). The term virtual environment also
refers to a computer-generated, three-dimensional, interactive
environment in which a person is immersed (e.g., Ellis, 1991;
Mowafy & Congdon, 1994; Mowafy & Miller, 1993). The critical
defining features of both terms are computer generation,
immersion in a three-dimensional (3-D) environment, and
interaction. In this report a virtual environment (VE) is
defined as a computer-generated, 3-D environment in which a
person is immersed and with which the person can interact. The
hardware and software which makes this possible is called virtual
environment technology or VE technology.

The experience of immersion was described by Aukstakalnis
and Blatner (1992) this way:

Being immersed means being surrounded by something;
everywhere you look, it’s there...To create a sense of
immersion in a virtual environment, we must be able to
surround ourselves with various stimuli in a manner that
makes sense and that follows rules similar to those of the
real world. That is, when you turn your head to the left,
you see the objects to the left of you. When you walk
forward, you get closer to the objects in front of you.
These are elementary features of our sense of being immersed
in an environment; and when you’re in a virtual environment,
you expect the same results. (p. 27)

The typical mode of immersion is via a head-tracked, head-
mounted (or helmet-mounted) display. Wherever the participant
looks, the computer renders the appropriate view to be seen in
real time or near real time. Sometimes, 3-D sound is provided
through earphones. Sound appears external to the participant and
appears to move with movements of the participant or of the
virtual sound source. The participant can interact with the
virtual environment. Interaction may be limited to locomotion
through the environment (e.g., by joystick or treadmill) or may
include locomotion plus interaction with virtual objects (e.g.,
push virtual buttons, grasp and move virtual objects, doors open
upon proximity, etc.).



PLL La]

PLU LA LLL

LU UU UU



Control Group and was exploring the virtual Arizona. As for
predisposing factors, he had received many fewer hours of sleep
than usual the three nights prior to the experiment because of
his Army duties. This participant did not request withdrawal
from the experiment and in fact reported he felt fine after the
vomiting episode. After a 25 minute break during which he filled
out the SSQ, this participant returned to the Ariz-VE and
finished the experiment. His data were included among those in
the Control Group.

Discussion

The primary purpose of this experiment was to determine if
VE technology can be used to familiarize participants with a
place prior to their going there. That is, can important terrain
information be transmitted via this medium and will this
information transfer to the actual physical location? Another
purpose was to measure the presence reported by participants in
each of the two virtual environments--the HAH-VE for the Hanchey
Group and the Ariz-VE for the Control Group.

Knowledge of Hanchey Army Heliport

A variety of converging measurements support the conclusion
that the participants in this experiment were able to learn
terrain knowledge of the HAH using VE technology and were able to
transfer this information to the actual heliport. One of the
selection criteria for this experiment was that participants had
never visited the HAH. All participants signed a form stating
that they had not. This lack of knowledge of HAH was amply
demonstrated at pretest by both the Hanchey Group and the Control

Group (see Table 3). On the Pretest Part 1 Questionnaire
administered at ARI both groups scored near zero in their
knowledge of HAH (6%, 3%). On the Pretest Part 2 Questionnaire

administered at Hanchey both the Hanchey Group and the Control
Group again scored near zero in their knowledge of HAH (5%, 5%).
There were no ‘statistically significant differences between the
groups in their knowledge of HAH at pretest.

After exploration of their respective virtual environments
the situation was dramatically different (see Table 3). The
Control Group, which had been exploring the neutral Ariz-VE,
continued to score near zero on both the Posttest Part 1
Questionnaire (4%) and the Posttest Part 2 Questionnaire (8%).
The Control Group did not show a statistically significant
improvement from pretest to posttest on either questionnaire (see
Table 4). In addition, the Control Group scored near zero on the
Posttest Part 1 Object Placement Test (2%; see Table 3) which was
a posttest measure only.

35



to measure knowledge of the locations of key Hanchey features,
not artistic ability. There were a total of thirty-four objects
to be placed correctly in the diagram. Guessing was permitted.
If a participant did not know where to place an object and did
not wish to guess he or she could leave it blank. An object was
scored as being correctly placed if any portion of it was located
within 0.25 inch of its correct location. There were thirty-four
points possible on this posttest.

All participants were administered the Posttest Part 2
Questionnaire (see Appendix). This test was identical to the
Pretest Part 2 Questionnaire in every way except its title. It
contained the same seventeen questions in the same order.
Content, instructions, and scoring were identical to the
description given above for the Pretest Part 2 Questionnaire.
There were twenty-two points possible.

The Hanchey Army Heliport Walking Navigation Test was
administered only to members of the Hanchey Group (see Appendix).
This test measured participants’ knowledge of the physical
features of the HAH by asking them to use their knowledge to
navigate from one location to another in the real world at the
actual HAH. This transfer test consisted of two data collection
walks. In both, participants began at an initial position and
walked to a goal position while passing two waypoints in order
along the route. Neither the goals nor the waypoints were
visible from the initial positions. Further, to get to the goal
locations by passing the two waypoints required following a
circuitous route. In addition, neither the goal position nor the
waypoints for the second walk were visible during the first walk.

After informing the participant of the goal and the
landmarks to pass along the route, the experimenter followed
directly behind the participant as he or she walked. Three
measures of performance were recorded by the experimenter during
each walk: time, in seconds, to walk from start to goal; number
of wrong turns taken; and the experimenter’s judgement of the
participant’s confidence level based upon overt behavior. The
confidence rating was a three-point scale where 1 meant "unsure,
looking, searching, halting steps" and 3 meant "sure, confident,
not searching, direct path." A rating of 2 represented a judged
level of confidence between 1 and 3.

The Hanchey Army Heliport Knowledge Rating Form was filled
out only by members of the Hanchey Group (see Appendix). This
form asked each participant to rate the amount of knowledge of
Hanchey gained by them in the HAH-VE on a five-point scale. The
five rating scale levels were (1) None, (2) Some, (3) Adequate,
(4) Much, and (5) Very Much. The levels 1, 3, and 5 were
anchored with written descriptions of what the rating meant.
These descriptions were included on the form (see Appendix). The
purpose of this measure was to get an index of the amount that

23



Kozak, J. J., Hancock, P. A., Arthur, E. J., & Chrysler, S. T.
(1993). Transfer of training from virtual reality.

Ergonomics, 36(7), 777-784.

Krueger, M. W. (1991). Artificial reality II. New York:
Addison-Wesley.

Kurts, D., & Gainer, C. A. (1991). The use of a dedicated
testbed to evaluate simulator training effectiveness. In
Piloted Simulation Effectiveness Conference, AGARD Conference
Proceedings No. 513. Brussels, Belgium: North Atlantic
Treaty Organization, 11-1 to 11-9.

Landry, L. A. (1994). The Aviation Combined Arms Tactical
Trainer. U.S. Army Aviation Digest, 1-94-2, 15-17.

Meliza, L. L., & Tan, S. C. (in preparation). SIMNET Unit
Performance Assessment System (UPAS) version two user’s quide
(ARI Research Product). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research
Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Meliza, L. L., Tan, S. C., White, S., Gross, W., & McMeel, K.
(1992). SIMNET Unit Performance Assessment System (UPAS)

user’s guide (ARI Research Product 92-02). Alexandria, VA:
U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social

Sciences. (AD A250 699

Mogal, J. (1993). Virtual reality--a primer. IRIS Universe, 25,
22-24.

Moshell, M. (1993). Virtual environments in the US military.
Computer, 26(6), 81-82.

Moshell, M., Blau, B., & Dunn-Roberts, R. (1993). Virtual
environments for military training: SIMNET, Ender’s Game,
and beyond. Virtual Reality World, 1(2), v-ad.

Mowafy, L., & Congdon, T. (1994). Air combat surveillance in a
virtual world training system. Presented at the IMAGE VII

Conference Tucson, Arizona.

Mowafy, L., & Miller, L. (1993). Visualizing spatial
relationships: Training fighter pilots in a virtual
environment debrief interface (AL/HR-TR-1993-0148). Mesa, AZ:
Aircrew Training Research Division, Human Resources

Directorate, Armstrong Laboratory.

40



All participants completed and signed the Demographic
Information Form (see Appendix). This form served to provide
information as to name, social security number, age, rank, unit,
telephone number, aviator status, and whether they had ever

visited the HAH.

All participants took the Pretest Part 1 Questionnaire (see
Appendix). This test consisted of fourteen questions assessing
knowledge of HAH. Questions were concerned primarily with flight
related physical features of Hanchey. Questions were also asked
about the helicopters based at HAH and the flight traffic
patterns of east and west Hanchey. Some questions required
participants to fill in the correct answers and others were
multiple choice. Participants were required to answer each
question. Guessing was permitted. Participants who did not know
the answer and did not wish to guess were instructed to write
"DK" for "don’t know." There were eighteen points possible on
this pretest.

All participants were administered the Pretest Part 2
Questionnaire (see Appendix). This test consisted of seventeen
questions assessing knowledge of HAH. The questions concerned
the physical features of Hanchey, the helicopters based there,
and the traffic pattern. Some questions covered the same
information as in the Pretest Part 1 Questionnaire but ina
different format and context. All questions were multiple
choice. All questions were asked verbally by the experimenter
and-all answer options listed. Participants reported their
chosen answers verbally. Participants were required to answer
all questions. Guessing was permitted. A participant who did
not know the correct answer and did not wish to guess could
respond "don’t know." Don’t know was always one of the possible
answer options. There were twenty-two points possible on this

pretest.

All participants took the Posttest Part 1 Questionnaire (see
Appendix). This test was identical to the Pretest Part 1
Questionnaire in every way except its title. It contained the
same fourteen questions in the same order. Content,
instructions, and scoring were identical to the description given
above for the Pretest Part 1 Questionnaire. There were eighteen
points possible.

All participants filled out the Posttest Part 1 Object
Placement Test (see Appendix). This test assessed participants’
knowledge of the physical features of the HAH. It consisted of a
generalized diagram of the outlines of the HAH and a list of key
objects to be placed in their appropriate locations on the
diagram. Objects to be placed were identified with descriptive,
uppercase letters. Participants were not required to draw actual
features, merely to place the appropriate descriptive letters in
the appropriate locations in the diagram. This test was designed

22



13. Were you able to anticipate what would happen next in
response to the actions that you performed?

| l | | | | | |
NOT AT ALL SOMEWHAT COMPLETELY

14. How completely were you able to actively survey or search
the environment using vision?

| | | I. | | | |
NOT AT ALL SOMEWHAT COMPLETELY

15. How well could you identify sounds?

| | I | | | |
NOT AT ALL SOMEWHAT COMPLETELY

16. How well could you localize sounds?

| | ! a) | | | !
NOT AT ALL SOMEWHAT COMPLETELY

17. How well could you actively survey or search the virtual
environment using touch?

| | | | | | | |
NOT AT ALL SOMEWHAT COMPLETELY

18. How compelling was your sense of moving around inside the
virtual environment?

| | | | | | | |
NOT MODERATELY VERY

COMPELLING COMPELLING COMPELLING

19. How closely were you able to examine objects?

| | I | | | I |
NOT AT ALL PRETTY VERY
CLOSELY CLOSELY

20. How well could you examine objects from multiple viewpoints?

| I | | l | t |
NOT AT ALL SOMEWHAT EXTENSIVELY

A-21



USING VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS FOR TERRAIN FAMILIARIZATION:
VALIDATION

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ......e eee eee eeeee

Background .....
Research Issues

METHOD ........ rey

Participants .........60--

Apparatus and Materials..

Procedure ......... eee e neces
RESULTS .......- be eee eee eee eee ee eee eens

SSTolo) ak oe a

Analyses... .

Knowledge of Hanchey Army Heliport

Presence Questionnaire ........-++--- .

Simulator SickneSS ....... eee eee eee eee
DISCUSSION 2... eee e eee ee eee eee reer ere eens meee eee eee eee ecee 35

Knowledge of Hanchey Army Heliport ......

Presence .....-.-e eee nceeeere sence e eee sees
CONCLUSION ... cece eee e ween see eee see eeeenee eee eeees see eens 38
REFERENCES 2... esses eee eee cece eens bee e eee semen eee ee eee w ewes 39
APPENDIX ......- eee eee eee eens ewww wees sence eee eee eee weeeee Al

Demographic Information FOLM .... eee eee e eee e cece eevee AZ

Pretest Part 1 Questionnaire
Pretest Part 2 Questionnaire.
Posttest Part 1 Questionnaire
Posttest Part 1 Object Placement Test... .
Posttest Part 2 Questionnaire ..........-..+-

Hanchey Army Heliport Walking Navigation Test.
Hanchey Army Heliport Knowledge Rating Form.
Presence Questionnaire ....... rs been eee

ix



The fully-immersive, stereoscopic FOHMD was used for the
presentation of all visual information while in the virtual
environment. Head tracking was enabled. The combination of the
infrared head-tracking system, the rate sensing hardware mounted
on the helmet, the prediction algorithms, and a 60 Hz update rate
produced a virtual experience with no perceptible head tracking
delay. Eye tracking was not used in this experiment. Both the
left and the right high resolution insets were fixed forward in
the center of the visual field. A helmet was individually fitted

and optically aligned for each participant.

During the experiment a large black curtain was drawn
completely around the cockpit. This served to prevent ambient
light from the dimly lit simulator bay from reaching the cockpit.
Once seated in the cockpit the only light was that of the virtual
scene displayed by the FOHMD. Participants were completely
immersed in the VE and could view the environment by looking in
any direction. Participants were not a disembodied eyepoint,
however. When looking down participants could see the black
virtual carpet on which they were seated. This virtual carpet
covered the space immediately under their chair and feet being
2.5 feet wide by 3.0 feet long. It was this virtual carpet which
could be made to fly throughout the VE under participant control
by manipulation of the left and right joysticks.

During the experiment the four channels of the FOHMD (left
and right background, left and right insets) were continuously
monitored by the experimenter over four repeater displays at the
EOS. The intercom channel was also continuously monitored by the
experimenter over earphones at the EOS.

Virtual environments--Hanchey Army Heliport and Arizona.

Two virtual environments were used in this experiment--the
Hanchey Army Heliport environment and a section of the Arizona
environment near the town of Mesa. The HAH environment was
created for this and related research. The Arizona environment
used in this research was one terrain module taken from the
Arizona database. The entire state of Arizona is available in
this database and is the baseline database used in STRATA.

The Hanchey Army Heliport virtual environment (HAH-VE) is an
accurate, fullscale representation of the actual, physical HAH
located on Fort Rucker. The HAH-VE measures 0.72 miles in east-
west orientation and 0.52 miles in north-south orientation. The
HAH-VE is located in the center of a flat, green, terrain square
measuring 40.34 miles on a side. Nothing is visible in the green
expanse beyond HAH-VE.

Priority for inclusion in the HAH-VE went to large,
permanent or semipermanent, exterior features which identify HAH
and to features which are relevant to the flight training mission
of the heliport. That is, features were included if they were

13



9. Where is (are) the windsock(s) located relative the control
tower? Use compass direction (i.e., North, South, East, West) to
locate each windsock.

10. Where is the beacon tower located relative to the control
tower? North, South, East, or West?

11. Where is the fire station located relative to the control
tower? North, South, East, or West?

12. Where are the fuel tanks located relative to the control
tower? North, South, East, or West?

13. How many fuel tanks are there?

14. What is the field elevation of Hanchey in feet?



Date #

PRESENCE QUESTIONNAIRE
Version 2.0, Bob Witmer & Michael J. Singer

Characterize your experience in the virtual environment, by
marking an "X" in the appropriate box of the 7-point scale, in
accordance with the question content and descriptive labels.
Please consider the entire scale when making your responses, as
the intermediate levels may apply. Answer the questions
independently in the order that they appear. Do not skip
questions or return to a previous question to change your answer.
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS WITH REGARD TO THE VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT.

1. How mich were you able to control events?

1 | | | I I
NOT AT ALL SOMEWHAT COMPLETELY

2

2 How responsive was the environment to actions that you
initiated (or performed) ?

NOT MODERATELY COMPLETELY
RESPONSIVE RESPONSIVE RESPONSIVE

3. How natural did your interactions with the environment seem?

EXTREMELY BORDERLINE COMPLETELY
ARTIFICIAL NATURAL

4. How completely were all of your senses engaged?

NOT MILDLY COMPLETELY
ENGAGED ENGAGED ENGAGED

5. Hew much did the visual aspects of the environment involve
you?

! ! | I | | I___l
NOT AT ALL SOMEWHAT o COMPLETELY



Presence. A secondary purpose of this research was to
measure the experience of presence reported by participants in
the VEs. It was of interest to learn if there would be a
difference in reported presence between the Hanchey and Control
Groups. The two groups explored VEs which differed only in
content. Therefore, the total presence score was compared
between groups. This planned, pairwise comparison was analyzed
using a Mann-Whitney U test in addition to the independent groups
t-test. The nonparametric U test was added because the Presence
Questionnaire produced ordinal-level data (but see Gaito, 1980).
Both presence comparisons were two-tailed tests. No significant
differences in either direction were predicted.

Knowledge of Hanchey Army Heliport

Hanchey Group versus Control Group. The mean scores (and
percent correct) of the Hanchey Group and the Control Group on
the five instruments measuring knowledge of HAH are presented in
Table 3. The two pretest instruments were administered to all
participants prior to their experience in the VE. The three
posttest instruments were administered to all participants after
their experience in the VE. The numbers in the table represent
the mean and standard deviation of correct answers on the
measurement instruments by group. On the Pretest Part 1
Questionnaire the Hanchey Group mean score was 1.00 out of a
possible 18, while that -for the Control Group was 0.50. There
was no statistically significant difference between the groups on
this questionnaire (t(10) = 0.70, p>.10, 2-tailed). On the
Pretest Part 2 Questionnaire both groups scored 1.00 out of a
possible 22. There was no statistically significant difference
between the groups on this questionnaire (t(10) = 0.00, p>.10, 2-
tailed). The results showed no statistically significant
differences between the groups at pretest in their knowledge of
HAH.

The Hanchey Group scored 16.83 out of a possible 18 on the
Posttest Part 1 Questionnaire, while the Control Group scored
0.67. This difference was statistically significant (t(10) =
20.78, p<.001, 1-tailed). On the Posttest Part 1 Object
Placement Test the Hanchey Group scored 27.50 out of a possible
34, while the Control Group scored 0.83. This difference was
statistically significant (t(10) = 7.55, p<.001, 1-tailed). The
Hanchey Group scored 20.67 out of a possible 22 on the Posttest
Part 2 Questionnaire, while the Control Group scored 1.67. This
difference was statistically significant (t(10) = 12.38, p<.001,
1-tailed). The results consistently showed statistically
significant differences between the groups at posttest in their
knowledge of HAH.

30



Table 3

Comparison of Scores (and Percent Correct) of Hanchey Group and
Control Group on Instruments Measuring Knowledge of Hanchey Army
Heliport Before and After Experience in the Virtual Environment

Instrument Hanchey” Control”

Pretest Part 1 Questionnaire

Mean 1.00 (6%) 0.50 (3%)

sD 1.41 0.76
Pretest Part 2 Questionnaire

Mean 1.00 (5%) 1.00 (5%)

sD 1.41 1.41
Posttest Part 1 QuestionnaireTM

Mean 16.83 (94%) 0.67 (4%)

sD 1.34 1.11
Posttest Part 1 Object PlacementTM

Mean 27.50 (81%) 0.83 (2%)

SD 7.76 1.46
Posttest Part 2 QuestionnaireTM

Mean 20.67 (94%) 1.67 (8%)

sD 2.98 1.70

*

N = 6 each group
Hanchey Group versus Control Group: p<.001

+

Pretest versus posttest. The Part 1 Questionnaire and Part
2 Questionnaire were administered both before exploration of the
VE (pretest) and after this exploration (posttest). The mean
pretest and posttest scores (and percent correct) on these two
questionnaires are presented in Table 4 by group. The Hanchey
Group scored 1.00 on the Part 1 Questionnaire at pretest and
16.83 at pesttest. This improvement was statistically
significant (t(5) = 19.98, p<.001, 1-tailed). On the Part 2
Questionnaire the Hanchey Group scored 1.00 at pretest and 20.67
at posttest. This improvement was also statistically significant
(t(5) = 13.33, p<.001, 1-tailed). The results showed
statistically significant improvement from pretest to posttest on
both repeated measures of knowledge for the Hanchey Group.

The Control Group showed a different pattern of results. On
the Part 1 Questionnaire the Control Group scored 0.50 at pretest
and 0.67 at posttest out of a total possible score of 18. There

31



9. Where is (are) the windsock(s) located relative the control
tower? Use compass direction (i.e., North, South, East, West) to
locate each windsock.

10. Where is the beacon tower located relative to the control
tower? North, South, East, or West?

11. Where is the fire station located relative to the control
tower? North, South, East, or West?

12. Where are the fuel tanks located relative to the control
tower? North, South, East, or West?

13. How many fuel tanks are there?

14. What is the field elevation of Hanchey in feet?



Figure 5. HAH-VE: AH-64 Apache hangar in foreground with control tower
in background.

Figure 6. HAH-VE: AH-64 Apache helicopter with fuel tanks in background.
19



Date #
Familiarization with Virtual Environments
Posttest Part 1 Questionnaire
Please answer all questions. Circle the correct answer where

appropriate. Guessing is permitted. If you do not know what the
answer is and do not wish to guess, write "DK" for don’t know.

1. Which helicopter type (types) is (are) based on the West ramp
at Hanchey Army Heliport?

2. Which helicopter type (types) is (are) based on the East ramp
at Hanchey Army Heliport?

3. In which compass orientation are the helicopters parked on
the West ramp at Hanchey? North-South orientation or East-West
orientation?

4. In which compass orientation are the helicopters parked on
the East ramp at Hanchey? North-South orientation or East-West
orientation?

5. How many helipads are located on the West ramp of Hanchey?

6. How are these helipads identified or designated? (That is,
list the identification or designation of each of these
helipads.)

7. Which traffic pattern is at a higher altitude? West Hanchey
traffic pattern or East Hanchey traffic pattern?

8. How many windsocks are located at Hanchey?



6. How much did the auditory aspects of the environment involve
you?

| I ! | I | | |
NOT AT ALL SOMEWHAT COMPLETELY

7. How natural was the mechanism which controlled movement
through the environment?

EXTREMELY BORDERLINE COMPLETELY
ARTIFICIAL NATURAL

8. How aware were you of events occurring in the real world
around you?

| ! I | | ! | |

NOT AWARE MILDLY VERY AWARE
AT ALL AWARE

9. How aware were you of your display and control devices?

| | | | | | | |

NOT AWARE MILDLY VERY AWARE
AT ALL AWARE

10. How compelling was your sense of ebjects moving through
space?

NOT AT ALL MODERATELY VERY
COMPELLING COMPELLING

11. How inconsistent or disconnected was the information coming
from your various senses?

| | 1 | | | { |
NOT AT ALL SOMEWHAT VERY
INCONSISTENT INCONSISTENT INCONSISTENT

12. How much did your experiences in the virtual environment
seem consistent with your real world experiences?

| | | | | | | !
NOT MODERATELY VERY
CONSISTENT CONSISTENT CONSISTENT



Research Report 1686

Using Virtual Environments for Terrain
Familiarization: Validation

David M. Johnson and Dennis C. Wightman
U.S. Army Research Institute

Rotary-Wing Aviation Research Unit
Charles A. Gainer, Chief

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel
Department of the Army

November 1995

Army Project Number Education and Training Technology
20262785A791

‘Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.



roads) and both contained the visible, virtual compass arrow.
All the equipment used to present the virtual experience was
identical for both groups. The helmet and headtracking
technology was identical. The movement control via left and
right joysticks was identical. The sole difference was, again,
the location modeled in the VE. Under such stable conditions as
these one would be surprised--even suspicious--if significant
differences in rated presence did emerge.

The mean presence score in this experiment of 157.75 (SD =
9.03, N = 12) was reasonably consistent with other reported
scores using the same questionnaire, once differences in
experimental method were taken into consideration. Witmer,
Bailey, and Knerr (in preparation) reported a mean presence score
of 147.25 (SD = 15.20, N = 20). Their experiment employed a
different category of participants (college students) and a
different experimental apparatus. The experimental task,
however, was similar. Participants used the VE technology to
learn a complicated route through the interior of a building and
then transferred this knowledge to a test in the actual building.

Witmer and Singer (1994) reported a mean presence score of
144.29 (SD = 16.68, N = 16) for the first administration to their
sample and 138.29 (SD = 23.32, N = 16) for the second
administration. Their experiment also employed college students
and a different experimental apparatus. In addition, the task
was quite different. Participants performed a series of
perceptual and psychomotor tasks in a predetermined order within
the VE. Given these differences in method, differences in rated
presence would not be unexpected.

Research to determine the impact of different participants,
equipment, and procedures on rated presence will require
dedicated experiments which manipulate these independent
variables directly and measure presence within the same design.
Given the variability noted above in the presence ratings (see
SDs) within-subjects rather than independent-groups designs would
probably be preferable wherever possible.

Conclusion

Soldiers were able to learn external terrain information
from self-guided exploration of a virtual environment and
transfer this knowledge to the actual, physical environment that
had been modeled. The existence of the Control Group in this
experiment rules out possible alternative explanations for the
improvement in performance seen by the soldiers trained in the
virtual environment. Thus, under the criteria discussed earlier
in this report, virtual environment technology has been shown to
be a valid medium for the transmission of terrain knowledge.

38



The Hanchey Group, however, had been exploring the HAH-VE
and had learned a good deal. At posttest the Hanchey Group
scored near perfect on both the Posttest Part 1 Questionnaire and

the Posttest Part 2 Questionnaire (94%, 94%; see Table 3). The
Hanchey Group showed statistically significant improvement from
pretest to posttest on both questionnaires (see Table 4). In

addition, the Hanchey Group scored 81 percent correct on the
Posttest Part 1 Object Placement Test (see Table 3). At posttest
the Hanchey Group scored significantly and substantially better
than the Control Group on all three measures of knowledge where
the two groups were compared directly (see Table 3).

Clearly, the results of this experiment show that
participants were able to gain knowledge of the actual HAH from
the virtual HAH. On tests of knowledge administered both at ARI
and at HAH participants in the Hanchey Group went from scores
near zero to scores near perfect after ninety minutes of
exploration in the virtual Hanchey. On these same tests members
of the Control Group scored near zero at pretest and showed no
improvement at posttest. The existence of the Control Group in
this experiment means that the improvement seen by the Hanchey
Group cannot have been caused by differences at pretest, by
repeated knowledge testing, by exploration of just any virtual
environment, or by the mere passage of time. The only
parsimonious explanation of these results is that the Hanchey
Group learned about the HAH during their exploration of the
virtual Hanchey. That is, external terrain knowledge can be
transmitted by means of VE technology.

Not only were the Hanchey Group participants able to learn
about Hanchey from the virtual environment but they were able to
transfer this knowledge to the actual site. All members of the
Hanchey Group executed two trials of the HAH Walking Navigation
Test immediately after the questionnaire portion of the posttest.
On two different trials of this test participants were asked to
find their way from an initial starting point to a goal point
using the shortest possible route without passing through
buildings. On their way from start to'goal they were to pass two
landmarks in order. Neither the goal points nor the en route
landmarks were visible from the starting points or from each
other. Neither the goal nor the waypoints for trial number two
were visible during trial number one. Further, the correct route
on each trial was a circuitous one. In other words, this task
could not be performed quickly, confidently, and without error
either by chance or by visual search. To perform this task
perfectly--which they all did--participants were required to have
developed some sort of detailed mental representation of HAH
while exploring the VE and be able to apply this knowledge to
navigating the actual site.

36



28. How mich did the visual display quality interfere or
distract you from performing assigned tasks or required
activities?

| | | | | | | I
NOT AT ALL INTERFERED PREVENTED
SOMEWHAT PERFORMANCE

29. How mich did the control devices interfere with the
performance of assigned tasks jor with other activities?

| | | | | | I !

NOT AT ALL INTERFERED INTERFERED
SOMEWEAT GREATLY

30. How well could you concentrate on the assigned tasks or
required activities rather than on the mechanisms used to perform
those tasks or activities?

| l | | | | | |
NOT AT ALL SOMEWHAT COMPLETELY

31. Did you learn new techniques that enabled you to improve
your performance? :

| | | ! | | |

NO LEARNED LEARNED
TECHNIQUES SOME MANY
LEARNED TECHNIQUES TECHNIQUES

32. Were you involved in the experimental task to the extent
that you lost track of time?

| | | | I | | I
NOT AT ALL SOMEWHAT COMPLETELY



Unlike life in the real world, in a virtual environment
everything is known. Everything that is seen or available to be
seen is part of the database. In a military application, for
example, all platforms are part of the database. They are all
known as to type, identity, armaments, location, heading, range,
velocity, and status at all points in time. Since the entire
virtual world and all events that occur in it are composed of
data, some subset of these data can be selected, recorded,
analyzed, and presented to the participants in the form of
feedback. This is another potential advantage of VE for
training. The critical issues are what data would be valuable
for training feedback and how best to present them.

The SIMNET Unit Performance Assessment System (UPAS; Meliza,
Tan, White, Gross, & McMeel, 1992; Meliza & Tan, in preparation)
is an example of such a feedback system for the SIMNET VE. UPAS
is a personal computer-based system for use in collecting,
analyzing, and presenting SIMNET data to units during after-
action reviews. UPAS collects network data on vehicle status and
fire events during exercises and loads these data into a
relational database at the end of the exercise. UPAS contains
menus of graphical and tabular options for the analysis and
presentation of performance data. UPAS is designed to be used in
addition to the SIMNET replay capabilities to aid the trainer in
illustrating key events that lead to exercise outcomes.
Instructional features for feedback also exist in a wide variety
of nonimmersive simulation systems (cf. Hays & Singer, 1989).

The usefulness of VE technology for training may be
dependent upon the task to be trained. It has already been
stated above with regard to the work of Mowafy and colleagues
that VE technology may be particularly suited to training 3-D,
spatial tasks. Regian, Shebilske, and Monk (1992) suggest that
VE technology may hold promise for the training of visual-spatial
tasks because the VE interface preserves the visual-spatial
characteristics of the simulated world. Participants in the
Regian et al. experiment were able to use VE technology to learn
the spatial configuration of a virtual maze. Unfortunately,
however, this experiment did not include a transfer test in an
identical real world maze. So the implications of these results
for training are not clear.

Kozak, Hancock, Arthur, and Chrysler (1993) found that
training performed in a virtual environment did not transfer to a
real world perceptual-motor task. There were three groups in
this transfer of training experiment--no training, VE training,
and real world training. All three groups were transferred to
the real world perceptual-motor task. The measure of performance
was time to perform the task. The group which received training
on the same real world task performed significantly better than
the other two groups. The VE trained group did not differ from
the group that received no training at all.

6



8. Where are the fuel tanks relative to your position? To your
front, back, left, or right? DK

9. Where is the water tank relative to your position? To your
front, back, left, or right? DK .

10. Where is the nearest "field elevation" sign to your
position? To your front, back, left, or right? DK

11. Where is taxi lane Delta relative to your position? To your
front, back, left, or right? DK

12. Where is taxi lane Echo relative to your position? To your
front, back, left, or right? DK

13. Which aircraft traffic pattern is at a higher altitude, the
traffic pattern to your left or the traffic pattern to your
right? Left Right DK

14. Relative to your position, is there a windsock:
To your front? Yes No DK
To your back? Yes No DK
To your left? Yes No DK
To your right? Yes No DK

15. Where is Windjammers Chinook Hall relative to your position?
To your front, back, left, or right? DK

16. Where are the two silver natural gas tanks relative to your
position? To your front, back, left, or right? DK

17. Where is the satellite receiver dish relative to your
position? To your front, back, left, or right? DK



8. Where are the fuel tanks relative to your position? To your
front, back, left, or right? DK

9. Where is the water tank relative to your position? To your
front, back, left, or right? DK

10. Where is the nearest "field elevation" sign to your
position? To your front, back, left, or right? DK

11. Where is taxi lane Delta relative to your position? To your
front, back, left, or right? DK

12. Where is taxi lane Echo relative to your position? To your
front, back, left, or right? DK

13. Which aircraft traffic pattern is at a higher altitude, the
traffic pattern to your left or the traffic pattern to your
right? Left Right DK

14. Relative to your position, is there a windsock:
To your front? Yes No DK
To your back? Yes No DK
To your left? Yes No DK
To your right? Yes No DK

15. Where is Windjammers Chinook Hall relative to your position?
To your front, back, left, or right? DK

16. Where are the two silver natural gas tanks relative to your
position? To your front, back, left, or right? DK

17. Where is the satellite receiver dish relative to your
position? To your front, back, left, or right? DK

A-14



improvement from pretest to posttest. More importantly, at
posttest the performance of the trainee group should be
significantly better than that of the control group. This issue
is being investigated in the current experiment.

Once a training technology has been shown to be valid
according to the strict standards described above, a second issue
arises. This is the issue of the relative effectiveness of the
new technology vis-a-vis other technologies. This second issue
will be the subject of future research.

Domain. This research required soldiers to use VE
technology for terrain familiarization training. This meant
choosing some physical location to be modeled in the virtual
environment. The domain chosen for virtual familiarization was
the Hanchey Army Heliport (HAH) located on Fort Rucker. This
heliport was chosen for a number of reasons. First, one
potentially valuable application of VE technology to Army
Aviation is to familiarize pilots with the physical features and
flight pattern information of an airport prior to their arriving
there in an aircraft. Second, since the HAH is located at Fort
Rucker it is easily accessible for tests of transfer. Third, the
HAH is a basing field for the AH-64A Apache helicopter. ARI’s
STRATA facility at Fort Rucker is currently configured as an
Apache helicopter. Hence, the HAH virtual model could have other
research uses in the future.

Instructional strategy. The instructional strategy used for
familiarization training in this research was self-guided
exploration. Soldiers were free to travel about wherever they
chose in the VE and to use their own techniques to become
familiar with the physical features and flight pattern
information present there. This strategy was chosen for two
reasons. First, it was an anchor point along the dimension that
varied from structured, lockstep, group-based instruction to
unstructured, self- “guided, individual-based instruction. Second,
both past VE training (e.g., SIMNET; Alluisi, 1991) and projected
VE training (e.g., DIS; Vaden, 1993) have emphasized free- play
learning.

Two group, pretest-posttest, experimental design. Two
independent groups of experimentally naive soldiers were run--the

Hanchey Group and the Control Group. Members of both groups were
pretested on their knowledge of the HAH, then allowed self-guided
exploration of the virtual environment, then posttested on their
knowledge of the HAH. At the end of the posttest phase all
members of both groups rated their experience of presence in the
VE on a questionnaire. The independent variable was the
information available in the VE. The environment explored by the
Hanchey Group was an accurate model of the HAH--which was being
tested. The environment explored by the Control Group was a
model of a representative portion of the state of Arizona--which

8



REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

w

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy) 2, REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to)
1995, November Final March-November 1994
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE . 5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER
Using Virtual Environments for Terrain Familiarization: Validation
5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
0602785A
6. AUTHOR(S) 5c. PROJECT NUMBER
A791
David M. Johnson and Dennis C. Wightman 5d. TASK NUMBER
2211
Se. WORK UNIT NUMBER
HO1
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING.ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences
ATTN: PERI-IR
5001 Eisenhower Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22333-5600
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. MONITOR ACRONYM
U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences ARI
5001 Eisenhower Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22333-5600 11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER
Research Report 1686

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13, SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words):

Can virtual environment (VE) technology be used to familiarize soldiers with a geospecific location that they have
never previously visited: This question was asked in a training validation experiment employing a two-group, preset-
posttest design. The domain modeled in the VE was the Hanchey Army Heliport (HAH) located at Fort Rucker. Soldiers in
the Hanchey Group explored a virtual model of the HAH, while soldiers in the Control Group explored a virtual model of a
section of Arizona. Results showed that the group which explored the virtual Hanchey performed significantly better than
the Control Group on all measures of knowledge of HAH. Further, on a transfer test performed at the actual HAH, the
Hanchey Group was able to move to unseen locations in a minimum of time with no errors. These results support the
proposition that VE technology can be used for terrain familiarization training.

15. SUBJECT TERMS
Virtual environments Training validation Simulator research

19. LIMITATION OF | 20. NUMBER 21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

ABSTRACT OF PAGES (Name and Telephone Number)
16. REPORT 17. ABSTRACT | 18. THIS PAGE Charles A. Gainer

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified 72 (334) 255-28342



Table 2

Interscorer Reliability of Scorers DJ and DW

Instrument Correlation”
Pretest Part 1 Questionnaire xr af = 10, p<.001
Pretest Part 2 Questionnaire x df = 10, p<.001
Posttest Part 1 Questionnaire x @f = 10, p<.001
Posttest Part 1 Object Placement xr af 10, p<.001
Posttest Part 2 Questionnaire r= 1.00, df = 10, p<.001

*Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient

The Presence Questionnaire was scored in the manner
described by Witmer and Singer (1994). Participants placed an
"x" in one of seven bins along a seven-point, Likert-type scale.
For twenty-five of the thirty-two questions the left-most bin was
scored a rating of 1 and the right-most bin a rating of 7. Seven
questions were reverse scored, with the left-most bin scored as a
rating of 7 and the right-most bin scored as a rating of 1. The
questions which were reverse scored were numbered 8, 9, 11, 24,
25, 28, and 29. The total score for each participant was the sum
of the ratings from all thirty-two questions. The Presence
Questionnaire was scored by DJ.

Analyses

Knowledge of Hanchey Army Heliport. The purpose of this
experiment was to determine if knowledge about an actual location

could be transmitted via VE technology. The experiment was a
simple pretest-posttest design with two independent groups. The
Hanchey Group explored a VE representation of the tested location
(HAH) while the Control Group explored a VE representation of a
neutral location (Arizona). Therefore, two classes of planned,
pairwise comparisons were run. First, comparisons between the
Hanchey Group and Control Group on all pretest and posttest
measures. These comparisons employed a series of independent
groups t-tests. All pretest comparisons were two-tailed tests.
No significant differences in either direction were predicted.
All posttest comparisons were one-tailed tests. Differences were
predicted to favor the Hanchey Group. Second, comparisons were
made between pretest performance and posttest performance for all
repeated measures for both groups. These comparisons employed a
series of repeated measures t-tests. All pretest versus posttest
comparisons were one-tailed tests. Differences were predicted to
favor the posttest.

29



Further, there was no perceptible lag to the directional
information provided by the arrow--it kept pace with all helmet
or carpet movements no matter how quickly made. Being positioned
in the lower center FOV, the arrow provided compass direction
without blocking the visual scene.

Figures 3 through 8 present various views of the HAH-VE as
photographed from a repeater display in the EOS. Visible in the
foreground of all figures is the black, rectangular, virtual
carpet and the north-pointing compass arrow. Figure 3 shows a
portion of the OH-58 Kiowa hangar. Figure 4 presents Cobra Hall
and buildings to the north. Figure 5 displays a portion of the
Apache hangar in the foreground with the control tower in the
background. Figure 6 shows a parked AH-64 Apache with fuel tanks
in the background. Figure 7 displays a parked CH-47 Chinook.
Figure 8 presents administrative, storage, and hangar buildings
at the north end of the field.

17



U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency Under the Jurisdiction
of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

EDGAR M. JOHNSON

Director
Leone EEE
Technical review by
Donald Ethington

Charles A. Gainer
John E. Stewart
Robert H. Wright

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this report has been made by ARI. Please address correspondence
concerning distribution of reports to: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences,
ATTN: PERI-POX, 5001 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when it is no longer needed. Please do not return itto
the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

NOTE: 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.



Mowafy, L., & Thurman, R. A. (1993). Training pilots to
visualize large-scale spatial relationships in a stereoscopic
display. In J. 0. Merritt & S. S. Fisher (Eds.), Science &
Technology/Stereoscopic Displays and Applications IV,

Proceedings of the 1993 International Symposium on Electronic

Imaging. Bellingham, WA: SPIE.

Pausch, R. (1993). Three views of virtual reality: An overview.
Computer, 26(6), 79-80.

Pimentel, K., & Teixeira, K. (1993). Virtual reality: Through

the new looking glass. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Psotka, J., & Davison, S. A. (1993). Cognitive factors
associated with immersion in virtual environments.
Proceedings of the 1993 Conference on Intelligent Computer-

Aided Training and Virtual Environment Technology. Houston,

TX.

Regian, J. W., Shebilske, W. L., & Monk, J. M. (1992). Virtual
reality: An instructional medium for visual-spatial tasks.
Journal of Communication, 42(4), 136-149.

Rheingold, H. (1991). Virtual reality. New York: Simon &
Schuster.

Sheridan, T. B. (1992). Musings on telepresence and virtual
presence. Presence, 1(1), 120-125.

Singley, G. T. (1993). Distributed Interactive Simulation--a

preview. Army Research, Development and Acquisition Bulletin,

PB_70-93-2, 35-39.

Stewart, J. E. (1994). Application of the backward transfer
paradigm to the AH-64 Simulator Training Research Advanced
Testbed for Aviation (ARI Research Report 1666). Alexandria,
VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and
Social Sciences. (AD A285 758)

Stewart, J. E., Wightman, D. C., & Gainer, C. A. (1993).

Research prospectus for the Simulator Training Research

Advanced Testbed for Aviation (ARI Technical Report 980).
Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the
Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD A268 165)

U.S. Army Research Office (1992). Workshop report: Virtual
reality/synthetic environments in Army training. Durham, NC:

Author.

Vaden,. D. W. (1993). Vision for the next decade. Army Research,
Development and Acquisition Bulletin, PB _70-93-3, 1-3.

41



signed the Demographic Information form. Besides providing the
demographic information listed above, this form once again asked
them if they had ever visited the HAH. All participants
stipulated that they had not.

Pretest. Immediately after the orientation, each
participant filled out the Pretest Part 1 Questionnaire at ARI.
Then each participant was taken by the experimenter to the HAH
located on Fort Rucker. The participant donned opaque goggles,
provided by the experimenter, prior to getting within sight of
Hanchey. Opaque goggles were worn in order to guarantee
experimental control of each participant’s visual exposure to
HAH. Upon arrival at Hanchey, the participant--still wearing
goggles--was lead by the experimenter to a particular location
facing the southwest section of the Kiowa hangar. Here the
participant was instructed to stand still with head and eyes
fixed forward. With the experimenter positioned in front of the
participant, the participant removed the goggles. The
experimenter read the instructions for the Pretest Part 2
Questionnaire to the participant (see Appendix) and then
administered the questionnaire. Participants were instructed to
provide verbal responses to the questions read to them from the
response options supplied. The experimenter circled each
response on the clipboard answer sheet. The experimenter also
monitored the participant to guarantee that he or she remained
stationary with head and eyes pointed forward during this
pretest.

After answering all questions, and while remaining
stationary with head and eyes pointed forward, the participant
again donned the goggles for the trip back to ARI. Once out of
sight of the HAH the participant was allowed to remove the

goggles.

Exploration of the virtual environment. Upon return to ARI
the participant was taken to the pilot cockpit of STRATA, seated,

and given a brief orientation to the simulator. The participant
was shown how to adjust cockpit ventilation and where the
emergency shut-off switches were located. The participant was
shown the FOHMD and how to handle it without touching the optics.
The participant was shown the two joysticks and their functions.
Last, each participant was shown the air sickness bag. Finally,
the participant was helped into the FOHMD and a communication
check was made with the experimenter seated at the EOS.

All participants were continuously monitored by the
experimenter at the EOS. Experimenter and participant had an
open microphone link so that during exploration of the VE the
experimenter was always available to the participant. In
addition, the experimenter continuously monitored the view seen
by the participant in the helmet via the repeaters at the EOS.

25



Table 5

Mean Presence Questionnaire Ratings for Hanchey Group, Control
Group, and Combined

Hanchey Group” Control Group”
Mean 154.83 160.67
SD 7.62 9.37
N 6 6

Both Groups Combined

Mean 157.75
sD 9.03
N 12

* Hanchey Group versus Control Group: p>.10

Simulator Sickness

Because simulator sickness was not a research issue under
investigation in this experiment, it was not systematically
measured for all participants. Thirteen soldiers were originally
scheduled for participation in this experiment. Two participants
experienced simulator sickness and were requested to fill out the
Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ) of Kennedy, Lane, Berbaum,
and Lilienthal (1993). One of the two participants reported
sickness of sufficient severity to cause him to request
withdrawal from the experiment. This participant did not vomit
but did report on the SSQ moderate or severe symptoms of:
general discomfort, fatigue, headache, eyestrain, nausea,
fullness of head, blurred vision, dizziness, vertigo, and stomach
awareness. These symptoms all occurred within the first fifteen
minutes of experience in the virtual environment. This
participant had been assigned to the Hanchey Group and was
exploring the virtual Hanchey. As for predisposing factors, this
participant reported many fewer hours of sleep than usual the
night prior to the experiment. This participant was excused from
the experiment and his data were not included in the results of
this report.

The other participant vomited into his air sickness bag
eight minutes into his third session in the VE (68 minutes into
the 90 minute total session length). This participant had not
reported any symptoms over the intercom prior to his sickness.

He expressed surprise that the sickness had come upon him so
suddenly. He reported moderate symptoms of dizziness and stomach
awareness on the SSQ. This participant had been assigned to the

34



CH-47 Chinook helicopter.

HAH-VE

Figure 7.

Buildings at north end of field.

HAH-VE

Figure 8.

20



galaxies which are normally too large, too dim, and too far away
to be seen. Virtual environments also exist to allow the
participant to view a new kitchen configuration with new
appliances prior to remodeling or to view and walk through an
entirely new building before it has been built. Virtual
environments even exist which allow for the 3-D visualization of
data which are normally seen if at all in 2-D tables or figures--
data such as stock market statistics or weather measurements.
Descriptions of these and other applications of VE technology can
be found in a number of sources (e.g., Aukstakalnis & Blatner,
1992; Ellis, 1991; Krueger, 1991; Pimentel & Teixeira, 1993;
Rheingold, 1991).

An application of this database capability for military
training may be to use VE technology to familiarize participants
with a location prior to their going to the actual, physical
location in person. Thus, virtual environments have been
suggested for use in premission planning or mission rehearsal
(e.g., Bell, Mastaglio, & Moses, 1993; Landry, 1994; Moshell,
Blau, & Dunn-Roberts, 1993; Yuhas, 1993). A likely military
mission for which VE training may be a useful form of mission
rehearsal would be hostage rescue from a known building by
special operations forces. VE technology could be used to
familiarize soldiers with the interior of the building prior to
the mission. Research relating to this mission has been
conducted by Witmer, Bailey, and Knerr (in preparation). The
task was to learn a complex route through a building.
Participants were trained in one of three groups (i.e., actual
building, VE building, and symbolic) and then transferred to the
actual building. Participants trained in the actual building
performed best on the transfer test, followed by participants
trained in the virtual building. The participants trained using
symbolic techniques (i.e., written directions, photographs)
performed the worst on the transfer test. This experiment
provided evidence that participants were able to learn interior
route information using VE technology and transfer this knowledge
to the actual building.

Another capability of VE that may prove to have training
value is the independent control of the observer’s viewpoint
(also called eyepoint). Many VE systems allow the participant to
adopt any viewpoint he or she chooses within the database by
means of a joystick or other controlling device. This means that
the view the participant receives is not limited to the
exigencies of the real world. Participants are free to travel to
the top of a mountain that they could never in reality climb, to
stop in mid air without falling, or to fly right up to an enemy
position without being killed. Moshell (Moshell, 1993; Moshell,
Blau, & Dunn-Roberts, 1993) discusses the use of "stealth"
platforms in the SIMNET VE. Observers during a virtual replay of
the Gulf War battle of 73 Easting control invisible eyepoints
(stealth platforms) with which they can adopt any viewpoint on

4



Date #

Familiarization with virtual Environments

Hanchey Army Heliport Knowledge Rating Form

As a result of the self-guided exploration you performed in the
virtual Hanchey environment, how would you rate the level of
knowledge you gained about Hanchey Army Heliport? Please circle
a number from 1 to 5 below.

1 2 3 4 5
None Some Adequate Much Very Much
Where, .
1 = None. I learned nothing about Hanchey in the virtual
environment.

wo
i]

Adequate. I learned enough in the virtual environment
to find my way around Hanchey.

ou
i]

Very Much. I learned a great deal in the virtual
environment. I feel highly knowledgeable
about Hanchey now.

A-17



Wenzel, E. M. (1992). Localization in virtual acoustic displays.
Presence, 1(1), 80, 107.

Wiener, E. L., & Nagel, D. C. (1988). Human factors in aviation.
San Diego: Academic.

Witmer, B. G., Bailey, J. H., & Knerr, B. W. (in preparation).
Training dismounted soldiers in virtual environments: Route
learning and transfer (ARI Technical Report). Alexandria,
VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and
Social Sciences.

Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1994). Measuring presence in
virtual environments (ARI Technical Report 1014).
Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences. (ADA 286 183)

Yuhas, J. S. (1993). Distributed Interactive Simulation. Army
Research, Development & Acquisition Bulletin, PB 70-93-3,
4-6.

42



Date #

FAMILIARIZATION WITH VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS

Demographic Information Form

All information you provide will be used for research purposes
only. Your anonymity is assured.

1. Name:

Last First Middle

| 2. Social Security No.: - -
3. What is your age? Years

| 4, What is your current rank?

5. To which unit are you assigned?

6. Daytime Telephone Number(s) :

7. Are you an aviator?

8. Have you ever visited Hanchey Army Heliport?

Your Signature



Presence in virtual environments. The sense of being
physically present within a computer-generated space--the feeling
of actually "being there" when one is immersed in a virtual
environment--is called "presence." What are the necessary and
sufficient conditions required to create this experience of
presence? The popular scientific literature is replete with
speculation as to the conditions which cause presence (e.g.,
Aukstakalnis & Blatner, 1992; Pimentel & Teixeira, 1993;
Rheingold, 1991). A listing of these conditions includes: rapid
update rate, large field of view, stereoscopic display, high
resolution display, eye tracking, head tracking, head-mounted
display, 3-D sound, engaging imagery, high image complexity, and
interactivity.

The professional scientific community has recognized that
before definitive empirical research can be performed to
determine the parameters which produce presence, a useful measure
of presence must first be devised (e.g., Held & Durlach, 1992;
Sheridan, 1992). Responding to this need, two independent groups
of ARI scientists have developed instruments designed
specifically to measure the reported experience of presence in
virtual environments. These are the instruments developed by
Psotka and Davison (1993) and by Witmer and Singer (1994). Given
valid and reliable measurement instruments, scientific research
to explicate the conditions leading to the experience of presence
will surely increase.

Research Issues

Military issue. The primary purpose of this experiment was
to determine if virtual environment technology can be used to
familiarize soldiers with a geospecific location that they have
never previously visited. Can important terrain information be
transmitted via this medium? Will this information transfer to
the actual, physical location? If VE technology is to be used
for such critical military tasks as premission planning and
mission rehearsal then the answer to the above questions must be
yes.

Technology validation issue. Logically, the first issue to
be addressed when developing a new technology for training is
validation. Will instruction provided by this medium produce an
improvement in performance? The minimum research design to
address this issue requires two matched groups--a trainee group
and a control group. Both groups must be tested before
instruction (pretest) to guarantee that they are equally naive to
the subject matter prior to instruction. The two groups should
not differ at pretest. Both groups must again be tested after
instruction (posttest). The trainee group should show a
statistically significant improvement in performance from pretest
to posttest. The control group, which did not receive the
instruction, should not show a statistically significant

7