~~ Tech ui caI Pap.r~~~~~~~~~~~L _

A CO MPUTER GRAP HIC-BASED AID FOR ANALYZI NG

TAC T ICA L SIGHTI NGS OF ENEMY FORCES

Franklin L. Moses and Richard P. Vande Hei

‘ BATTLEFIELD INFORMATION SYSTEMS TECHNICAL AREA

DDC

f

~~E~~ ~

1?fl

Li. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Jan uary 1978

Approved for pubtic release; distribution unlimited.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~

; ___ ________
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

W . C. MAUS

J. E. Ul-ILANER COL , GS

Technical Director Commander

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this report has been made by ARI. Please address correspondence concerning distrIbution of report s to: U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behaviorel end Social Sciences, ATTN: PERI.P, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alex andria, Virginia 2233:3.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when it is no longer ne ded. Please do not return it to

the U. S. Army Research Institut, for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

~~~ 

Th. findings in this report are not to be constru ed is an official Department of the Army position, unleis so designated by other authorized documents.

~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ :

~~~~~~~~_L -... .-—-
_________

llnclascified SECURITY CLAS5I~~ICAT ION OF THIS PAGE (ri m. V.,. Ent.r.d)

READ tNSTRUCT IONS REPORT DOCUMEPITATtON PAGE BEFORE COMPLET tNG FORM

2. GOVT ACCEU&9L~~Q ~

3. RECIPIFMT’c ~~ REPORT NUMBE R AT 7 •

~: 

Technical /aper 287 1 ___________________

4. TITLE (m.d SubSist.) S TYPE OF REPORT S PERIOD COVERED

/ ~~ ~~A oMPUTER~~RAPHIC-~ ASED~~ ID FOR 4NALYZ~~~ /

’ 

~~ .

j TACTICAL SIGHT INGS OF ENEMY FORCES . PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7 AUTHOR(q) - --.. - --.— — ,• • .,.•

~~• •. -. C. COPITRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(.)

Franklin L

1

/

Moses~~~~~ Richard P./ Vande Hei /

I. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAM E AND AOO RESS tO. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT . TASK

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behav ioral AREA S WORK UNIT NUMBERS

and Soc ial Sciences, ~1OO E isenhower Ave nue, ~~~ ~ 

?~~ 76~~

2

~~

76~~ Alexandr ia, VA 22333 I 7 ~ It, CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. ~~E~~~~~T DATE (7~ 

Jan ~~~~~ /‘ U.S. Army Combat Arm s Development Agency 13. NuMBER OF PAGES

U.S. Army Intelligence Center and School 23

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME S AOORESS(U dlll .rw( from Cont g4apj 15. SECURITY CLASS. (of thI. r.porS)

c2

~ ~ 

f) / Unclassified ‘/ ___________________________________________________

- - / ISa, DECLASSIFICAT ION/DOWNGRADiNG SCHEDULE

IC. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (at tAt. R.port)

Approved for public release ; distribution un limited.

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of ha ab.ti’act .nSa,.d In Block 20. II dJlI .,int Iron. R.p ort)

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Ii. KEY WORDS (Contlnu. an ,•v.r.• .ide II n.c.a.n.y and l,I~nItIy by block numb.,)

man/computer interaction military intelligence cluster analysi

information processing graphics movement analysis

decision aids data disp lays graphic disp lay

\~~ctical Operations System (Tos) battlefield patterns applications

25. A~~~~RAc’r (Cant~~ i. om ~~vsa~~ .&~~ pg ~~~ Sd.niifr by black numb. ,)

Computer and computer-driven graph ics are be ing exp lored for po tential

utilization by the battlefield staff. One such effort is designed to assist in

detecting patterns by rep lacing manual p lots of sightings with efficient and

flex ible compu ter graphic techniques and associated algorithms. An interaction of the analyst with these displays and algorithms for analyzing

sightings form s the bas is for the presen t evaluation of a battlefield

interpretation aid .

DO ‘

~

,, 

~

473 ED?’fl ON OFIPIOV SS ISOSOLETE Unclassified SECURITY C1~AUIFICATION OF TIltS PAGE (WI~

un Date ES.I.4)

7

— 

- - 

—___________
______________

Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAOE(Whm. Data Xnt.rod)

~~~~~~~Questions were asked about direction, speed of movement, and changes in

location of battlefield activity in a classical division attack scenario.

Si aided’~~

’

~rtic ipants derived answers by specifying activity on a graphic

d isp lay from which the computer calculated distanceè, speeds, etc. Six

P M unaided~ ”~~rticipants derived answers from the disp lays without the use of

computerized calculations. Responses in the aided condition were substantiall’

more accurate than responses in the unaided condition. Measures of time did

not meaningfully discriminate between the conditions. Accuracy results suggesi

that analyst-controlled computerized algorithms should be used for determining

enemy patterns for computer graphic disp lays of sightings. The aid could be

improved by better adaptation to equipment, thorough training and design

refinements. However, results are sufficiently promising to suggest provision

for accoimnodating mass/movement and related temporal/spatial analysis

algorithms in requirements documents.

• c

~

-

I P11* 0

0

1US1IrIC*T~ M .. .,.. .-. . 

PillUnclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(’ri. n Data EnI.~.d)
‘

~~~~,wr —fl”-- ,.

Teck eical Paper 287

A COMPUTER GRAPHIC- BASED AID FOR ANALYZ ING

TACTICAL SiGHTiNG S OF ENEMY FORCES

Franklin L. Moses and Richard P. Vande Hei

Raymond C. Sidorsky

Work Unit Leader

BATTLEFIELD INFORMATION SYSTEMS TECHNICAL AREA

Robert S. Andrews

Submitted by: Approved By:

Joseph Zeidner, Director ~ E. Uhianer

ORGANIZATIONS AND SYSTEMS TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

RESEARCH LABORATORY

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

5001 Eisenhower Avenue. Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Office , Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

January 1978

Army Project Number Tactical Operations and Displays

2Q762722A765

Appr~~ d for ~ubllc rslee,.; dlet,ibutlolt unlimited.

• - • _____________ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ AJL_~~ - 

__ 

- - — - 

_ 

- —- _ __________
ARI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended for sponsors of

R&D tasks and other research and military agencies. Any findings ready for

- implementation at the time of publication are presented in the latter part of

the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recommen- dations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

- ‘

~~~~~~~~~ ‘ ‘ : -- -- --- ~~ 

•
r ----—-- --- • -—

~~~~

-•— - , .• . --•-

~~

----

~~

------• -- • - • • • • • • • -

FOREWORD

The Battlefield Information Systems Technical Area of the U.S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

(ARI) is c oncerned with the app lication of Behavio ral Science

p rinciples and techniques to the solution of problems involving

information processing , decisionniaking , and operator/user performance in military information systems and contexts.

One maj or objective is to determine basic capabilities and

• limitations of man as an information processor and to devise

complementary and compensating processing aids and techniques.

Some functions are best accomplished by man , some by compu ter ,

• and some by an interactive relationship between man and computer.

ARI Technical Paper 258, “Compu ter—Based Displays as Aids in

the Prod uction of Tactical Intelligence ,” illustrated basic

graphic display concepts with a set of situation maps derived from

a large tactical exercise scenario . The present publication

extends these concepts and evaluates an interactive graphic aid

designed to assist staf f analysts in analyzi ng and understanding

patterns of enemy activity. The effort represents one phase in

the exploration of concepts for automated aids to assist analysts

and decisionmakers in understanding enemy intentions and capabilities and provides part of the necessary technological base for

research leading to app lications recommendations .

Research in the area of staff aids for tactical data systems

is conducted as an in—house effort. The entire effort is responsive to requir ements of Army Project 2Q762722A765 and to special

requirements of the U.S. Army Combat Arms Combat Development

Activity (CACDA), Fort Leavenworth , KS , and the U.S. Army Intelligence Center and School , Fort Huachuca , AZ. CACDA special requirements include Human Resource Needs 76—163 (Automated Disp lay

Requirements and Procedures for Mass and Movement Anal ysis) and

76—165 (AD P Method s fo r Utilization of Ana lytic Aids and Logic

Models in Intelligence Processing).

J. E. UHLANER,

Technical Director 

~~~~~ i

__ 

—,-—~,

----.——— - 

• •— -— • •

~~~~~ -~~~~~
A COMPUTER GRAPHIC—BASED AID FOR ANALYZING TACTICAL SIGHTINGS OF

ENEMY FORCES

BRIEF

Requirement:

To evaluate a computer calculation procedure coupled with

automated graphics to assist in understanding movement and patte rns

of enemy activity.

Procedure:

~ iestions were asked about direction , speed of movement and

changes in location of battlefield activity in a classical division

attack scenario . In one research condition , answers were derived

by six “aided” participants who specified sightings on a graphic

disp lay from which the computer calculated distances , speeds ,

etc. In the second condition , six “unaided” participants derived

answers from the displays without the use of computerized calculations. Answers and tile needed for solutions were recorded .

Accuracy of responses was calculated .

Findings:

Responses from participants in the aided condition were

substantially more accurate than responses from participants in

the unaided condition . However , measures of time did not meaningfully discriminate between the aided and unaided performance.

Utilization of Findings:

Results suggest that analyst—controlled computerized algorithms

should be used for determining consistent enemy patterns from

computer graphic displays of sightings. The laboratory research

forms the basis for concluding that such pattern analysis algorithms linked with graphics are preferable to either processes

using computerized graphics alone or manual techniques involving

grease—pencil drawings of sightings. Further development of

graphic—based aids for mass/movement and related temporal/spatial

analyses of enemy forces is necessary. However , present data are

sufficiently promising to justify some provision for such aids in

requirements documents.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~
r 

• 

- -

A COMPUTER GRAPHIC— BASED AID FOR ANALYZING TACTICAL SIGHTINGS OF

ENEMY FORCES

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

METHOD 2

Participants 2

Task 2

Computerized Aid 3

Apparatus 3

Procedure 4

Experimental Design 5

RESULTS 5

• DISCUSSION 6

Participant Qualifications 8

Accuracy Data 8

Time Data 8

Improving the Aid 9

CONCLUSIONS 10

APPENDIXES 11

DISTRIBUTION LIST 25

TABLES

Table 1. Analysis of the Accuracy of Answers to Questions 5

2. Actual Answers to Questions and the Absolute

Magnitude of Response Errors (in kin ) Across

Subjects 7

• • 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A COMPUTER GRAPH IC—BASED AID FOR ANALYZING TACTICAL SIGHTINGS OF ENEMY

FORCES

INTRODUCTION

Computer graphics can aid in simplifying the recognition of patterns

of spatially and temporally distributed events. Graphic displays could

be used in reducing time and effort in detecting patterns of tactical

battlefield activity. For example , consider how computer graphics could

assist the intelligence analyst in detecting a shift of battlefield

emphasis over a 24—hour period . The current manual procedure requires

time—consuming grease—pencil plots of symbols on numerous map overlays

representing time slices of reported activity. These plots of related

information are examined to determine whether there are consistent

• patterns. In contrast to the slow and tedious manual plots, computer

graphics could rapidly generate time slices of related information

• required for detecting patterns of activity. The current manual procedure also uses the information in plots of activity for calculating time

and distance relationships that describe patterns of movements. With

computer graphics, the intelligence analyst could specify on displays

the activity which he wants included in computerized time/distance

calculations. The present research was designed to evaluate a computer

graphics/calculation approach as applied to the military situation.

There is no clearly defined technique agreed upon for determining

patterns . However , the intelligence analyst’s manual procedures provide

guidelines and clues for operationally defining what he does to detect

patterns. Introspectively, the analyst indicates that he chooses

clusters of seemingly related activities over time and then does a set

of rough approximations of their “centers of mass.” However, this

determination of related clusters is only part of identifying patterns.

There always is some “random” movement in battlefield activity. An

analyst can be misled by cluster relationships which are not substantiated by reasonable time and distance measures such as average speed

of travel , average projected time of arrival at specific places, or

possible/probable destinations.

Given a computer—based display of sightings, the analyst could expend

less effort on clerical tasks. In addition , the computer could help him

with time/distance calculations for comparing sightings. The analyst

could concentrate on looking for time/distance related trends such as

pre—positioning of logistics, lead armor activity, positioning of artillery, and other evidence of shifts in enemy operational intent. In

summary , methods which use computerized graphics for determining patterns

and resultant. trends would help the military analyst to weigh events

differentially.l

1 Bowen , R. J., Feebrer , C. E., Nickerson , R. S., and Triggs, T. J.

Computer—based displays as aids in the production of Army tactical

intelligence . Army Research Institute , Technical Paper 258, February

1975.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ::‘: ~~~~ : —-
r

The present research required that intelligence analysts use time/

distance measures to summarize possible relationships of clusters which

they identified on graphic displays of battlefield events. The research

assessed whether the analyst ’s information—processing burden would be

reduced by computerized algorithms which calculate geometrical centers of

activity clusters and their time/distance relationships. Some analysts

were provided with this graphics/calculation aid and others were not .

The immediate objective was to evaluate an interactive graphic aid

(GRAID), identify its weaknesses, and determine its potential. Com—

puterized displays were used to present activity symbols in both the

unaided (i.e., manual) and aided conditions. The comparison required

the unaided group to summarize movement characteristics of patterns

without computer calculations; the aided group could request computer

calculations and graphic displays of centers of clusters and their time/

distance relationships. The research hypothesis was that an interactive

graphic aid for calculations (aided condition) relevant to pattern

analysis would allow analysts to draw inferences more quickly and more

effectively than would be possible with graphic displays alone (unaided

condition).

METHOD

PART IC IPANTS

The seventeen participants were Army officers (Captains & Majors)

from the intelligence community who had varying degrees of familiarity

with prescribed military procedures for abstracting patterns of battlefield activity . Eight participants were randomly assigned to the aided

research condition and nine participants to the unaided . Six participants in each condition completed the tasks satisfactorily, and their

performance provided the basis for the statistical analysis .

TASK

Participants were presented with a series of questions (Appendix A)

aimed at characterizing components of the complex pattern analysis

process . The questions asked about predicted locations, change of

directions , and speeds. There were 20 individual and multipart questions

in the context of a scenario of battlefield events in a hypothetical

situation.

The scenario involved a classical Soviet motorized rifle C ivision

attacking on a narrow front (13KMS ) for a 36—hour period . The attack

scenario focused on a two—axis (two—regiment) thrust attacking out of

training cover and deception maneuvers. This training included an

entire Soviet division on Soviet—controlled territory . During these

2

~~~IIIL~~~~~ •~ ~~~~~~ -~~~~~~----- 

~~~~~~ 

L•_

~~

_:

•~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

• --- •—
- - -—-~

--w —~~~~~~~— ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ---, 

-

division maneuvers , one regiment made a major thrust in the north into

friendly controlled territory. This regimental thrust was an extension

of the cover and deception plan intended to force the friendly commander

• to emphasize importance of the battlefield to the north while rendering

the southern sector vulnerable to the actual Soviet attack (one regiment

on line and one regiment following with an eventual exploitation mission).

The scenario incorporates realistic logi.stical/taètical time phasing

and use of terrain . It culminates with the preparation for a deliberate

• river—crossing exercise complete with realistic assembly area selection

and accompanying fire support/log istical activities.

COMPUTERIZED AID

The aid involved two user—selected clusters of sightings that

could be compared for average, space and time differences. With the

sightings overlayed on a map , each cluster could be delimited by enclo— • sures containing sightings from a two—hour time period or some multiple

of this length . The computer calculated two centers of unweighted mass

(i.e., two “central” points) based on the geometrical relationship Of

sightings within each enclosure. A calculation was then done to deter--

mine : (1) the vector distance between the centers and (2) the time

between the half—way points of the time intervals from which clusters

were selected . The display of sightings showed centers of mass designated by “Xs” and distances between them be vectors. In addition ,

time and distance figures were printed on the display.

APPARATUS

• The principal apparatus for participants was two 19” color television

displays (Conrac , Inc.), 2 a typewriter—like keyboard and a displayed

cursor/ pointer connected to a trackball. This apparatus was interfaced

with a computer--based graphic system (Anagrap h , Amcomp , Inc). The

keyboard and trackball were used by participants to “talk” to the

system. The computer generated all alphanumeric and graphic information

for the displays except for a map background representing a 12 x 16 - kilometer area. This map image was transmitted to the computer by a

color—television camera (GBC CTC 3XP ) and could be combined with the

computer—generated images before display . The research station also

provided the participant with a booklet concerning details of scenario

sightings (Appendix B), a hardcopy map of the relevant area , grease

pencils , and a participant—experimenter intercom. The experimenter had

television monitors linked to the participants’ displays .

2 All commercial designations and trademarks are used only for precision

in describing the experiment. Their use does not constitute endorsemen t by the Army or by AM.

3
r ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PROCEDUR E

Each partic ipant sat three feet in front of the displays and was

told that the experimenter could monitor these images. The left—hand

display showed the map for the scenario and could also show any symbols

representing scenario sightings. Sightings were represented by rectangles, triangles, and asterisks labeled with a letter—number identifier.

The symbols corresponded to three broad classes of sighting types (armor ;

artillery ; wheeled vehicles and bridging equipment), and the letter—

number pairs corresponded to information in a booklet correlated with

symbols on the display. Only one sighting type could be displayed at a

time. -

The right—hand display initially presented computer—assisted instructions . These began by telling participants that one of several possible

approaches to pattern analysis was being evaluated . Their task was to

use pattern analysis for answering specific questions about a battlefield

scenario. Pattern analysis was defined and examples given . As part of

the instructions , the right—hand display also explained the keyboard

typing formats required for requesting displays of sightings or answering

questions. During the actual task, the same display became the source of

pattern analysis questions and prompting messages for formats. Whatever

participants typed appeared on this screen , and the computer could display messages concerning any format errors. Instructions and prompting

messages were displayed in green , questions and participant—generated

requests and answers were in white , and error messages appeared in red .

Instructions required participants to practice using the keyboard for

d isplaying sightings and for answering procedural questions. They

displayed a sample two—hour activity slice and a combination of several

contiguous two—hour slices which appeared in red . By requesting a pair

of two—hour or greater time intervals, participants saw that red symbols

in one interval contrasted with green symbols in the second interval.

During the instruction phase , questions about procedures for using the

system were presented to both the aided and unaided participants.

Participants in both the aided and unaided conditions learned how to

use the computerized displays for viewing sightings. In addition , each

participant in the aided task learned to control the trackball and its

cursor. They were told how the cursor could be used to specify sightings

for center of mass and time/distance calculations as an aid to analyzing

patternn . After seeing an example , they practiced using the cursor to

mark corners of enclosures around sightings and to correct the marks.

The last part of the practice for aided participants required them to

follow a simple pattern analysis procedure. They had to tr-y each sample

procedure and reply to each question in the instructions before the

computer allowed the session to continue .

4
r

All participants were instructed to stress accuracy in the ir

performance but to work at a smooth pace. In the unaided research

condition , the participants used mental judgments and calculations to

answer questions . In contrast , aided partic ipants were required to take

full advantage of the computerized aid for analyzing pairs of sighting

• clusters. Each participant was asked to answer questions at face value

• and not to overinterpret the task . The rate at which instructions and

the research task proceeded was paced by the individual . The instruc—

tions took about three hours and each task about five hours. Any prob—

lems which arose could be discussed via the participant—experimenter

intercom. After the research session, each participant discussed the

research and answered a written questionnaire (Appendix C) as part of

a debriefing .

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

The design consisted of a two—way analysis of variance in which the

independent variables were conditions (aided vs. unaided) and questions

(16 items). Conditions was a between—subjects factor (six subjects • per condition), and questions a within—subjects factor. The analysis

• for this design is given in Table 1. -

Table 1

ANALYSIS OF THE ACCURACY OF ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Degrees Mean

Source of Variation of Freedom Square F—ratio

Between Subjects

Aided vs. Unaided Conditions (C) 1 34.60 46.1*

Subjects within Groups 10 .75

Within Subjects

Questions (Q) 15 2.48 2.7

QxC 15 1.30 1.4

Error 150 .93

RESULTS

Dependent measures were (1) time required to answer each question

and (2) accuracy of answers. Correct answer criteria were based on

standard military doctrine . Each participant ’s answers to questions

were converted to accuracy data by taking absolute deviations from the

correct answers. These data were rounded to the nearest .5 km because of

5

‘.44
variations in the overlay of plots of activity in relation to the map

background . A total of 16 answers were included in the analysis as a

result of subtracting four practice questions and eliminating questions

7 and 8 because observations and interviews with participants showed • that the two questions had no consistent interpretation. Responses to

questions in the aided condition were significan tly (p < .001) more

accurate than responses in the unaided condition . A summary of the

• accuracy data shows the magnitude of errors (Table 2).

The time spent on questions in- the aided and unaided conditions

varied greatly, and no significant differences were found in the ANOVA .

An attempt to reduce this variability was made by using a log transform

of time spen t on each question . An ANOVA on the log da ta also showed no

significant differences between research conditions and no significant

condition/question interaction effect. Therefore, neither raw time nor

log time for doing questions could meaningfully discriminate between

the two performance conditions .

DISCUS SION

The analysts who organized graphic displays of battlefield activity

into patterns with the aid of computerized calculations were more accurate than analysts who used only graphic displays . However , aided

analysts needed the same amount of time for the tasks as analysts who

relied on their personal estimates for relating changing activity.

Speed of performance may have been confounded with characteristics of

the particular computer graphic system as well as with related thought

processes demanded by the tasks.

In debriefing statements, participants supported the use of computerized gr~phic displays of activity as a basis for doing pattern analysis

either with or without a computer calculation aid . Participants said

that graphics made it possible to see various spatial comparisons quickly

and to use color for distinguishing sightings during one time period

from sightings at a different time . Studying several configurations of

graphic information was one way of helping patterns to emerge. Although

many participants had limited experience with computerized systems, they

generally favored automated displays and their data favored the value of

the aided condition.

6

L ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ • • ••J~~~~~~~ _~~~‘.•~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

-
-- ---‘.--

Tale 2

ACTUAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS AND THE ABSOLUTE MAGNITUDE

OF RESPONSE ERRORS (IN RN) ACROSS SUBJECTS

Mean Error Variance

Question Answera Aided Unaided Aided Unaided

5 5.5 0.0 .8 0.0 .5

6 10.8 .3 1.6 .1 1.1

9 5.5 .2 1.2 .1 .2

10 1.6 .5 1.3 .8 .5

11 map coordinate~

’ 0.0 1.8 0.0 6.6

h a map coordinateb 0.0 .9 0.0 .5

12 9.0 1.0 2.5 1.6 1.9

13 2.4 .2 .5 .1 0.0

14 map coordinateb 1.6 1.0 .8 .5

14a map coord ina te

~

’ .3 .3 .1 .1

15 1.5 .1 1.6 0.0 .7

16 2.6 0.0 .9 0.0 .5

17 1.9 0.0 .4 0.0 .1

18 6.6 .4 2.2 .9 5.9

19 6.4 1.2 1.5 .6 .3

20 2.2 0.0 .9 0.0 .2

X ’ .36 X = 1.21

a For computational purposes , answers were converted to distance measures

(in km) where necessary.

b 

Answers required the location of activity as opposed to time—distance

differences.

7

‘

- - --

.

- --

- ‘

-

, :- ~~~~~ — 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •~~~~~~ - - 
- -

~~~ --~~~~~- --- ------- - — —---- ~~~~~~—-- - ---- - --- --- ‘.- 

~~~~

---

~~~~~~

.-•-‘.-

~~

--.

~~~~~~~

PARTICIPANT QUALIFICATIONS

The participants varied in their ability to perform the pattern

anal ysis tasks. Despite claims of one or more years’ experience with

pa ttern analysis , five persons (three aided and two unaided ) of the

original 17 had enough difficul ty with the tasks to justify eliminating

their data. These five , far more than any of the other participan ts,

showed a lac k of attention to detail which resulted in a tendency toward

global analyses. A related problem was a tendency to emphasize sigh ting

types and locations with too little concern for directions of movement

and the times at which events occurred . Some of the five eliminated

participan ts also disr egarded instruc tions to be discrimina ting and

used many extraneous sightings in problem solutions. In general ,

accuracy in performance appeared to be worse when hunches and interpretations overshadowed careful consideration of factual information.

ACCURACY DATA

With the computer—aided calculations , time—distance comparisons were

significantly more accurate than those comparisons made without aid .

The meaningfulness of the difference in accuracy may be evaluated in

terms of the proportion of error in relation to the magnitude of correct

answers. For example, if a correc t answer is 100 kilometers , then a 1—km

error (proportionally 1%) probab ly is not important. In contrast , if the

correct answer is 5 km , a 1—km error (proportionally 20Z) is likely to

be important. Such criteria applied to the current research results

indicate a meaningful difference between the aided condition and the

graphics—alone (unaided ) condition. Mean proportional errors for each

question averaged across unaided participants ranged from .15 to 1.1;

mean errors for the aided group ranged for 0 to .3. Imagine such errors

in the context of trying to estimate the arrival time of troops at a

particular location , the distance between two artillery targets , and

other such problems . The aid obviously did not eliminate error , but

it did lead to generally smaller errors and more consistency than use

of graphics alone .

TINE DATA

Reducing the time needed to perform pattern analysis was an impor tan t

consideration in designing a computerized aid . For the plotting of

sightings , computer graphics naturally is faster than manual methods

which require grease pencils and acetate overlays . However , one may

wonder why the application of computer calculations to the graphic

displays did not reduce the time needed for answering questions . The

importance of automated displays for sightings should not be overlooked ,

but the aid is not optimal until the time for deriving patterns is

reduced .

8

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _______
The research procedures are a source of suggestions about how

to reduce time for using the aid. In the research , familiarity with

the apparatus and practice time were limited. If any aid were to be

implemented , analysts should be given time to thoroughly learn the

system so that speed in its use can be stressed without accuracy losses.

In addition to practice , time for pattern analysis might be reduced by

using computer algorithms which show the analyst examples of patterns

that are tactically relevant to a situation. Kahneman3 has suggested

that the performance of any specific activity is associated with the

allocation of a certain amount of effort; allocating less effort is

possible , but the allocation of more effort may seem beyond an individual’s ability. Therefore, the analyst’s ability may have to be extended

with adaptive computer routines. Perhaps the computer could “learn”

from prior pattern analysis which analysts have done and then make

suggestions that reduce the time needed for specific future evaluations.

Further work is needed before any conclusions can be made about how to

optimize the time requirements of the aid.

IMPROVING THE AID

Graphics used in support of the calculation aid might be improved

by more descriptive symbols and by allowing more flexible requests for

displaying battlefield events. For example , the symbols might actually

represent different vehicle types (e.g., truck or jeep). Displays also

might contain individual direction vectors to help in analyzing

information. Requests for displays of sightings should not be limited

to broad groupings (e.g., armor ; artillery ; wheeled vehicles) of

information types. Two possibilities suggested by participants were the

capability to request a specific sighting type (e.g., tanks in contrast

to the more general category of armor ) and the capability to specify a

mix of several types of sightings at one time (e.g., trucks and tanks).

Of course , such display changes have implications for use of color , shapes, and other codes for differentiating sightings from one another.

The tested algorithm for the aid could be improved by making speed

and distance estimates more realistic . For example, average speeds for

different classes of data (e.g., jeep vs. tank) could be included in the

calculations relating one cluster of activity to another. In addition ,

weather and terrain conditions might change estimates of movement times

and speeds. Graphic displays of the effect of changing conditions on

movements should be far more quickly and easily assimilated than the

presentation of such information in hardcopy or in alpha—numeric form.

~ Kahneman , D. Attention and- effort. Fnglewood Cliffs , NJ: Prentice—

Hall , 1973.

9

- - ‘
A more sophisticated aid also would have additions to its basic

center of mass calculations . The use of a geometrical center for

• equally weighted data elements made the calculations easy to implement ,

but answers based on such calculations are a limited reflection of real

world conditions. For example, if one were analyzing armor patterns ,

then tanks might be included with armored personnel carriers in the

computer ’s calculation of a center of mass . However , an equal weighting

of these elements would not represent a completely accurate summary of

the information if one were interested in combat power . Either the

computer should contain weights according to potential combat power

contributions or an analyst should be allowed to influence calculations

by inputting his judged importance of data . Estimating value of information or assessing worth is a complex process. 4 One practical approach

is to provide tables of “standard” relationships among possible data

elements so that the computer could calculate and display reasonable

relationships . Then, using the video display , allow the analyst to move

the calculated center(s) to take into account any special weighting

factors. This approach takes advantage of complex human judgments while

allowing the computer to assist in the numerous basic calculations .

CONCLUSIONS

The analysts who organized graphic displays of battlefield activity

into patterns with the aid of computerized calculations were more

accurate than analysts who used only graphic displays.

The successful laboratory results suggest that the use of com—

puterized algorithms linked with graphic displays of battlefield activity

can enhance performance in pattern analysis tasks. Such algorithms for

data manipulation appear to provide substantially better analyses than

are possible with processes using computerized graphics alone. By

inference, the computerized techniques would also provide a speed and

accuracy advantage over manual techniques involving grease pencil

drawings of sightings. Of course , care should be taken in generalizing

from somewhat artificial laboratory conditions to field applications.

Nevertheless , serious consideration should be given to further development of aids for utilizing graphic displays in mass/movement and related

temporal/spatial analyses of enemy forces. Pending outcomes of these

additional developmental efforts , the present results appear sufficiently

promising that some provision should be made in requirements documents

f or accommodating such aids. The likely benefit from the aids would be

more accurate and consistent analyses than are currently possible from

data concerning enemy concentrations , movements , and destinations.

~ Johnson , E. H. and Huber , G. The technology of utility assessment .

IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 1977, SMC—7

(No. 5), 311—325.

—10 —

~ 

j

~~~~ ~~

_ T ,.. • ,

~~~~~~ ‘. •~~~~~~ ‘
APPENDIXE S

Appendix Page

A. Questions used in Research 13

B. Examples of Details of Scenario Sightings Provided

to Participants 15

C. Pattern Analysis Post—Exercise Questionnaire 19

11 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ i -’. ~~~~ ‘

~~~ • ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - _______
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~

. ~n~

if _~~

_ . -~ - - -

~

- -

~~ i ~~~~

_ t _

~_ i

~~ 

y

~

,v

~

r ~24If 8c/ , ;ii

APPENDIX A. QUESTIONS USED IN RESEARC H

*1. For all the hours between 250401 and 251600 (251401 + 2), in what

predominant direction were enemy wheeled vehicles moving? (N;

NE; E; SE; S; SW; W; NW) Don’t forget ——— use the answer format

“@)“ / “ENTER” , Then you answer , and then “ENTER ” 1!!

*2. Between the hours of 250401 and 251800 , what is your estimate for

the number of kilometers traveled by the lead armor elements?

(Please use the intercom for any questions about the task !!)

*3, What is the armor rate of march (in km/hr ) between 251401 + 2

and 251601 + 2 hour s?

*4~ For forward wheeled reconnaissance activity at 251601 + 2 vs.

252001 + 2 , how large is the change in emphasis (in kilometers)?

Secondly, what is a single six—digit coordinate indicating the

vicinity of this change? Format: km/location (note: slash

always separates parts of single answer !)

5. What is the distance between the principle center of mass for

armor sightings at 251801 + 2 and the principle center of mass

for armor sightings at 252201 + 2?

+6. Assuming that the logistical vehicle movement toward the NE has

been regular between the hours of 252201 + 2 and 26001 + 2: How

fast are these vehicles moving on the average in kilometers per

hour? (Notebook of sighting reports important to solution!)

+7. How many kilometers separate artillery sightings at 252001 + 2 vs.

26001 + 2 hours? (Remember your notebook of sighting reports for

this as well as various future questions!)

8. How many kilometers separate the wheeled vehicle sightings at

252201 + 2 vs 260401 + 2 hours?

9. How much and in what direction has aggressor center of mass changed

for all wheeled vehicles (sighting for vehicles and bridg . equip.)

in comparing 260001 + 2 with 260601 + 2 hours? Answer in kilometers/

direction .

10. How many kilometers separate the two centers of mass for all

artillery sightings —— north of the 30th latitude line —— at 260001

+ 4 vs. 260601 + 4 hours?

11. What is the exact armor geographical center of mass for all such

sightings at 260001 + 2 as well as the center of mass for all such

sightings at 261001 + 2 hours? Enter both answers as six digit

coordinates in the format: I 

*Practice question

+Elimina ted

13

f— —~~~‘

~~~~~~~~~A ~~~~ ,

~~ -::~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •

~~~~;~~~ , - ‘.~~~ T , -
12. What is the rate of march (in kilometers per hour ) at which the

enemy has moved the center of mass of his artillery from 252201

+ 2 (vie 470295) to 260001 + 2?

13. Only consider the artillery sightings reported as having no

direction of movement at 260601 + 2 vs 261401 + 2. For purposes

of determining change in area of battlefield emphasis , wha t is

the distance and apparent direction of shift in emphasis for these

sightings? answer: km/direction.

14. What are the two *exact* wheeled reconnaissance activity centers

of mass for 261001 + 2 (vie 5528) and 261601 + 2? Enter both

answers as six digit coordinates in the format: / 

15. G2 seeks fixed logistical targets . How far and in what direction

has the *exact* geographical center moved for all wheeled vehicle

sightings north of 30th latitude line , at 251801 + 12 vs. 260601

+ 2 hours? (Exclude canal recon. sightings!!) — Answer in

kilometers/direction.

16. How far and in what direction has the **artillery** center of mass

moved —— for all sightings north of the 30th-latitude line —— between 251601 + 12 and 260801 + 12 hours? (Remember to give

your answer in kilometers/direction.)

17. How far and in what direction has the **armor** center of mass

moved for all such sightings between 261001 + 6 and 261601 + 6

hours? (Remember to give answer in kilometers/direction.)

18. What is the average rate and direction of armor advance in

aggressor’s south sector between 262001 + 2 and 262201 + 2?

(Give your answer in kilometers per hour/direction.)

19. What is the average rate of march and direction of logistical

activity in agg r essor ’s southern sector at 262201 + 2 vs. 270201

+ 2 hours? Give answer in kilometers per hour/direction.

20. G2 is trying to determine the enemy shift in artillery center of

mass. What is the distance and direction of center of mass shift

for 252001 + 6 vs. 26200 1 + 6? Answer format is: kilometers/

direction.

14

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

-—
r --- -- ‘--- -—‘--- ‘-- --

~~

-- 

N .0 0 ~~ in —4 .0 — 0 — . U) 0

‘41 0 0 in in N N C~$ 0 0 — ElI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -

~ 0 — -

~ -

~~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ai ~

-• r-~ r-. r

~

. r-.. r— r-. r— r ... r— r- ,— ,

~~ 1.11 N N N N N N N N Cl N N N N

Si -

~ -~ -

~ 00 — -

~ ‘4 U

— (U 1’. S S

5 4.~ ‘4 s o .0 ~ .0 .0 -.1 ~ Z 00 .0 00 00 -

~ .0 ‘4 00 ~4 ~4 00 I 01 ~~ ‘4 ‘.4 ~

.4 ‘4 o 01 1 (U en I -* en

‘41 00 0 0 ‘

41 (U ‘1-4 0 0 0 .0

‘41 0 ‘1-’ ‘4 00 5 ‘4.’ ~~

. (U ‘SI I.’ 0 ~

. I I (U ‘4 ~ 0 5 01 0 .0

‘S Ii 00 ‘S 01 0) ‘S X .0 00

U ~ I ‘S 0) (U (U (U ‘S ‘4 0) 00 ‘4 o ‘4 0. ‘S 0 0 14 1 0. ‘4 1 S Q. 14 14 14 ‘S (U 0. 1 0 (U 0 ‘4.’ 0 ‘44 1.4 0) 0 0 (U 0 ‘4-4 4.4 5 ‘44 Cl) Cl) 1 0 0 U) El 0 CI) 0 0

z

H

Es

I 031 S SI — 14 0 Cl) -

~~ 0 0 (U~ in 0 In 0 0 In 0 0 in 0 0 0 0 in 4.4 N en en e.’ C-I N — 0 U) F- .0 .0 .0 In 0 0. 0 ‘41 en en in en en en N N N N N ‘-‘ 4-I ‘4 I ‘SI 0 In 0 In In In 0 In Ifl 0 0 In 0 0 ~ — 141 ~

0 In —I ‘l In 0 In -

~ in in in .

~~ in U 0 01 In In in in In in in in in in in -* 03 0 0, 0) 0 QJ -

c,w 

CI) ~~ 00(U (5 Ii S

0 — ’ (U cr40. 1.4 O~~~

U) I

~

1 0 — 0.

od (0 (0 (0 (0 (0 5) (0 03 03 SI Es Es b

~ Ei El I-i Es I-s I-s ~ Es I-s I-i

1.4 14 .01 Es

0)

C131 Cl) ~

1.’

-‘.4

~ $41 • ~

—. I. ... + ‘S wi N — ~

.. 5) 0 ~-, e-. ~~— . 14 N

‘S (U ‘‘ ~

. 0 N

I — _ .0 N N •a• In 0

I-’

ZI N C 4 . ‘4 00

0) 0) 5) — 0 0 03

‘41 ~~ ~~ ~ . ~~ ~~ ~~

$4 0 0 0 ‘4

(U

5)

03

14

0.

141 - 

0)

0,

‘41 0 — N in — N in .* In .0 U) 5% .

~~

4 — — — Es

-(U (U (U .(U .(U (U .(U (U .(U .(U (U .(U

p.

~

I

1

~ 

.•
In 0 — 0 .0 0 In In In 0 0 N .0 U)

‘41 — N 0 — 0 In N N -l N in N in

Eli — 0 0 0 0 0 0 — 0 0 0 0 0 0 —.I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (U F-- F-. F-- C-. P- f F- F-- F-- F-- F-. F-. t F-- 1.4 N N N F-I F-I N N (‘4 N N N N N N (U

11 (5 -

~ (U 0) 0) ~ -? (U .* D-. .0 (U l’s .0 -t 0) U

0 (U 00 0) (5 00 14 (5 o ‘4 1.4 ) ‘4 l’s (U Ii .0 1 (U .0 1 (U -

~ El 14 00 00 ‘S (U ‘

4 I ‘S ‘4 14 .0 5

I S I (U 00 (U 0 0 -

~ ‘ .

~ (U 0) ‘4 03 -

~ (U ‘4 5 -

~ 14 Ii 0) I S I I.’ 1.4 (U 1.4 0 .0 (5

‘4 I >-. 0) I ‘S ‘S 0 0 1-. 00 0)

‘S (U S 1’. 0) 0) 0 (5 ‘4 0 (

U ‘S ‘S i

~ 0) .-4 ‘-4 ‘S 0) ~ I o (U (U .0 ‘S U —4 ‘-4 ‘S (U Cl .0 ‘S U 0 0 00 0) ‘S (U 5 5 0) 0 (U 00 ‘S (U Ii 14 ‘

4 0. 0) ‘.4 0. 0. 0. 11 ‘.4 ‘4 I.’ 0. 1 0. ‘.4 0. 0. 0. 1 (U 0. (4.4 ~

I.I 0 ,-4 .

~ .

~ 0 ‘I-I ~~ 0 (4.4 ~

4.4 0 1.4 0 5 14 1.’ IJ 9.4 0 0 0 4J 0 0 0 U) 04 H El El U) 0 ~

-.4 0 Es U)

r.

0 03 03 0 0)

4.’ N 1.4

o 0 (U 0 0 0 0 In 0 0 0 0 o 0 in In 0 1.4 I S -

~ -1’ in C’5 (‘1 —s —4 0 0 U) U) C- so in —

0. — -‘.4 in in in in in in in in in N N N (‘4 N —4 0’S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 In 0 0 In in 0 0 4.’ 0 Ii F-- In in .* -.* N sO In 50 In — ~

O In In c.i 0 0 -.? in In in in in in in In in In In In -5 S -

~~ 0 0) U

4.’ ~~ ‘ E

(U 0) E C- E —‘ 4.4 p.4 0 .-4 5) C—

(5 ‘.4 0) C-i ~~ (‘I S C) ~~~ N ~~

-‘

~~ ‘4 U) -(U — C.. U) 4.4 ‘.4 03 F-- S liEs I I I ~ in I o I B

5 5 N I C.~ El El 03 Es (5 I 03 (5 El U)

~~ ~~ I

04 -(U -(U -(U ‘(U -(U -(U -(U -(U -(U -(U -(U .(U -(U ‘(U

i6

~ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _____________________ __________ ~~~~ -

~~~~~ - -~~~
HI in 0 sO in In 0 In in

‘4! 0 

-.‘ — — 0 In -

~ in

I-s i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 •

—I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (U r-. F-- F— I’— F—. F- F- 1.4 N (‘4 N N (‘1 N N N

(U

03

‘

~~U

LU

0 -5. -5.

o s5 —5. ..5. ..5. -5. .5. .,‘l .5. -5. -.5 -5. .5. 4.’ 1.4 4.1 9.1 (U

‘

4 l’. l’

~

s l’-~ ‘4-I 4-I ~~s I’-. (U

0 .0 .0 .0 ‘S ‘S .0 .0 ‘S U 00 00 00 5) 0) 00 00 0)

~

-l -‘.4 ‘4 0. 0. ‘4 -vl 0. I I I 0. 0. 1 1 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 4.4 5 5 .1.4 — 0 0 0 Cl) U) 0 0 U)

0 03 0 0) U) (‘1 4.4

14 0 (U in in 0 0 In in 0 in

o I 5 -5 in in in (‘-1 0 ~~ In 1.4 ‘

4 in in in in in in N N 0. 0 ‘S in 0 in in 0 0 0 0 -‘.4 0 14 U) in in N- N- sO 50 in 14 0 0 In In In In In In In -5.

U ‘— 0 (0 U 0) CC l’—. l’-.

~~ 0) Ii —4 (U (U (U 0 1.4 4.4 4.4 ‘

4 *2) ‘4 (U .0 .-4

~~ 0) -s-I -‘.4

~~~~El S U) S I I I S U) U) I Cl) .4 03

S I.’ l

~ 04 U 11 -s-I (U ~~ I.’ (U 1.4 U I-s El -(U I-I C..) C.) .0

-s-I

U)

-4 -

4 in $4 (U (U

5) 14 1.4 C—

9-1 .0 0) 01 •—

o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 in Z Cl) — Cl) C-. C-- in N —

0)

00(U 0) 0) 04 04 • 5 5 5 14 0 0 0 —I Z I I Z Z Z Z Z

00

H 4-I

0

Z ‘4(U — N in -5. In sO C- U)

04 -(U -(U -(U ‘(U -(U -(U -(U -(U

.4

17

~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- _~~~~~~~
APPENDIX C. PATTERN ANALYSIS POST—EXERCISE QUESTIONNAIRE (Page 1 of 6)

Your responses to the following questions will aid us in evaluating - the approach to information analysis that you have been working with

- 

today .

1. Do you feel that your background and experience was appropriate for

the role you were asked to assume in today ’s exercise? Yes_No_

- Comments:

2. Today’s exercise ran for a number of hours during which you were

required to undertake a series of rather tedious tasks. Do you feel - that your performance was adversely influenced by the factor of fatigue

and that the time is too long - to expect a user to operate with .ur

system? Yes_No_ Comments:

3. Do you have any suggestions for improving the instructions . Please

comment :

4. Did you have sufficient time to learn to operate the keyboard and

generally become familiar with the contents and configuration of the

data base? Yes No_Comments:

- —~~~~~~~~~~

-

-

~~~~~ 

- —--
r’

~ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -.—.-,,-——---- —--—— - ----—-- —-~~~~

---,- -—..---—

- ~— -

~~-—~~~—---~~

- - - -,

5. Did you have any “mechanical” problems with the task that seriously

hampered your ability to obtain and manipulate the information? (for

example , getting information , using the keyboa rd , etc). Yes_No_

Comments:

6. Did you have a problem adapting to the color code? Yes No____

Comments:

7. Were “prompts” and “reminders” for operating the system adequate?

Yes No Comments :

8. Would a supplementary list of instructions have been more helpful

than the summary confirmation made available? Yes_No Comments:

9. Were all the tasks that you were requested to perform during the

exercise realistic? Comments :

20

-

~

—- -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~

- ~ - -- -

~ 

— -
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

10. To what extent were the questions typical of what you believe

pattern analysis should do?

11. To what extent were the “multiple analyses” at the end of the task

more or less realistic than the earlier single analyses?

12. Can you suggest any additional pattern analysis tasks which could or

should be incorporated into this type of exercise?

13. Please comment on any tasks you were asked to perform during today ’s

exercise which you feel could have been better performed if more

information was available in your data base?

14. Please comment on any information concerning the enemy which you

would have liked but were unable to obtain during today ’s exercise?

21

- _ -

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ 

~ .L ’

- - -

~~ -~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ — — —---- - - -

~~— - - 

- - - —:_ _ __ _ —~ --

-
.-—- -— ~~~~~~~~~~~~ -.--. -----,- - ----~~ 

15. To what extent were the data typical of what you believe would be

seen in a TOC before such an offensive. Please give specific examples :

16. Can you suggest more useful ways of organizing the sighting data

than one we used? Yes_No_. Would you explain a “yes” answer , please:

_____Number of years experience related to pattern analysis.

__________Evaluation Condition.

Please do not discuss details of your participation in today ’s evaluation

with others who may work with us at a later date.

22

—‘-

. 

z-

- - - 

---- --- ---- --- - - - -- — —--~~~—“--- —---~-- ---- — -— ________
~ _: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GRAID CONDITION

Did the computerized aid for pattern analysts performance help you

to do the job? Make it easier? and so on.

a. What advantages/disadvantages does it have compared to manual

methods?

b. What improvements/changes would you suggest for the aid ?

23

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ____________________
r ~~~~~~~

Additional Comments

Use the space provided below to elaborate on responses to previous

- questions and/or to make any additional comments relating to today ’s

exercise .

24
DISTRIBUTION

ARI Distribution List

— 4 OASD lM&RA) 2 HOUSACOEC, Ft0rd , ATTN: Library

2 HODA (DAM I-CSZ) 1 HOUSACOEC . Ft Ord, ATTN: ATEc-EX--E—Hum Factors

1 HODA IDAPE-PBR 2 USAEEC , Ft Benjamin Harrison. ATTN: Library

1 I-4QDA IOAMA-A R) 1 USAPACOC . Ft Benjamin Harrison , ATTN~ ATCP—HR

I HODA (OAPE-HRE-PO) 1 USA Comm—Elect 5th, Ft Monmouth. ATTh: ATSN—EA

1 HQDA ISGRD-ID) 1 USAEC. Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL—C1’ —HOP

1 HODA )DAMI-DOT-C) 1 USAEC. Ft Monmouth , ATTN: A MSEL—PA—P

1 HODA (DAPC-PMZ-A) 1 USAEC, Ft Monmouth , ATTN: AMSE L—Sl—CB

1 HQDA IDACH.PPZ-A) 1 USAEC. Ft Monmouth , ATTN~ C Fad Dcv Br

1 HQDA IDAPE.HRE) 1 USA Materials Sys Anal Agcy, Abeneen, ATTN: AMXSY—P

1 HODA (DAPE-MPO.CI 1 Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen . ATTN: SAREA—BL --H

1 HOI)A IOAPE-DWI 1 USA Ord Ctr & Sch, Aberdeen. ATTN: ATSL —TEM—C

1 HODA IDAPE-HRL) 2 USA Hum Engr Lab. Aberdeen. ATTN: Library/Dir

1 HQDA (DAPE.CPS) 1 USA Combat Arms Tng Bd , Ft Benning, ATTh: Ad Supervisor

1 HODA (DAFD-MFA) 1 USA Infantry Hum Rtch Unit, Ft Banning, ATTN: Chief

1 HODA (DARD-ARS.Pl 1 USA Infantry Sd, Ft Banning, ATTN : STEBC—TE—T

1 HODA (DAPC-PA$-A) 1 USASMA , Ft Bliss, ATTN: ATSS—L RC

1 HODA )DUSA-OR) 1 USA Air Oaf Sch, Ft Bliss , ATTN: ATSA—CTD--ME

1 HODA IDAMO-ROR) 1 USA Air Oaf Sch. Ft Bliss, ATTN: Tech Lib

1 HQDA IDASG) 1 USA Air Oaf Bd , Ft Bliss , ATTN: FILES

1 HQDA (DA1O-Pil - I USA Air Oaf Bd , Ft Bliss , ATTN: STEBO—P O

1 Chief, Consult Div (DA-OTSG). Adelphi , MD 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: Lib

I Mil Mat. Hum Rex , 000R&E, OAD (E&LS) 1 USA Cmd & General Stf College, Ft Leavenwo rth , ATTN: ATSW—SE— L

1 HQ USARAL . APO Seattle, ATTN: ARAGP-R 1 USA Cmd & General Sti College, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: Ed Advisor

1 HO First Army , ATTN: AFKA .OI-TI 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dcv Act . Ft Leavenworth, A fl’N: DepCdr

2 HO Fifth Army, Ft Sam Houston 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Des Act , Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: CCS

1 Dir , Army Stf Studies Ofc , ATTN OAVCSA (DSP) 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Des Act . Ft Leavenworth, ATTN : ATCASA

1 Ofc Chief of Sit, Studies Ofc 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Dee Act, Ft Leavenwo rth, ATTN: ATCACO—E

1 DCSPER . ATTN: CPS/OCP 1 USA Combined Arms Cmbt Des Act , Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCACC —C I

I The Army Lib , Pentagon, ATTN: RSB Chief 1 USAECOM , Night Vision Lab. Ft Belvoir . ATI’N: AMSEL—NV—SD

1 The Army Lib, Pentagon, Afl ’N: ANRAL 3 USA Computer Sys Cmd , Ft Belvoir , ATTN: Tech Library

1 Ofc , Mat Sect of the Army lR&D) 1 USAMERDC , Ft Belvoir , ATTN: STSFB—DO

¶ Tech Suppo rt Ofc , OJCS 1 USA Eng Sch, Ft Belvoir , ATTN: Library

I USASA, Arlington, ATTN: I ARD.T 1 USA Topographic Lab , Ft Belvoir , ATTN: ETL — TD—S

1 USA Rxdt Ofc . Durham, ATTN: Life Sciences Dir 1 USA Topographic Lab, Ft Selvoir, ATTN: STINFO Center

2 USARIEM , Natick , ATTN: SGRD-UE.CA 1 USA Topographic Lab , Ft Belvoir , ATTN: ETL— GSL

I USAT’TC, Ft Clayton . ATTN: STETC-MO-A I USA Intel li gence Ctr & 5th. Ft Huachuca, ATTN: CTO—MS

1 USAIMA , Ft Bragg . ATTN: ATSU-CTD.OM 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch , Ft Huachuca , ATTN : ATS—CTO--MS

1 USAIMA , Ft Bragg. ATTN: Marguat Lib 1 USA Intelli gence Ctr & Sch , Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATS I—TE

I US WAC Ctr & Sc*s , Ft McClellan, AT’TN: Lib 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huechuca. ATTN: ATS I—TEX— GS

I US WAC Ctr & Sch, Ft McClellan , ATTh: Tng Dir 1 USA Intelli gence Ctr & Sch, Ft 1-fuactiuci, ATTN: ATSI—CTS--OR

1 USA Ouartermaster Sch. Ft Lee. ATTN: ATSM-TE 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca, A’fl’N: ATSI—CTD—DT

1 Intelligence Material Des Ofc . EW L Ft Holabird 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Iluachuca, ATTN: ATSI—CTD—CS

1 USA SE Signal Sch, Ft Gordon . ATTN: ATSO-EA 1 USA Intellig ence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca , ATrN: DAS/SRD

1 USA Chaplain Ctr & Scfs , Ft Hamilton , ATTN: ATSC-TE-RD 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch. Ft Huachuca. ATTN: ATSI—TEM

1 USATSCH. Ft Euslis , ATTN: Educ Advisor 1 USA Intelli gence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuca. AT1’N: Libran

1 USA War College, Carlisle Barracks , ATTN : Lib I CDR , HO Ft Huacisuca, ATTN : Tech Ref Div

2 WRAIR , Neuropsychiatry Div 2 COP . USA Electronic Prvq Grd . ATTN: STEEP—MT—S

1 DLI . SDA , Monterey 1 COP , Project MASSTER , ATTN: Tech Info Center

I USA Concept Anal Agcy , Bethesda , ATTN: MOCA-WGC 1 Hq MASSTER , USATRADOC , LNO

1 USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethesda , ATIN: MOCA-MR 1 Research Institute . HO MASSTER , Ft Hood

1 USA Concept Anal Agcy. Bethesda, ATTN: MOCA.JF 1 USA Reoruitin g Cmd, Ft Sherdian , ATTN: USARCPM—P

I USA Artic Test Ctr , APO Seattle, ATTN: STEAC.M0-ASL 1 Senior Army Ade., USAFAGOD/TAC , Elgin AF Aus FId No. 9

1 USA Artic Test Ctr , APO Seattle , ATTN : AMSTE~

PL-TS 1 HO USARPAC, DCSPER , APO SF 96558, ATTN: GPPE—SE

I USA Armame nt Cmd, Redstone Arsenal . ATTN: ATSK-TEM I Stimson Lib , Academy of Health Sciences. Ft Sam Houston

1 USA Armament Cmd, Rock Island , ATTN : AMSAR.TDC I Marine Corps Inst .. ATIN: Dean—MCI

1 FAA-NAFEC , Atlantic City , AflN: Library I HQUSMC, Commandant. ATTN: Coda MTM T 51

1 FAA.NAFEC , Atlantic City. ATTN: Hum En~ Br 1 HQUSMC. Commandant . ATTN : Code MPI—20

1 FAA Aeronautical Ctr , Oklahoma City , ATTN: AAC.44D 2 USCG Academy, New London . ATTN: Admiaeion

2 USA FId Arty Sch. Ft Sill , ATTN: Library 2 USCG Academy, New London , ATTN: Library

I USA Armor Sch , Ft Knox , A’l’T N: Library I USCG Training Ctr , NV , ATTN: CO

I USA Armor Sdx , Ft Knox , ATTN: ATSB-Dl-E 1 USCG Training Ctr . NV , AT’TN: Educ Sac Ofc

¶ USA ,,Armor Sch, Ft Knox , ATIN: ATSB-DT-TP 1 LJSCG, Psythol Ret St. DC, ATTN: GP 1/62

I USA Armor Sch . Ft Knox , ATTN: ATSB-CD-AD 1 HO Mid—Range Br, MC Dat , Ouantico. ATTN: P&S Dlv

25
F- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~

— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 US Marine Corps Liaision (Mc , AMC, Alexandria ATTN: AMCGS—F I Oaf & Civil Inst of Enviro Medicine , Canada

1 USATRADOC , Ft Monroe , ATTh: ATRO—EO 1 AIR CRESS. Kensington, ATTN: Info Sys Br

6 USATRADOC , Ft Monroe . ATTN: ATPR—AD 1 Militaarpsykologisic Tianexte, Cogehagen

1 USATRADOC . Ft Monroe, ATTN : ATTS—EA 1 Military Attache, French EmLi,ssy, ATTN: Doc Sec

1 USA Forces Cmd, Ft McPherson , ATTN : Library 1 Medecin Chef, C.E,R.P,A.—Arse nal , Tou lon/Nav al France

2 USA Aviation Test Sd, Ft Rocker, ATTN: STEBG—PO ¶ Prin Scientific Off , AogI Hum Engr Rich Div . Ministry

1 USA Agcy for Aviation Safety , Ft Rucker , AT1’N: Library of Defense , New Delhi

1 USA Agcy for Aviation Safety, Ft Pucker , ATTN: Educ Advisor * Pert Rich Ofc Library, AKA . Israel Defense Forces

1 USA Aviation Sch, Fs Rucker , ATTN: P0 Drawer 0 1 Ministeris van Defensie, DOOP/KL Afd Sociaaf

1 HOUSA Aviation Sys Cmd , St Louis, A TTN: AMSAV—ZDR Psychologisclte Zaken, The Hague, Netherlands

2 USA Aviation Sys Test Act., Edwards AFB , ATTN: SAVTE—T

1 USA Air Oct Scti, Ft Bliss. ATTN: ATSA TEM

1 USA Air Mobili ty Rich & Des Lab. Moffett FId, AT1’N: SAVDL—AS

1 USA Aviation Sch, Rex Tng Mgt , Ft Pucker, ATTN: ATST—T--RTM

1 USA Aviation Sch, CO. Ft Rucker, ATTN: ATST—D—A

1 HO, USAMC, Alexandria , ATTN: AMXCD—TL

1 HO, USAMC , Alexandria . ATTN: CDR

1 US Military Academy, West Point , ATTN: Serials Unit

— I US Military Academy, West Point, ATTN: Ofc of Milt Ldrshp

1 US Military Academy, West Point , ATTN: MAO R

1 USA Standardization Gp, UK , FF0 NV , ATTN: MASE—GC

1 Ofc of Naval Rich, Arlington . ATTN : Code 452

3 Ofc of Naval Rsch , Arlington , ATTN : Code 458

1 (Mc of Naval Rich, Arlington , AT1’N: Code 450

1 Ofc of Naval Rich , Arlington . ATTN : Code 441

¶ Naval Aerospc Med Rex Lab, Pensacola . ATTN: Access Sch Div

1 Naval Aerospc Med Ret Lab , Pensacola . ATTN: Code L51

1 Naval Aerospc Med Rex Lab , Pensacola . ATTN: Code L5

1 Chief of NavPers , ATTN: Pers.OR

1 NAVAIRSTA , Norfolk , ATTN: Safety Ctr

1 Nay Oceanographic , DC, ATTNt Code 6251, Charts & Tech

1 Center of Naval Anal , ATTN: Doc Ctr

1 NavAirSysCom , ATTN: AIR—5313C

1 Nay BuMed , ATTN: 713

1 NavHelicopterSub $qua 2, FF0 SF 96601

1 AFHRL (FT) William AFB

1 AFHRL ITT) Lowry AFB

1 AFHRL(AS) WPAFB , OH

2 AFHRL (DOJZ) Brooks AFB

1 AFHRL (DOJN) Lackland AFB

1 HQUSAF (INVSD)

1 HOUSAF (OPXXA)

1 AFVTG )RD) Randolph AFB

3 AMRL (HE) WPAFB , OH

2 AF Instof Tech,WPAFB ,OH ,ATTN: ENE/SI.

1 ATC )XPTD) Randolph AFB -

1 USAF AeroMed Lib , Brooks AFB )SUL—4), ATTN: DOC SEC

1 AFOSR )NL). Arlington

1 AF Log Cmd, McClellan AFB , ATTN: ALC/DPCRB

I Air Force Academy , CO. ATTN: Dept of Bel Son

5 NavPers & Des Cu, San Diego

2 Navy Med Neurop sychiatric Rich Unit , San Diego

1 Nay Electronic Lab, San Diego . ATTN: Res Lab

1 Nay TmgCen, San Diego , ATTN: Coda 9000-Lib

1 NavPostGraSch , Monterey, ATTN: Code BBAa

1 NavPostGraSch . Monterey . ATTN: Code 2124

1 NavTr ngEquip ctr . Orlando , ATIN: Tech Lib

1 US Dept of Labor . DC, ATI’N: Manpower Admin

1 US Dept of Just ic*, DC, ATTN: Drug Enforce Admi n

I Nat Bur of Standards , DC, ATTN: Computer Info Section

I Nat Clearing House for MH—Info , Roc kv if le

1 Denver Federal Ctr , Lakewood . ATTN: BLM

12 Defense Documentation Center

4 Dir Psych , Army Hq, Russell Ofcs , Canberra

I Scientific Advsr, Mil Sd, Army Hq, Russell (

Mcs, Canberra

1 Mil and Air Attache , Aust rian Embeasy

I Centre de Recherche Des Facteurs . Humaine de Ia Defense

Natio nale. Brussels

2 Canadian Joint Staff Washington

1 C/Air Staff . Royal Canadian AF , ATTN: Per, Std Anal Br

3 Chief , Canadian Oaf Rich Staff , ATTN: C/CRDS(W)

4 British Oaf Staff . British Embessy, Washington

26

_______ - —-- —- - - —.-— —