Scalability of Robotic Displays: Display Size Investigation 

by Elizabeth S. Redden, Rodger A. Pettitt, Christian B. Carstens, 

and Linda R. Elliott 

ARL-TR-4456 May 2008 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
NOTICES 

Disclaimers 

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

unless so designated by other authorized documents. 

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

approval of the use thereof. 

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

the originator. 
Army Research Laboratory 

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425 

ARL-TR-4456 May 2008 

Scalability of Robotic Displays: Display Size Investigation 

Elizabeth S. Redden, Rodger A. Pettitt, Christian B. Carstens, 

and Linda R. Elliott 

Human Research & Engineering Directorate, ARL 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
ii 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

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

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

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

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

OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

 May 2008 

2. REPORT TYPE 

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

 March through May 2007 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

 Scalability of Robotic Displays: Display Size Investigation 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

 62716AH70 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

 Elizabeth S. Redden, Rodger A. Pettitt, Christian B. Carstens, and Linda R. Elliott 

 (all of ARL) 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

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

 U.S. Army Research Laboratory 

 Human Research & Engineering Directorate 

 Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

 REPORT NUMBER 

 ARL-TR-4456 

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

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBERS 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

14. ABSTRACT 

This study was an investigation of the effect of camera view display sizes on robotic tele-operation control performance in a 

realistic context. It took place at Fort Benning, Georgia, and used Soldiers from the Officer Candidate School. After training in 

the operation of the TALON1

 robot system, each Soldier completed exercises using four different display sizes that were chosen 

to match the size and resolution of displays that might be used by dismounted Soldiers for other purposes in the near future. 

The terrain, targets, and hazards were counterbalanced along with the display size to control for the effect of learning. Display 

size and usability for robotic driving were evaluated, based on objective performance data, data collector observations, and 

Soldier questionnaires. 

1

TALON is not an acronym. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

 dismounted Soldiers; display size; display scalability; robotic display; tele-operation 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

 Elizabeth S. Redden 

a. REPORT 

UNCLASSIFIED 

b. ABSTRACT 

UNCLASSIFIED

c. THIS PAGE 

UNCLASSIFIED

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

SAR 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

60 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 

 706 545-5493

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18 
iii 

Contents 

List of Figures v

List of Tables vi

Acknowledgments vii

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................1 

1.1.1 The FBCB2 Display ............................................................................................2 

1.1.2 CDA Display .......................................................................................................2 

1.1.3 PDAs ...................................................................................................................4 

1.1.4 Head-Mounted Displays (HMDs) and GMDs.....................................................4 

1.2 Objectives........................................................................................................................5 

2. Method 5

2.1 Participants ......................................................................................................................5 

2.2 Instruments and Apparatus..............................................................................................5 

2.2.1 TALON Robot.....................................................................................................5 

2.2.2 Robotic Vehicle Displays....................................................................................6 

2.2.3 Robotic Driving Course.......................................................................................7 

2.2.4 Questionnaires .....................................................................................................9 

2.2.5 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Task Load Index 

(TLX) .....................................................................................................................10 

2.3 Procedures .....................................................................................................................10 

2.3.1 Training .............................................................................................................10 

2.3.2 Demographics....................................................................................................10 

2.3.3 Tele-operation Trials .........................................................................................10 

3. Results 12

3.1 Training .........................................................................................................................12 

3.2 Demographics................................................................................................................12 

3.3 Tele-operation Trials .....................................................................................................13 

3.3.1 Course Completion Times.................................................................................13 

3.3.2 Driving Errors....................................................................................................14 

3.3.3 Target Detection and Identification...................................................................15 
iv 

3.3.4 Soldier Evaluation of Performance ...................................................................17 

3.3.5 Soldier Evaluation of Individual System Characteristics..................................17 

3.3.6 Soldier Ratings of Physical Problems Experienced With the Display Sizes ....18 

3.3.7 Soldier Subjective Workload.............................................................................18 

3.3.8 Soldier Overall Preference ................................................................................22 

4. Discussion 23

5. Conclusions and Recommendations 25

6. References 27

Appendix A. Soldier Demographics 29

Distribution List 52 
v 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. FBCB2 display. .............................................................................................................. 3 

Figure 2. CDA display. .................................................................................................................. 3 

Figure 3. Vehicle target detection rates by distance, open field target detection, no smoke........ 4 

Figure 4. GMD............................................................................................................................... 5 

Figure 5. TALON robot. ................................................................................................................ 6 

Figure 6. The iExplorer display and TALON radio configuration. ............................................... 6 

Figure 7. The GMD and TALON radio configuration. ................................................................. 7 

Figure 8. Robotic driving course. .................................................................................................. 8 

Figure 9. Leg A, maneuver. ........................................................................................................... 8 

Figure 10. Leg B, obstacle avoidance............................................................................................ 9 

Figure 11. Leg C, target detection and identification. ................................................................... 9 

Figure 12. Mean times for each display on leg B (minutes)........................................................ 13 

Figure 13. Number of times each display was chosen in the first two positions and the last 

two positions. ........................................................................................................................ 22 
vi 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Order of treatments and lanes. ....................................................................................... 11 

Table 2. Time (min:sec) to complete course legs. ....................................................................... 13 

Table 3. Summary of ANOVAs, leg and course completion times............................................. 13 

Table 4. Follow-on pair-wise comparisons, leg B course completion times............................... 14 

Table 5. Driving errors by leg...................................................................................................... 14 

Table 6. Summary of ANOVAs, driving errors........................................................................... 14 

Table 7. Major off-course errors.................................................................................................. 14 

Table 8. Summary of ANOVAs, major off-course errors. .......................................................... 15 

Table 9. Minor off-course errors.................................................................................................. 15 

Table 10. Summary of ANOVAs, minor off-course errors. ........................................................ 15 

Table 11. Mean 3-D silhouette targets detected and identified. .................................................. 15 

Table 12. Summary of ANOVAs, 3-D silhouette targets. ........................................................... 16 

Table 13. Mean IED targets detected and identified.................................................................... 16 

Table 14. Summary of ANOVAs, IED targets. ........................................................................... 16 

Table 15. Mean range (meters) to detect targets.......................................................................... 16 

Table 16. Summary of ANOVAs, target detection ranges. ......................................................... 16 

Table 17. Mean number of false target detections....................................................................... 17 

Table 18. Mean subjective ratings for tasks with dissimilar ratings............................................ 17 

Table 19. Mean subjective ratings for system characteristics with dissimilar ratings................. 17 

Table 20. Number of physical problems experience with each display size ............................... 18 

Table 21. Mean NASA TLX total workload scores by display option........................................ 19 

Table 22. Follow-on paired comparison analyses for mean NASA TLX total workload scores. 19 

Table 23. Mean NASA TLX mental demand scores by display option. ..................................... 19 

Table 24. Follow-on paired comparison analyses for mean NASA TLX weighted mental 

demand scores....................................................................................................................... 19 

Table 25. Mean NASA TLX physical demand scores by display option.................................... 20 

Table 26. Follow-on paired comparison analyses for mean NASA TLX weighted physical 

demand scores....................................................................................................................... 20 

Table 27. Mean NASA TLX temporal demand scores by display option................................... 20 

Table 28. Mean NASA TLX performance scores by display option........................................... 21 

Table 29. Mean NASA TLX effort scores by display option...................................................... 21 

Table 30. Follow-on paired comparison analyses for mean NASA TLX weighted effort scores.

............................................................................................................................................... 21 

Table 31. Mean NASA TLX frustration scores by display option. ............................................. 21 

Table 32. Follow-on paired comparison analyses for mean NASA TLX weighted frustration 

scores..................................................................................................................................... 22 

Table 33. Mean subjective rankings for display preferences...................................................... 22 
vii 

Acknowledgments 

The authors wish to thank Michael J. Barnes of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory’s (ARL’s) 

Human Research and Engineering Directorate for his support and guidance throughout the 

process of preparing this report. We would also like to thank Terry Tiernery, Sanjiv Dungrani, 

Brad Brumm, Jeff Koshko, and Alex Marecki from the U.S. Army Tank and Automotive 

Research, Development, and Engineering Center; Dave Rudnick, Devin Kelly, Steve Scheiner, 

and Adam Spanberger from DCS1

; and Phil Edwards from the Space and Naval Warfare Systems 

Command. Their assistance in obtaining and maintaining the robotic equipment and the displays 

used during this effort was key to the successful completion of the experiment. We would like to 

express our appreciation to Shawn Stafford, Jeremy Flynn, and Adams Greenwood-Ericksen from 

the University of Central Florida (UCF), and Freddy Heller and SFC Jim Taylor from ARL for 

their assistance with data collection. The help from LTC James Merlo from UCF and Mr. Jeff 

Williams from the Soldier Battle Lab in developing the scenario and laying out the course was 

instrumental in ensuring that the experiment tasks were militarily relevant and produced valid 

data, and we would like to thank them as well. 

 1DCS is not an acronym. 
viii 

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
1

1. Introduction 

1.1 Statement of the Problem 

Scalability has been given many different definitions, depending upon the background of the 

person defining it, the technology being considered, and the operational use of the technology. 

Typically, when interface designers talk about scalable interfaces they are referring to a design 

that ensures that development takes into account the requirement to change over time. This 

drives interfaces to be flexible and “future proof”. Without this type of scalability, interface 

designs require a complete renovation when a small change is needed in the application. This 

is a broad definition of scalability and has application to robotic interfaces. For this experiment, 

we concentrated on a more narrow definition of scalability which is a component of the broader 

definition. We are concerned with the ability of interfaces to accommodate presentation on 

devices of different types and sizes as effectively as possible. Soldiers operate in a large range 

of environments, from the relatively stable and spacious environment of a tactical operations 

center (TOC) to the cramped and perpetual motion environment of a vehicle to the rugged and 

physically demanding environment of the dismounted Soldier. All these environments have an 

impact on the size and configuration of the robotic interface. It is easy to see that a dismounted 

Soldier cannot carry the relatively large controller that can be used in a TOC. This type of 

scalability of interfaces is very important because it ensures that training transfer is easy across 

environments and that interfaces can be tailored to the environment in which they are used. 

Interface trends are moving away from “one size fits all” toward a scalable family of products 

with common architecture, but sizes depend on the role and mission. The key to ensuring that a 

system is scalable is to consider not only the range of devices that Soldiers will use but also their 

context of use. An example can be easily seen in e-mail access. Typically, individuals have 

used their desktop computers to access e-mail, but more frequently, they are now using personal 

digital assistants (PDAs) and cell phones to do the same job when they are outside their offices. 

One factor affecting scalability of displays to the environment is screen size. Designing for one 

“optimum” screen size may seem to be a good idea because it may seem that the presentation of 

the interface is being controlled. If a display is designed that only works on one “fixed” browser 

window size, it will not work well in the others. It might even be completely unusable if 

important features disappear off the edge of the screen. 

Many current robots (i.e., the MATILDA2

, PackBot3, and TALON4) provide a tele-operation 

interface that is large and heavy. A goal of Program Executive Office (PEO) Soldier Warrior is to 

 2

Mesa Associates’ Tactical Integrated Light-Force Deployment Assembly 

3PackBot is a registered trademark of iRobot Corporation. 

4TALON, which is a registered trademark of Foster-Miller, Inc., is not an acronym. 
2

design and build an innovative universal robot controller that allows a dismounted Soldier to 

control and task various small robotic platforms without causing unnecessary additional weight 

and without bulky “add-ons” to the Infantry Soldier System. Since current robotic interfaces 

would add much weight to the dismounted Soldier, it is important to discover and document the 

range of interface sizes that can be used for robotic operations in different environments and to 

understand the trade-offs involved in tailoring the sizes to the environments in which they will be 

used. 

The popularity of very large screen displays and small, portable, wearable computing devices is 

increasing. The motivation behind the development for many of the large screen displays is often 

to provide an immersive experience or a sense of presence for virtual reality and home theaters. 

There are several configurations for these displays (i.e., projection screen, liquid crystal display 

[LCD], plasma, etc.), and the prices for these systems are dropping. The use of large displays for 

robotic interfaces might allow a more immersive experience for the operator than is allowed by a 

smaller desktop size display (Tan, Gergle, Scupelli, & Pausch, 2003). Tan, Robertson, and 

Czerwinski (2001) found that the wide fields of view afforded by large displays also provided 

better cues to aid users in navigating virtual space. Although this avenue of investigation is an 

interesting one, the number of feasible display sizes (large and small) is too large to address in one 

experiment. This experiment focuses on the PEO Soldier goal of reducing the size of the interface 

for use by dismounted Soldiers in real-world environments and on the task of driving a wellmarked course while situational awareness (SA) is maintained by the search for targets in the 

immediate area. In order to bound even the number of sizes of smaller displays, we focused on 

display sizes that are currently available (or will be available in the near future) to the dismounted 

Soldier. The thought here is that a Soldier might not have to carry a separate display for robotic 

control, but rather, s/he could control a robot using a display that s/he is already carrying. The 

four display sizes we investigated were the Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below 

(FBCB2) that is currently available in vehicles, the commander’s digital assistant (CDA) that is 

being carried by lower echelon commanders, a PDA that is being considered for squad members 

by the Future Force Warrior (FFW) program, and a goggle-mounted display (GMD) that is being 

considered for squad leaders by the FFW program. 

1.1.1 The FBCB2 Display 

The FBCB2 forms the principal digital command and control (C2) system for the Army at brigade 

levels and below. It is a 7.3-pound, 2.36-inch by 13.1-inch by 9-inch high-resolution active matrix 

touch screen display (see figure 1). The screen is a super video graphics array 12.1 inches 

diagonal with 800x600-pixel resolution. 

1.1.2 CDA Display 

The CDA is an early “spiral-out” from Land Warrior that provides a tactical picture to companylevel leaders and above. There is more than one model that uses the name CDA. The CDA, 

developed from Raytheon’s air warrior digital kneeboard, measures approximately 7 by 10 by 2 
3

inches and weighs 5.4 lb, including its battery. It has a 6.4-inch diagonal daylight readable 

480x640 resolution color LCD with an integrated touch screen (see figure 2). 

Figure 1. FBCB2 display. 

Figure 2. CDA display. 
4

1.1.3 PDAs 

PDAs are potentially attractive interfaces for dismounted Soldiers because they are relatively inexpensive, lightweight, small, and extremely portable, and some feature touch-sensitive displays. 

Many standard PDA interfaces have been developed for a wide range of applications such as word 

processing, calendar management, calculators, educational tools, and mobile surveillance. The 

FFW digital assistants also display navigation and SA pictures and images received from team 

members. The Recon 400 X used by the FFW Soldiers during the Air Assault Expeditionary Force 

(AAEF) Spiral C had a display resolution of 240x320 pixels, a 3.5-inch diagonal display size, and 

weighed 17 ounces (see figure 3). 

Figure 3. Vehicle target detection rates 

by distance, open field target 

detection, no smoke. 

1.1.4 Head-Mounted Displays (HMDs) and GMDs 

Small, wearable HMDS and GMDs are being developed that enable users to observe a highresolution display without having to carry a bulky display or without restricting the user to small 

size and low resolution. These devices come in a variety of configurations (monocular, binocular, 

see-through, opaque, etc.). Some are mounted on straps worn around the head, some are mounted 

on helmets, and some are mounted on eyewear. The FFW program is investigating several of 

these displays for use by the squad and team leaders. Typically, these devices provide lightweight 

(~17 ounces) super-video graphics display, high resolution (800x600) pictures with a 1.425-inch 

diagonal picture. The device used in this study was a monocular GMD. Because this display was 

so close to the eye, its apparent size was like that of a 17-inch diagonal TV display (see figure 4). 
5

Figure 4. GMD. 

1.2 Objectives 

The objective of this experiment was to determine what effect display size reduction has on the 

tele-operation (driving) of small robots and the operator’s SA of the immediate vicinity of the 

robot. 

2. Method 

2.1 Participants 

Thirty-two Soldiers from the Officer Candidate School (OCS), Fort Benning, Georgia, participated 

in the study. These Soldiers had experience as enlisted Soldiers and came from varied military 

occupational specialties (MOSs). 

2.2 Instruments and Apparatus 

2.2.1 TALON Robot 

The TALON is a lightweight robot designed for missions ranging from reconnaissance to weapons 

delivery (see figure 5). Built with all-weather, day/night and amphibious capabilities, the TALON 

can operate during adverse conditions over almost any terrain. The suitcase-portable robot is controlled through a two-way radio frequency line from a portable operator control unit that provides 

continuous data and video feedback for precise vehicle positioning. It was developed for the 

Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Directorate of the U.S. Army’s Armament Research, 

Development, and Engineering Center at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey, by the engineering and 

technology development firm of Foster-Miller. The TALON began being used in military operations in Bosnia in 2000, deployed to Afghanistan in early 2002, and has been in Iraq since the war 

started, assisting with improvised explosive device (IED) detection and removal. 
6

Figure 5. TALON robot. 

For this experiment, the TALON was equipped with a video camera that enabled the participants 

to maneuver the vehicle and assess enemy activity and IEDs along the road to the objective. 

2.2.2 Robotic Vehicle Displays 

Four different display sizes were used to conduct this experiment. The A, B, and C display 

configurations were presented on an iExplorer to control the number of variables present in the 

study. Both the iExplorer (see figure 6) and the GMD (see figure 7) were plugged into the existing 

TALON control system so that its radio could be used. However, the TALON control system 

joystick and display were not used. 

Figure 6. The iExplorer display and TALON radio configuration. 
7

Figure 7. The GMD and TALON radio configuration. 

The four display configurations (sizes or types) were representative of displays that can be used 

in the field or that may soon be present. The display configurations used were 

• Display A – A display based on the Stryker and Bradley FBCB2 display characteristics (a 

10.4-inch diagonal screen with 800x600 pixels); 

• Display B – A display based upon the CDA display characteristics (a 6.5-inch diagonal 

screen with 640x480 pixels); 

• Display C – A display based upon the FFW PDA display characteristics (a 3.5-inch 

diagonal screen with 240x320 pixels); and 

• Display D – A GMD display based on the FFW GMD display characteristics (a 1.425-inch 

diagonal screen with 800x600 pixels).

2.2.3 Robotic Driving Course 

The robotic driving course consisted of an oval-shaped course with four different lanes. Each 

lane had three legs and a total length of approximately 300 meters (see figure 8). Leg A, the first 

leg of each lane (see figure 9), was marked with engineering tape and required the Soldier to 

drive as quickly as possible to the end of the leg. An obstacle placed on the path was situated at 

the end of the first leg. For Leg B, the operator was required to negotiate around the obstacle by 
8

going off the path and then returning to the path by the shortest and easiest route (see figure 10). 

Mock-up enemy Soldiers, booby traps, IEDs, and mines (see figure 11) that could be clearly seen 

by the driving camera were placed along the rest of the lane (Leg C) between the obstacle and 

the objective (end of the course). The robotic operators tele-operated the TALON from inside a 

tent that was placed behind a berm that blocked the line of sight (LOS) between the operators 

and the course. The tent and its placement prevented the operator from tele-operating the vehicle 

by using LOS rather than the display. It also kept the operator and the equipment out of the 

elements. 

Figure 8. Robotic driving course. 

Figure 9. Leg A, maneuver. 

Lane 1 

Start 

Lane 3 

Start 

Tent 

Obstacle 

Obstacle Obstacle Lane 2 

Start 

Obstacle 

Lane 4 

Start 

Berm
9

Figure 10. Leg B, obstacle avoidance. 

Figure 11. Leg C, target detection and identification. 

2.2.4 Questionnaires 

Questionnaires elicited Soldiers’ opinions about their performance and experiences with each of 

the display systems. The questionnaires asked the Soldiers to rate the devices on a 7-point Likert 

scale ranging from “extremely good/easy” to “extremely bad/difficult”. Questionnaires were 

administered to each Soldier at the completion of the training course, at the end of each iteration 

with the displays, and at the end of the experiment. 
10

2.2.5 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Task Load Index (TLX) 

The NASA TLX is a subjective workload assessment tool that allows subjective workload 

assessments on operator(s) working with various human-machine systems (Hart & Staveland, 

1988). It uses a multi-dimensional rating procedure that derives an overall workload score based 

on a weighted average of ratings on six subscales. These subscales include mental demands, 

physical demands, temporal demands, own performance, effort, and frustration. It can be used to 

assess workload in various human-machine environments such as aircraft cockpits; command, 

control, and communication workstations; supervisory and process control environments; 

simulations; and laboratory tests. 

2.3 Procedures 

2.3.1 Training 

The 32 experiment Soldiers reported in groups of four for one day each. Before the first training 

presentation, experiment Soldiers received a roster number, which was used to identify them 

throughout the evaluation. They were given an operations order that explained the robotic mission 

that they would undertake during the experiment. Driving requirements, obstacle negotiation 

requirements, and identification of threats were all explained and any questions the Soldiers had 

concerning the experiment were answered. Soldiers were then shown examples of the targets and 

the IEDs that they would be required to identify as they negotiated the robotic course. A representative from the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command trained the Soldiers in the use of the 

TALON robot. Soldiers practiced tele-operating the robot on a training course that was similar to 

the actual course used during the experiment. This course required driving, obstacle negotiation, 

and identification of threats. Soldiers were trained with the actual TALON display rather than any 

of the experimental displays. Upon completion of the course, the Soldiers were given a questionnaire designed to assess their perception of the training adequacy. Questions about the amount of 

practice time given, the level of detail presented, and the adequacy of training aids were asked. 

2.3.2 Demographics 

Demographic data, as well as data concerning the Soldiers’ Army and robotic experience, were 

documented for each Soldier. 

2.3.3 Tele-operation Trials 

Soldiers were assigned to displays and lanes according to the matrix presented in table 1. The 

matrix was constructed with the use of a 4x4 Greco-Williams square for treatment conditions, 

lanes, and preceding device (so that no device always followed another). 

The Soldiers were required to tele-operate the robot within the course as quickly and efficiently as 

possible, negotiate around obstacles in the path, and detect and identify silhouette targets, IEDs, 

mines, and booby traps on the course. A data collector walked behind the TALON on each trial, 

documenting the following performance measures: 
11

• Time to reach the end of each leg,

• The number of major times the driver went off course (both wheels outside the marked 

course),

• The number of minor times the driver went off course (one wheel touched or went outside 

marked course) on the first and third legs,

• The number of driving errors (back-ups, turning in the wrong direction, etc.) on each leg,

• The time to complete Leg A of the course,

• The time required to re-route around terrain obstacles (dynamic retasking) on Leg B,

• The number of enemy personnel detected and identified and the range of detection,

• The number of booby traps, IEDs, and mines detected and identified and the range of 

detection,

• The number of false threats found,

• The time to complete Leg C of the course, and

• The overall course completion time.

Table 1. Order of treatments and lanes. 

Iteration 

1 2 3 4 Roster 

(Soldier) Display Lane Display Lane Display Lane Display Lane 

1, 9, 17, 25 A 1 D 4 B 2 C 3 

2, 10, 18, 26 B 4 A 3 C 1 D 2 

3, 11, 19, 27 C 2 B 1 D 3 A 4 

4, 12, 20, 28 D 3 C 2 A 4 B 1 

5, 13, 21, 29 C 4 B 3 D 1 A 2 

6, 14, 22, 30 D 1 C 4 A 2 B 3 

7, 15, 23, 31 A 3 D 2 B 4 C 1 

8, 16, 24, 32 B 2 A 1 C 3 D 4 

The Soldiers received the following written operations order: 

Who: You are in 2nd Platoon, A company, 1st Battalion, 52nd Infantry Division 

What: You are located in a forward operating base (FOB) that is located in a remote area near 

the capital of Iraq. Your perimeter must constantly be checked for IEDs and enemy personnel as your FOB has been targeted by anti-Iraqi forces (AIF). You have been tasked to 

reconnoiter the small trail around your perimeter to ensure that there are no IEDs, unauthorized militia, etc., and report any and all such activity. In an effort to avoid unmanned 

sensors in the area, there is a well-marked trail around the perimeter that unmanned ground 

vehicles (UGVs) can use, and movement outside this marked trail is not authorized. Concertina wire at different points around the perimeter must be avoided. The UGV route is 
12

clearly marked up to the obstacle, and the marked lane continues on the other side of the 

obstacle. Obstacles can be traversed either to the left or right, depending on the obstacle; 

however, the route around the obstacle is not marked. 

When: The time is the local time. 

They were told to reconnoiter each leg of the route and to find as many of the targets as possible as 

quickly as possible. They were then instructed that they must be at the lane end point no later than 

30 minutes after starting the course. They indicated each target to the data collector following the 

TALON who used a hand-held laser range finder to determine the detection distance and reported 

the distance to another data collector in the tent. Each target was labeled with a number. The 

trailing data collector radioed the target number that was found and the distance to the target to the 

recording data collector. He also radioed the number and type of driving errors, the number of 

times the Soldier went off course, the time for completion of each leg of the course, and the total 

course time. 

The Soldiers tele-operated the robot using the four different display configurations (one on each 

of the four different course lanes). After each lane, the Soldier responded to questionnaire items 

concerning the display that was used and waited until the course was ready for the next iteration. 

At the end of the day, each Soldier completed a questionnaire concerning his or her overall 

assessment of each display configuration. 

3. Results 

3.1 Training 

Soldiers rated the training course highly and stated that they had enough training time to feel 

confident that they could perform well on the course. 

3.2 Demographics 

The 32 OCS Soldiers who participated in this experiment averaged 8 years 3 months in the 

military. Twelve Soldiers had served in an infantry MOS. Seventeen of the Soldiers had been 

deployed in a combat area. Although only one had robotic experience, 27 Soldiers had driven a 

remote control car. The weights of the Soldiers ranged from the 40th percentile female to the 99th 

percentile male (130 to 260 pounds). Their heights ranged from the 5th percentile female to the 

99th percentile male (60 to 80 inches). The average age of these Soldiers was 31 years. Eight 

Soldiers were left-eye dominant and seven wore prescription lenses. All but one Soldier had at 

least 20/20 corrected vision in one eye. The one exception had 20/25 vision in both eyes. See 

appendix A for detailed demographic information. Detailed results are presented in appendix A. 
13

3.3 Tele-operation Trials 

3.3.1 Course Completion Times 

Mean times to complete each leg of the course and the entire course are shown in table 2. A series 

of repeated measures analyses of variances (ANOVAs), summarized in table 3, indicate that there 

was a significant difference among the display conditions for the time required to complete Leg B 

of the course. Figure 12 illustrates this finding. Follow-on pair-wise comparisons were conducted 

with the use of Holm’s Sequential Bonferroni to control family-wise error rates. As shown in 

table 4, Leg B completion times were significantly longer (slower) with the D display than with 

the B and C displays. 

Table 2. Time (min:sec) to complete course legs. 

 Leg A Leg B Leg C Total Course 

Display Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD 

A 1:53 0:32 1:44 1:14 12:09 4:21 15:45 4:44 

B 1:49 0:37 1:13 0:36 11:14 3:10 14:16 3:40 

C 1:47 0:34 1:21 0:38 11:49 3:40 14:57 3:54 

D 2:08 0:51 1:47 0:52 11:43 3:56 15:39 4:26 

Table 3. Summary of ANOVAs, leg and course completion times. 

Leg F df p η2

p

A 1.97 3,93 0.123 0.060 

B 4.49 3,93 0.005* 0.127 

C 0.62 3,93 0.602 0.020 

Total 1.55 3,93 0.207 0.48 

* p < .05 

A BCD

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

95% CI

Figure 12. Mean times for each display on leg B (minutes). 
14

Table 4. Follow-on pair-wise comparisons, leg B course completion times. 

Display Pair t Df obtained p required p

A vs. B 2.16 31 0.039 0.0125 

A vs. C 1.58 31 0.125 0.0167 

A vs. D -0.27 31 0.788 0.05 

B vs. C -1.34 31 0.189 0.025 

B vs. D -4.40 31 < .001* 0.0083 

C vs. D -3.48 31 .002* 0.01 

* p < .05, 2 tailed

3.3.2 Driving Errors 

Table 5 shows the mean number of driving errors with each display size for the three legs. 

Repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted to test for differences among the means within 

each leg of the course. As shown in table 6, none of the ANOVAs yielded statistically 

significant results. 

Table 5. Driving errors by leg. 

 Leg A Leg B Leg C 

Display Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD 

A 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.54 0.25 0.72 

B 0.09 0.30 0.03 0.18 0.13 0.71 

C 0.06 0.35 0.09 0.30 0.34 1.21 

D 0.03 0.18 0.28 0.68 0.25 0.80 

Table 6. Summary of ANOVAs, driving errors. 

Leg F df p η2

p

A 0.83 3,93 0.481 0.026 

B 1.77 3,93 0.158 0.054 

C 0.27 3,93 0.707 0.015 

The mean numbers of major off-course events for each leg and each display condition are shown 

in table 7. A series of repeated measures ANOVAs, summarized in table 8, indicates that none 

of the differences among the means was statistically significant. 

Table 7. Major off-course errors. 

 Leg A Leg B Leg C 

Display Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD 

A 0.09 0.30 0.38 0.61 0.03 0.18 

B 0.09 0.39 0.25 0.57 0.06 0.25 

C 0.03 0.18 0.19 0.47 0.03 0.18 

D 0.16 0.45 0.22 0.49 0.09 0.30 
15

Table 8. Summary of ANOVAs, major off-course errors. 

Leg F df p η2

p

A 0.69 3,93 0.561 0.022 

B 0.87 3,93 0.460 0.270 

C 0.57 3,93 0.635 0.018 

Table 9 shows the average number of minor off-course errors on each leg of the course with each 

display. Repeated measures ANOVAs (table 10) indicate that none of the differences among the 

means was statistically significant. 

Table 9. Minor off-course errors. 

 Leg A Leg B 

Display Mean SD Mean SD 

A 0.16 0.51 0.91 1.23 

B 0.25 0.67 0.81 1.12 

C 0.19 0.47 1.59 2.34 

D 0.38 0.61 1.16 1.63 

Table 10. Summary of ANOVAs, minor off-course errors. 

Leg F df p η2

p

A 0.965 3,93 0.413 0.03 

C 1.78 3,93 0.157 0.054 

3.3.3 Target Detection and Identification 

Table 11 shows the mean number of three-dimensional (3-D) silhouette targets detected and 

correctly identified for each display condition. Repeated measures ANOVAs (table 12) indicate 

that there were no significant differences among the means for target detection or identification. 

Table 11. Mean 3-D silhouette targets detected and identified. 

Detect Identify 

Display Mean SD Mean SD 

A 8.41 1.43 8.16 1.46 

B 8.72 1.17 8.38 1.24 

C 8.69 1.47 8.44 1.58 

D 8.28 1.65 7.94 1.70 
16

Table 12. Summary of ANOVAs, 3-D silhouette targets. 

Dependent variable F df p η2

p

Target detection 0.86 3,93 0.463 0.027 

Target identification 0.97 3,93 0.411 0.030 

The mean number of IEDs detected and correctly identified is shown in table 13. The repeated 

measures ANOVAs summarized in table 14 indicate that there were no significant differences 

among the display conditions for target detection or identification. 

Table 13. Mean IED targets detected and identified. 

Detect Identify 

Display Mean SD Mean SD 

A 4.66 1.70 4.09 1.67 

B 5.03 2.16 4.38 2.00 

C 5.31 1.94 4.81 1.89 

D 4.41 2.27 3.91 2.10 

Table 14. Summary of ANOVAs, IED targets. 

Dependent variable F df p η2

p

Target detection 2.20 3,93 0.093 0.066 

Target identification 2.26 3,93 0.086 0.068 

The mean ranges to detect targets within each display condition are shown in table 15. There 

were no significant differences among the displays for either type of target (table 16). 

Table 15. Mean range (meters) to detect targets. 

3-D silhouettes IEDs 

Display Mean SD Mean SD 

A 9.49 2.88 2.55 1.13 

B 10.25 3.58 2.86 1.45 

C 9.16 2.75 2.67 1.22 

D 9.07 3.20 2.65 1.52 

Table 16. Summary of ANOVAs, target detection ranges. 

Type of Target F df p η2

p

3-D silhouettes 1.32 3,93 0.271 0.041 

IEDs 0.49 3,93 0.688 0.016 

Finally, the mean numbers of false target detections for each display condition are shown in table 

17. A repeated measures ANOVA indicates no significant difference among the means: F(3,93) 

= 0.69, p = .562, η2

p = .033. 
17

Table 17. Mean number of false target detections. 

Display Mean SD 

A 0.31 0.69 

B 0.47 0.80 

C 0.28 0.68 

D 0.44 0.84 

3.3.4 Soldier Evaluation of Performance 

Soldiers indicated that all display sizes were sufficient for driving and for providing adequate SA 

of the immediate surroundings for effective driving. Their mean subjective ratings for tele-operation tasks with the A, B, and C display sizes were very similar. Although many ratings of the D 

display size were also somewhat similar to the ratings for the other display sizes, D was rated the 

lowest for ease of performing every one of the tele-operation tasks. The tasks for which the D 

display size was most dissimilar from the other display sizes are shown in table 18. 

Table 18. Mean subjective ratings for tasks with dissimilar ratings. 

Task Display A Display B Display C Display D 

Avoid obstacles 5.50 5.62 5.63 4.91 

Localize the robotic vehicle within the environ-ment so that 

you can tell where the sides of the vehicle are located 

5.41 5.31 5.66 4.94 

See well enough to drive at slowest speeds 5.47 5.78 5.94 5.41 

See well enough to drive at fastest speeds 4.28 4.63 4.88 3.94 

Overall ability to perform driving tasks 5.03 5.31 5.63 4.69 

Several problems were reported with tele-operating the robot, which had nothing to do with the 

displays. These included interference in the video transmission, screen black-outs, video lag, and 

freezing of the picture. Soldiers rated their ability to maintain SA as similar for each of the 

displays. There were several comments that SA was degraded because the camera on the robot 

had no view to the sides and rear and because there was no audio feed. 

3.3.5 Soldier Evaluation of Individual System Characteristics 

Table 19 displays the system characteristics whose mean subjective ratings were most dissimilar. 

Table 19. Mean subjective ratings for system characteristics with dissimilar ratings. 

System Characteristics Display A Display B Display C Display D 

Comfort of viewing the display 4.81 5.12 4.91 4.00 

Resolution (clarity) 3.47 4.25 4.75 3.88 

The Soldiers rated the D display as the least comfortable to view. With the A, B, and C display 

sizes, the Soldiers moved their heads and changed their body positions to achieve the desired 

viewing distance. They indicated that the head positions did not detract from their comfort. 

However, the reasons they gave for rating the D display as less comfortable were primarily 

attributable to eye strain from viewing the display with only one eye. One Soldier also complained 

that he kept trying to turn his head to see farther to the left or right with device D, even though this 
18

action had no effect on the area of camera regard. One Soldier commented that he had more 

difficulty finding targets with the largest display size (A) because he had to keep his eyes moving 

in order to scan the entire width of the display. Others complained that the largest display just had 

bigger, blockier pixels and appeared to have lower resolution than devices B and C. Several 

Soldiers stated that the smaller displays would definitely be advantageous for dismounted Soldiers. 

3.3.6 Soldier Ratings of Physical Problems Experienced With the Display Sizes 

Table 20 displays the number of Soldiers who experienced different types of physical problems 

when they wore each of the display sizes. 

Table 20. Number of physical problems experience with each display size. 

Number of Responses 

Display A B C D 

Eye strain 6 4 2 21 

Tunnel vision 1 1 1 2 

Headaches 0 0 0 1 

Motion sickness 0 0 0 3 

Nausea 0 0 0 1 

Disorientation 1 1 0 4 

Dizziness 0 0 0 1 

Any other problems? 1 0 0 4 

Total 9 6 3 37 

Eye strain, motion sickness, headaches, and disorientation were reported by many more Soldiers 

with the GMD. In fact, 66% of the Soldiers reported eye strain from using the GMD. Many 

complained that they had to keep the other eye closed or cover it because the intensity of the 

disparate images coming into two different eyes was overwhelming. Detailed questionnaire 

results are shown in appendix A. 

3.3.7 Soldier Subjective Workload 

The analysis of the Soldiers’ NASA TLX ratings for the effort required for operation of each 

display follows. 

3.3.7.1 Analysis of Total Workload Scores 

Table 21 provides the mean NASA TLX total workload scores for each display option, and table 

22 shows the results of the follow-on comparisons. Differences among means were statistically 

significant (repeated measures general linear model [GLM]; F 3,93 = 9.494; p = 0.00; η2

 = 0.23). 
19

Table 21. Mean NASA TLX total workload scores by display option. 

NASA TLX Total Workload Mean Std. Deviation N 

Display A 41.94 15.52 32 

Display B 36.43 16.19 32 

Display C 34.16 14.53 32 

Display D 49.17 19.68 32 

Table 22. Follow-on paired comparison analyses for mean NASA TLX total workload scores. 

Paired Comparisons t N p 

Pair 1 A versus B 1.933 31 .062 

Pair 2 B versus C .884 31 .383 

Pair 3 C versus D -4.056 31 .000 

Pair 4 A versus D -2.254 31 .031 

Pair 5 A versus C 2.529 31 .017 

Pair 6 B versus D -4.429 31 .000 

3.3.7.2 Analysis of Mental Demand Scores 

Table 23 provides the mean NASA TLX weighted scores for mental demand for each display 

option, and table 24 shows the results from the follow-on comparisons. Differences among 

means were statistically significant (repeated measures GLM; F 3,93 = 5.517; p = 0.02; η2 = 

0.15). 

Table 23. Mean NASA TLX mental demand scores by display option. 

NASA TLX Mental Demand Mean Std. Deviation N 

DISPLAY A 8.62 6.27 32 

DISPLAY B 9.46 8.04 32 

DISPLAY C 9.00 7.09 32 

DISPLAY D 12.40 8.87 32 

Table 24. Follow-on paired comparison analyses for mean NASA TLX weighted mental 

demand scores. 

Paired Comparisons t N p 

Pair 1 A versus B 1.933 31 .062 

Pair 2 A versus C .884 31 .383 

Pair 3 A versus D -4.056 31 .000 

Pair 4 B versus C -2.254 31 .031 

Pair 5 B versus D 2.529 31 .017 

Pair 6 C versus D -4.429 31 .000 
20

3.3.7.3 Analysis of Physical Demand Scores 

Table 25 provides the mean NASA TLX weighted scores for physical demand for each display 

option, and table 26 shows the results from the follow-on comparisons. Differences among means 

were statistically significant (repeated measures GLM; F 3,93 = 3.437; p = 0.02; η2

 = 0.10). 

Table 25. Mean NASA TLX physical demand scores by display option. 

NASA TLX Physical 

Demand Mean Std. Deviation N 

DISPLAY A 1.18 3.94 32 

DISPLAY B .56 1.39 32 

DISPLAY C .76 2.40 32 

DISPLAY D 2.96 6.51 32 

Table 26. Follow-on paired comparison analyses for mean NASA TLX weighted physical 

demand scores. 

Paired Comparisons t N p 

Pair 1 A versus B .870 31 .391 

Pair 2 A versus C 1.395 31 .173 

Pair 3 A versus D -1.586 31 .123 

Pair 4 B versus C -.418 31 .679 

Pair 5 B versus D -2.384 31 .023 

Pair 6 C versus D -2.109 31 .043 

3.3.7.4 Analysis of Temporal Demand Scores 

Table 27 provides the mean NASA TLX weighted scores for temporal demand for each display 

option. Differences among means were not statistically significant (repeated measures GLM; 

F 3,93 = 1.222; p = 0.30; η2 = 0.04). 

Table 27. Mean NASA TLX temporal demand scores by display option. 

NASA TLX Temporal Demand Mean Std. Deviation N 

DISPLAY A 5.8542 5.20266 32 

DISPLAY B 5.2104 4.14990 32 

DISPLAY C 6.0042 5.27774 32 

DISPLAY D 4.4448 4.92785 32 

3.3.7.5 Analysis of Performance Scores 

Table 28 provides the mean NASA TLX weighted scores for self-assessment of performance for 

each display option. Differences among means were not statistically significant (repeated 

measures GLM; F 3,93 = 0.916; p = 0.44; η2

 = 0.03). 
21

Table 28. Mean NASA TLX performance scores by display option. 

NASA TLX Performance Mean Std. Deviation N 

DISPLAY A 9.65 6.89 32 

DISPLAY B 8.35 6.61 32 

DISPLAY C 7.75 5.80 32 

DISPLAY D 8.26 6.21 32 

3.3.7.6 Analysis of Effort Scores 

Table 29 provides the mean NASA TLX weighted scores for effort for each display option, and 

table 30 shows the results from the follow-on comparisons. Differences among means were 

statistically significant (repeated measures GLM; F 3,93 = 7.327; p = 0.00; η2

 = 0.19). 

Table 29. Mean NASA TLX effort scores by display option 

NASA TLX Effort Mean Std. Deviation N 

DISPLAY A 7.63 5.75 32 

DISPLAY B 6.93 4.62 32 

DISPLAY C 6.71 5.64 32 

DISPLAY D 10.90 7.35 32 

Table 30. Follow-on paired comparison analyses for mean NASA TLX weighted effort scores. 

Paired Comparisons t N Sig. (2-tailed) 

Pair 1 A versus B .673 31 .506 

Pair 2 A versus C .864 31 .394 

Pair 3 A versus D -3.021 31 .005 

Pair 4 B versus C .258 31 .798 

Pair 5 B versus D -4.025 31 .000 

Pair 6 C versus D -3.957 31 .000 

3.3.7.7 Analysis of Frustration Scores 

Table 31 provides the mean NASA TLX weighted scores for frustration for each display option, 

and table 32 shows the results from the follow-on comparisons. Differences among means were 

statistically significant (repeated measures GLM; F 3,93 = 6.007; p = 0.00; η2

 = 0.16). 

Table 31. Mean NASA TLX frustration scores by display option. 

NASA TLX Frustration Mean Std. Deviation N 

DISPLAY A 8.98 9.23 32 

DISPLAY B 5.89 7.14 32 

DISPLAY C 3.92 5.11 32 

DISPLAY D 10.21 9.58 32 
22

Table 32. Follow-on paired comparison analyses for mean NASA TLX weighted 

frustration scores. 

Paired Comparisons t N Sig. (2-tailed) 

Pair 1 A versus B 1.774 31 .086 

Pair 2 A versus C 3.413 31 .002 

Pair 3 A versus D -.624 31 .537 

Pair 4 B versus C 1.400 31 .171 

Pair 5 B versus D -2.911 31 .007 

Pair 6 C versus D -3.529 31 .001 

3.3.8 Soldier Overall Preference 

Soldiers were requested to rank order the displays in the order of their preference, with 1 being 

their favorite, 2 their second choice, etc. Table 33 displays the results from this ranking. 

Table 33. Mean subjective rankings for 

display preferences. 

MEAN 

A B C D 

2.66 1.93 2.23 3.21 

Soldiers ranked the displays (table 33) in the same order that they rated the displays for overall 

ability to perform driving tasks (table 18). Once again, they demonstrated that they preferred the 

two smaller displays to the largest display and GMD. Figure 13 displays the number of times 

that each display size was chosen first, second, third, and fourth. 

Figure 13. Number of times each display was chosen in the first two positions and the last two positions. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 or 2 3 or 4

Rank

Number

FBCB2

CDA

PDA

Goggle
23

4. Discussion 

It is important to consider the tasks that were examined during this field experiment when one is 

interpreting the results. The tele-operation task was confined to a marked course (Legs A and C) 

and to a very short off-road movement around an obstacle. The target detection task was limited 

to targets within the immediate vicinity of the robot. The “bottom-line” finding from this experiment is that Soldiers were able to perform the tele-operation and detection tasks required by this 

course with all four devices. All Soldiers completed the courses in similar amounts of time, with 

similar numbers of errors. Additional examination of the results, the literature, and the Soldier 

comments sheds further light on this finding. 

Although the Soldiers performed significantly worse with device D (GMD) on only one measure 

(Leg B completion times), please note that there was a trend for worse performance with device 

D on every performance measure. Soldiers found it to cause significantly more work, effort, and 

frustration than Displays B and C and more mental demand than all three of the other displays. 

It was also the least preferred device and caused greatly increased physical problems. Soldiers 

complained of too much visual stimulation because of the strong visual images presented in each 

eye and binocular rivalry. Binocular rivalry is a term used when dissimilar images are presented 

to the two eyes, which causes an unstable state of alternating periods of monocular dominance. 

Overall dominance often appears as a fragmented mixture of the two eyes’ views resulting in a 

dynamic, patchwork appearance (Lee & Blake, 1999; Mazumder, Drury, & Helander, 1997; 

Meenes, 1999). Most of the Soldiers closed their left eye or covered it with their hand in an 

attempt to reduce the problem. 

On the positive side, the GMD (device D) used during this experiment was reported to be comfortable to wear (lightweight). Soldiers did express concern that the design did not let them wear their 

ballistic eye protection, but the manufacturer stated that there were plans to accommodate this 

problem. There were no reports of fogging (as is frequently the case with night vision goggles 

and some closed goggles such as the sun, wind, and dust goggles). 

The smaller display sizes (devices B and C) did not appear to cause any problems for these 

Soldiers during the time periods when they used them. Most of the Soldiers positioned themselves 

closer to the smaller screens than they did to device A, which may have caused more accommodation and convergence of their eyes. Both accommodation and convergence have been cited as 

contributing to eye strain (Jaschinski-Kruza, 1988; Owens & Wolf-Kelly, 1987). However, the 

accommodative and convergent demand required when the smaller screen sizes were moved closer 

to the Soldiers’ eyes to achieve better quality of inherent magnification did not appear to cause 

discomfort for the periods of time they used the displays. In fact, the Soldiers rated the comfort of 

viewing devices B and C higher than they did the comfort of viewing the larger display (device A) 

and the GMD (device D). This may have been because of their fairly young ages (most of the 
24

Soldiers were under 30), or the viewing distance required by the smallest display size was not 

close enough to cause problems. This hypothesis is supported by a study of three viewing 

distances (24, 33, and 39 inches) in which Rempel, Willms, Anshel, Jaschinski, and Sheddy (2007) 

found that the near distance was associated with significantly less blurred vision, less eye irritation, 

fewer headaches, and improved convergence recovery than the middle and far distances. 

The findings that Soldier performance with the smaller display sizes (devices B and C) was equal 

to performance with the larger display size (device A) are consistent with several other experiments that found no performance differences created by the effect of display size (Alexander, 

Wickens, & Hardy, 2005; Stelzer & Wickens, 2006; Stark, Comstock, Prinzel, Burdette, & Scerbo, 

2001; Muthard & Wickens, 2004). 

Although the Soldiers did not perform significantly worse with the largest display (device A) than 

they did with the smaller displays (devices B and C), there was a trend for worse performance with 

device A than with devices B and C and Soldiers rated it significantly more frustrating than 

Display C. Alexander, Wickens, and Hardy (2005) hypothesized that a smaller display could be of 

benefit to traffic surveillance by pilots, given that fewer eye movements would be required to scan 

the small display area as compared with a larger display area. One Soldier’s theory for why he did 

not perform as well with Device A as he did with the smaller devices was consistent with this 

hypothesis. However, Martin-Emerson and Wickens (1997) found little added cost to increasingly 

longer eye movements. Another similar hypothesis is that the smaller screens present information 

within the subjects’ macular vision, which is responsible for the clearest and most distinct vision 

and limit the need for the use of peripheral vision and the edges of the screen. Visual input to the 

macula occupies a substantial portion of the brain’s visual capacity, and the smaller display sizes 

confine the information from the robotic scene to this area of highly concentrated cones. Further 

support for this hypothesis is provided by Parasuraman (1986) who reported an “edge effect” 

which he described as an observer’s penchant to limit monitoring the edge of displays. Wickens, 

Muthard, Alexander, van Olffen, and Podczerwinski (2003) found that this edge effect resulted in 

peripheral changes being less likely to be detected and the possibility of additional effort and neck 

strain. The larger displays could thus hinder SA because a larger display area would fall into the 

peripheral vision of the operator. However, two experiments conducted by Muthard and Wickens 

(2004) to assess the impact of display size on flight control, air space surveillance, and goaldirected target search showed mixed support for these hypotheses. Pilots exhibited less flight path 

error with larger displays, and surveillance and search were unaffected by display size. 

A factor that probably influenced the Soldiers’ ratings of the largest display was the mismatch 

between the camera and the display resolutions, and this could have even had some effect on the 

objective results. They complained that the system did not have good resolution although it had 

the highest resolution of the devices used. The resolution of the 10.4-inch screen (Device A) was 

800x600, but the source resolution of the camera was only 640x480. The match between the 

camera and display resolution with Device B could be the reason they rated the middle size 

screen as having the sharpest image. However, the camera used during this field experiment has 
25

a resolution that is typical of cameras on small robots so the resulting mismatch could easily 

occur if larger displays with higher resolution are used. 

As noted in the results section, several problems experienced during this field experiment were 

typical of robotic field operations and had nothing to do with display size. In field operations, 

operator performance is sometimes degraded because of problems with robotic systems. Carlson, 

Murphy, and Nelson (2004) reviewed data from 10 studies of 15 different UGVs and found that 

reliability of UGV performance in the field tends to be low (i.e., between 6 and 20 hours between 

failures). The common causes included limited wireless communication range and insufficient 

bandwidth for video-based feedback. These issues also often adversely impacted the human 

operator’s remote perception and ability to tele-operate. Two problems with connectivity and 

communication were especially prevalent. The first one was the frequent lag in video reception, 

which caused operators to have delayed responses. The other problem was similar. Several times, 

operators’ video pictures froze and the operators thought that the system was not responding. 

Thus, they continued to repeat the same command. In realty, the system was responding but the 

operator received no feedback, so the continued commands resulted in the operator driving the 

vehicle too far forward or backward. 

Another problem that was noted during the experiment is glare. During this experiment, the 

Soldiers worked from a tent that helped reduce the problem with glare. However, dismounted 

Soldiers will not often have the luxury of working from a tent so that they are shaded from the 

sun, and glare is a definite problem that needs to be addressed. 

5. Conclusions and Recommendations 

Smaller devices can be used to display video that is sufficient for tele-operation and local surveillance with small, slow-speed robots. This makes more screen space available for other objects (if 

the total display size is larger than 3.5 inches) and enables the use of lower resolution cameras 

which would allow faster video processing since there are fewer pixels to be processed and less 

bandwidth is required if fewer pixels need to be transmitted. This finding does not address map 

display or touch screen operation and is limited to operators tele-operating robots while they are 

seated under a tent. Visual attendance should not be wider than the 5-degree macular vision (the 

actual width depends upon the viewing distance) in order to avoid visual scanning which can result 

in fatigue and missed data. Monocular helmet- or head-mounted displays should be carefully 

assessed to ensure that binocular rivalry and over-stimulation does not occur. 
26

Other factors of scalability that should be addressed in subsequent experiments include 

• the type of control device being used (i.e., mouse, touch screen, keyboard, etc.); 

• structure or organization of the content of an interface (a desktop computer may use a 

presentation that is optimized when a high resolution monitor is used, while a user of a PDA 

might view the information in a text-only presentation); 

• tactics, techniques, and procedures of dismounted robotic control, multimodal 

displays, and information requirements of users in different environments. 

Further research on factors that may have an adverse impact on helmet- or goggle-mounted 

robotic displays needs to be performed if plans are made to use these displays for robotic teleoperation. Such factors include approaches to reduce interference between the scenes presented 

to two different eyes, potential problems with prolonged occlusion of one eye, the inability to use 

compensatory head movements to center the display on the visual field, and the effects of eye 

dominance on the use of monocular displays. 
27

6. References 

Alexander, A. L.; Wickens, C. D.; Hardy, T. J. Synthetic Vision Systems: The Effects of 

Guidance Symbology, Display Size, and Field of View. Human Factors 2005, 47, 693-707. 

Carlson, J.; Murphy, R.; Nelson, A. Follow-up Analysis of Mobile Robot Failures. 2004 IEEE 

International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2004. 

Hart, S. G.; Staveland, L. E. Development of NASA TLX (task load index): Results of 

Empirical and Theoretical Research. In P. A. Hancock & N. Meshkati (Eds.) Human Mental 

Workload, North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers (pp. 139-183), 1988. 

Jaschinski-Kruza, W. Visual Strain During VDU Work: The Effect of Viewing Distance and 

Dark Focus. Ergonomics 1988, 31 (10), 1449-1465. 

Lee, S.; Blake, R. Rival ideas About Binocular Rivalry. Vision Research 1999, pgs. 1447–1454. 

Martin-Emerson, R.; Wickens, C. D. Superimposition, symbology, Visual Attention, and The 

Head-Up Display. Human Factors 1997, 39 (4), 581-601. 

Mazumder, S.; Drury, C. G.; Helander, M. G. Binocular Rivalry as an Aid in Visual Inspection. 

Human Factors 1997, 39 (4), 642–650. 

Meenes, M A Phenomenological Description of Retinal Rivalry. American Journal of 

Psychology 1999, 42, 260–269. 

Muthard, E. K.; Wickens, C. D. Compensation For Display Enlargement In Flight Control And 

Surveillance. University of Illinois Human Factors Division Technical Report AHFD-04-

03/NASA-04-1, 2004. 

Owens, D. A.; Wolf-Kelly, K. Near Work, Visual Fatigue, and Variations of Oculomotor Tonus. 

Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 1987, 28, 743-749. 

Parasuraman, R. Vigilance, Monitoring, and Search. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. 

Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance. New York: Wiley, 1986. 

Rempel; Willms; Anshel; Jaschinski; Sheedy The Effects of Visual Display Distance on eye 

Accommodation, Head Posture, and Vision and Neck Symptoms. Human Factors 2007, 49, 

830-838. 

Stark, J. M.; Comstock, J. R.; Prinzel, L. J.; Burdette, D. W.; Scerbo, M. W. A Preliminary 

Examination of Situation Awareness and Pilot Performance in a Synthetic Vision 

Environment. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual 

Meeting (pp. 40-43), Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2001. 
28

Stelzer, E. M.; Wickens, C. D. Pilots Strategically Compensate for Display Enlargements in 

Surveillance and Flight Control Tasks. Human Factors 2006, 48, 166-181. 

Tan, D. S.; Gergle, D.; Scupelli P. G.; Pausch, R. With Similar Visual Angles, Larger Displays 

Improve Spatial Performance. In Proceedings of CHI 2003, pp. 217-224, New York: ACM 

Press, 2003. 

Tan, D. S.; Robertson, G. G.; Czerwinski, M. Exploring 3D Navigation: Combining SpeedCoupled Flying With Orbiting. In Proceedings of the CHI 2001 Conference on Human 

Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 418-425), New York: Association for Computing 

Machinery, 2001. 

Wickens, C.; Muthard, E.; Alexander, A.; van Olffen, P.; Podczerwinski, P. The Influences of 

Display Highlighting and Size and Event Eccentricity for Aviation Surveillance. 

Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 

Santa Monica: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2003. 
29

Appendix A. Soldier Demographics 

DEMOGRAPHICS 

SAMPLE SIZE = 32 

 RANK MOS/DUTY POSITION AGE

E-4 – 1 E-6 – 7 

E-5 – 14 E-7 – 8 

Officer Candidate 31 years (mean) 

1. How long have you served in the military? 8 years, 3 months (mean) 

2.a. Have you had an infantry-related job? 12 yes 20 no 

 b. If yes, how long? 5 years, 7 months (mean) 

3.a. Have you been a fire team leader? 9 yes 23 no 

 b. If yes, how long? 1 year, 9 months (mean) 

4.a. Have you been a squad leader? 12 yes 20 no 

 b. If yes, how long? 3 years, 8 months (mean) 

5.a. Have you been deployed overseas? 22 yes 10 no 

 b. If yes, how long? 2 years, 2 months (mean) 

6.a. Have you been deployed in a combat area? 17 yes 15 no 

 b. If yes, how long? 1 year (mean) 

7. Corrected visual acuity: 27 20/20 both eyes 1 20/20 in one eye 

 1 20/20 and 20/40 1 20/25 and 20/25 

 2 NR 

8. Please list any visual problems you may have. None listed. 

9. What is your height? 69 (inches) (range is 60-80) 

10. What is your weight? 172 (pounds) (range is 130-260) 

11. Which hand do you most often write? 28 right 3 left 1 NR 

12. Which hand do you most often fire a weapon? 28 right 3 left 1 NR 
30

13.a. Do you wear prescription lenses? 7 yes 25 no 

 

 b. If so, which? 3 glasses 4 contact lenses 

 

14. Do you wear glasses or contacts while firing a weapon? 24 yes 6 no 2 NR 

 

15. Which is your dominant eye? 22 right 8 left 2 NR 

16. Have you every driven a robotic vehicle? 1 yes 31 no 

EOD robots (1) 

17. Have you ever driven a remote control car? 27 yes 5 no 

18. Using the scale below, rate your level of experience with the following computer software 

and computer related activities: 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

No 

experience 

Below 

average 

Slightly 

below 

average 

Average Slightly above 

average 

Above 

average 

Expert 

MEAN RESPONSE

a. Microsoft Windows 98, 2000, XP, etc. 4.50 

b. Computer based games 3.71 

c. Army digital systems (e.g. FBCB2) 2.23 

d. I would self rate my computer skills as: 4.47 

19. Using the scale below, please rate the following Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities (KSA) 

related to infantry duties: 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

No 

experience 

Below 

average 

Slightly 

below 

average 

Average Slightly above 

average 

Above 

average 

Expert 

 

MEAN RESPONSE

a. Knowledge of tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP). 4.00 

b. Knowledge of map reading and orientation in field setting. 4.84 

c. Knowledge of land navigation. 5.16 

d. Knowledge of reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition procedures. 3.34 

e. Knowledge relating to communications equipment and communications procedures. 3.75 

f. Communication skills (ability to use communications equipment & face-to-face 

communications to enhance mission accomplishment). 

4.63 
31

TRAINING 

SAMPLE SIZE = 32 

1. Using the scale below, please rate the training that you received in the following areas: 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Extremely bad Very bad Bad Neutral Good Very good Extremely good 

MEAN 

a. How to drive the robot 6.31 

b. Time provided to practice driving the robot 6.06 

c. How to complete Leg A (driving) of the course 6.50 

d. How to complete Leg B (obstacle negotiation) of the course 6.31 

e. How to complete Leg C (target detection and identification) 

of the course 

6.41 

f. Evaluation of the practice lane 6.16 

g. How to identify different types of IEDs found on the course 6.19 

h. How well do you expect to perform on the actual course 5.72 

i. Overall evaluation of the training course 6.25 

2. What were the easiest and hardest training tasks to learn? 

Comments No. of Responses

Easiest

All. 2 

Driving the Talon. 12 

Controlling the robot. 2 

Speed and direction. 1 

Target/IED identification. 9 

Understanding and negotiating the course. 2 

Forward-rear mount. 1 

Leg C. 1 

Driving between the lanes. 2 

Hardest

Depth perception. 1 

Getting accustomed to how the robot moves. 1 

Maneuvering the robot effectively, and at a faster pace. 2 

Driving the robot. 2 

Negotiating obstacle at end of lane. 1 

Staying in the lane. 1 
32

Comments No. of Responses

Turning sensitivity of robot. 1 

Controlling the robot (joystick). 1 

L-R sensitivity of joystick. 1 

Adjusting to the use of one eye. 2 

Target distribution on the monitor. 1 

Identifying the objects on the screen. 1 

Identifying smaller items. 1 

Identifying some things because of shadows. 2 

The sun made it hard to see and identify sometimes. 6 

Overcoming negative visual limitations (seeing through the camera with sunny spots 

or not being able to look around without moving). 

1 

Target identification. 8 

Leg A. 1 

Viewing on the training screen. 1 

3. What are your comments on the training course? 

Excellent course. 4 

Good, short course. 1 

Good training. 4 

Well organized. 2 

Very professional. 1 

Extremely beneficial to the execution of the actual course. 1 

Easy and complete. 1 

Easy to learn and use gear. 1 

How useful these robots will be. 1 

Passionate staff that is very excited. 1 

Robot is easier to maneuver than I expected. 1 

It is sufficient enough to get a feel for operating/negotiating the Talon along the 

course. 

1 

I have a fair amount of stick time (Iraq) on the Talon. It’s good to see improvements 

being tested. 

1 

Because of the technical difficulties with the system (picture), I was unable to 

maximize its use on the lane. 

1 

I was very impressed with the way the robot handled. The camera and monitor 

combination were decent, but could definitely be improved. 

More training on identifying suspicious objects needed. 1 

The obstacles weren’t always easy to see or identify. 1 

The screen gets a lot of distortion; flickers on rough spots on the track. 1 

Could use more time get the look of the screen and the feel of the controls. 1 

If camera was not as jumpy, would be helpful. 1 
33

POST ITERATION 

SAMPLE SIZE = 32 

1. Using the scale below, please rate your ability to perform each of the following navigation

tasks based on your experience with the display that you just used: 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Extremely 

difficult 

Very 

difficult 

Difficult Neutral Easy Very easy Extremely 

easy 

MEAN NAVIGATION TASKS 

A B C D 

a. Move in the correct direction 5.63 5.69 6.00 5.16 

b. Avoid obstacles 5.50 5.62 5.63 4.91 

c. Avoid pot holes 5.07 5.28 5.17 4.50 

d. Assess down slopes for navigability 5.03 5.21 5.19 4.43 

e. Assess side slopes for navigability 4.97 5.14 5.23 4.43 

f. Identify any other terrain features that might have an adverse 

effect on the ability of the robot to maneuver through the terrain 

5.06 5.03 5.35 4.48 

g. Localize the robotic vehicle within the environment so that 

you can tell where the sides of the vehicle are located 

5.41 5.31 5.66 4.94 

h. Localize the robotic vehicle within the environment so that 

you can tell where the front of the vehicle is located 

5.91 5.72 6.00 5.34 

i. Localize the robotic vehicle within the environment so that you 

can tell where the back of the vehicle is located 

4.65 4.58 4.84 4.29 

j. Anticipate whether the ground clearance of the vehicle will 

allow negotiation of rugged terrain 

4.75 4.68 4.87 4.22 

k. Anticipate whether the turn radius of the vehicle will allow a 

turn 

5.47 5.59 5.53 5.06 

l. Identify whether you have navigated through this terrain in the 

past. 

4.90 4.90 5.20 4.53 

m. Identify if you are on the correct path 5.13 5.38 5.59 4.91 

n. See far enough ahead to plan route in advance 5.16 5.25 5.38 4.81 

o. See well enough to drive at slowest speeds 5.47 5.78 5.94 5.41 

p. See well enough to drive at medium speeds 5.03 5.22 5.53 4.69 

q. See well enough to drive at fastest speeds 4.28 4.63 4.88 3.94 

r. Overall ability to perform driving tasks 5.03 5.31 5.63 4.69 
34

Comments No. of Responses

Display A

Great size, view. 1 

Overall driving ability was good. 1 

Very easy to navigate. 2 

Easy to navigate with big screen. 1 

Steady picture throughout. 1 

Speed and turn ability of the vehicle is fine. 1 

Much easier to see all targets. 1 

Robot was easy to move, but more difficult to turn and keep on track at the same 

time. 

1 

Navigation was off, but I feel that had a lot to do with the joystick being sensitive 

and not so much the robot. 

1 

For the most part, very fluid. 1 

Video quality was poor throughout lane. 1 

Resolution was very bad. 1 

Reception was poor. 2 

Camera distorting view. 1 

Screen picture is distorted most of the time. Makes it difficult to identify targets and 

the correct path to travel. 

Difficult to navigate over. Robot had to be moved manually. 

3 

2 

When distorted, pixels were way too big. 1 

Pixilation main issue on control screen which hampered my control. Had to stop 

several times to wait for a clearer screen. 

1 

Hard to judge right side due to camera placement. 1 

A lot of technical interference. 1 

Display B

Clearest to this point. 3 

Very easy to navigate. 3 

Picture quality high except for a few spots. 1 

Great picture when stationary, but deteriorates rapidly as you start to move. 1 

Camera was at times a hindrance. 1 

Joystick was overly sensitive, which made it hard to navigate. 1 

Improve clarity of screen resolution. 1 

Screen was blurred and distorted at times. 3 

Lots of picture breakup throughout. I had limited visibility 30% of the route and 

complete blackout/whiteout 5% of the time. 

1 

PDA size was better. 1 

Has to magnify the mega pixels too much. 1 

The wind made reception very poor. 1 

Bad reception to view camera feed from robot. 1 

Display C

Excellent view of area to navigate. 1 
35

Comments No. of Responses

Very easy to navigate even with smaller screen. 2 

Worked well. 1 

Performs well on smooth terrain with little to no vegetation. 1 

By far best screen to complete tasks, but had to sit and pay close attention to screen 

due to size. 

1 

Smaller screen allows for more focus while navigating. 1 

Navigation was more accurate the second time. 1 

Picture clarity allowed user to see far enough to adjust for proper maneuver. 1 

Way better than GMD, and no lag in video. 1 

Other than flickering screen, I could see fairly well to navigate. 1 

Reception was very bad at most times. 1 

Poor visibility. 1 

Poor picture quality. 1 

Difficulties due to glare and broken feedback. Had to wait a few seconds for good 

feedback to return. 

1 

A little trouble seeing distance. 1 

L to R axis did not respond well. The robot to controller log was bad at times and I 

frequently had to stop while attempting L to R movements. We even had to turn 

off the control consoled once to try to fix the issue. 

1 

Display D

Excellent handling. 1 

Easier than I thought it would be. 1 

Control seems to be easier with this monitor. 1 

The turning radius and full view picture is quite accurate. 2 

Navigation is easy except during faded signals and screen saturation from direct 

sunlight. 

1 

Delay on the monitor. 1 

Monitor inoperability (picture in/out). 1 

Unable to identify lane, and had problems trying to ID and maintain situational 

awareness. 

1 

Very blurry picture with a lot of interference. 2 

Picture was often broken up or distorted and pixilated, which caused driving to be 

more difficult. 

Very difficult to utilize compared to the screen views. 1 

The eyes were fitted for a right-eye dominant wearer and I’m left-eye dominant, so 

the task was more difficult. 

2 

I had to stop the vehicle a lot in order to navigate. 1 

Control of robot difficult due to grainy, pixilated view in glasses. 1 

Often hard to see; pixels were not sharp. 2 
36

Comments No. of Responses

Not sure if it was lighting, but there were sections where the course was not visible. 1 

It was hard to see in front, much less to the side. 1 

Could not see distinctly to navigate well. Extremely frustrating. 1 

Kept losing camera. 1 

Static and sticking when bumpy. 1 

2. Using the scale below, please rate your ability to ability to maintain situation awareness 

around the vehicle with the display that you just used: 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Extremely 

difficult 

Very difficult Difficult Neutral Easy Very 

easy 

Extremely 

easy 

MEAN SITUATION AWARENESS TASKS 

A B C D 

a. Locate mines 3.97 4.73 4.50 3.94 

b. Locate IEDs 4.31 4.84 4.78 4.19 

c. Locate booby traps 4.00 4.57 4.43 3.82 

d. Locate enemy personnel targets 5.84 5.94 5.94 5.31 

e. Overall situation awareness of the environment around the 

vehicle 

4.75 5.16 5.28 4.66 

Display A

Good platform; easier to estimate size and distance. 1 

Could see better with this screen, but peripheral vision was limited so couldn’t see 

until past the object. 

1 

With exception of resolution/contrast issues due to weak signal, overall situation 

awareness is mostly improved over all other screen sizes. 

1 

Most of the targets were easily identifiable. The personnel targets were the easiest; 

mines were the most difficult. 

1 

Better to ID smaller IEDs, than other instruments. 1 

Very difficult to identify smaller objects. 1 

Hard to determine IED vs. natural objects at times. 1 

Display had a lot of interference. 1 

Camera going in and out. 1 

Screen picture is distorted which makes it difficult to distinguish a tree from a 

personal target. Pipe and pressure bombs are definitely impossible to identify on 

the given terrain. 

1 

Picture clarity affected situation awareness. 2 
37

Comments No. of Responses

If there was a way to minimize visual distortion, it would be very easy to locate 

targets. 

1 

Resolution should be improved. 1 

Pixilation of camera view was severe. 1 

The rougher the terrain, the more pixilation. Harder to see while moving at full 

speed. 

1 

Difficult to find engineer tape on the ground after negotiating obstacle. 1 

Lost picture occasionally. 1 

Display B

Very easy to see enemy personnel and mines. 1 

Picture allowed for situation awareness. 1 

Pretty easy to differentiate size and natural vs. man-made. 1 

Display not big enough at times. 1 

I received a weak signal throughout the majority of the exercise resulting in poor 

image quality. 

1 

Resolution needs improving. 1 

Had difficulty when screen was blurry. 1 

Had to stop periodically to identify any potential targets. 1 

Clarity. 1 

When moving, image was choppy and would freeze. 2 

Would be better if there was no screen breakup. 1 

Camera made it very difficult to identify targets. A lot of fuzziness and camera 

going in and out. 

1 

Display C

Easy to ID personnel targets. 1 

Better video and little lag time. 1 

Still very easy to locate IEDs and enemy personnel. 2 

At times there was technical interference with the picture, but mostly you could see 

what was going on around you. 

1 

Identification depends mainly on clarity of visual pixilation. 1 

Location was easy, but differentiating size can be tough. 1 

Easier to use my peripheral vision than on the glasses. 1 

If reception was better, it would be easier. 1 

Picture quality and sunlight created many reflections, which were at times mistaken 

as IEDs. 

1 

Screen fade outs, and sun (direct light) made some areas of course difficult to gain 

situational awareness. 

1 

Only have view to front and no audio. This makes it difficult to have situational 

awareness. 

1 

Small screen made it tough at times. 1 

Hard to ID IEDs because of scale. 1 

It was very difficult to see at times because the camera was very scratchy. 1 
38

Comments No. of Responses

Display D

Display is very good. 1 

Observation to the front is ideal. 1 

Takes time to become adjusted to picture with one eye. Puts strain on it and could 

become tiring after awhile. 

4 

Focus on the eyepiece was not 100%. 1 

Observation from the sides is limited and there are no rear views available. 1 

Faded signal screen saturations are major factors in situational awareness. 1 

Often the screen was unclear, static or distorted so it made finding smaller objects 

unclear. 

4 

Targets appeared in the screen, but without prior knowledge of what they look like, 

it would be very difficult to ID them. It was not easy to ID something out of place 

in the lane because of the picture display. 

1 

Camera visibility made it difficult to identify targets at distance. 1 

Very difficult to ID targets. 3 

The only obvious targets were the personnel targets. 2 

Difficult to determine size and differential between natural objects and IEDs. 1 

A lot of interference with this route. I had to stop several times for the picture to 

clear up enough for me to continue. 

2 

3. During this trial, did you experience any of the following? 

Number of Responses 

A B C D 

Eyestrain 6 4 2 21 

Tunnel vision 1 1 1 2 

Headaches 0 0 0 1 

Motion sickness 0 0 0 3 

Nausea 0 0 0 1 

Disorientation 1 1 0 4 

Dizziness 0 0 0 1 

Any other problems? 1 0 0 4 

Display A

Size of screen was adequate. 1 

Not as much static with this screen and closer to the ground so could see terrain 

better. 

1 

Choppy screen. 1 
39

Comments No. of Responses

Video in/out; required constant squinting. 1 

Video quality poor; made task extremely difficult. 4 

Hard to distinguish objects. 1 

Feedback too broken to visualize. 1 

Peripheral vision limited. 1 

Disorientation due to static on screen. 1 

Display B

Good size screen. 1 

Eyestrain when trying to identify targets at times. 1 

Eyestrain caused by fuzzy screen. 1 

Screen blurred and distorted at times. 1 

Glare on the course and at the monitor in early morning. 1 

Screen was jumpy; hard to focus. 1 

Disorientation due to sun reflection. 1 

Display C

Size of picture was average. 1 

PDA size of monitor works much better than the GMD system due to its size. 1 

Targets are easier to identify without having to strain your eyes. 1 

Eyestrain because camera fuzzy. 1 

Eyestrain and tunnel vision due to screen size. 1 

Could foresee headaches/migraines if watched through this screen a lot. 1 

Display D

Overall, good system. 1 

Screen perhaps can be a little bigger. 2 

Screen fuzzy at times. 1 

Glasses strained my vision. Combination of bad screen and only one screen for one 

eye. 

1 

Only see directly in front. 1 

I wasn’t relaxed with my vision; was moving my head around. 1 

Blocking out right side would help. 1 

At times I had to close one eye in order to see. 2 

Had to concentrate on keeping non-HUD eye closed and focus dominant eye on 

viewing at very close screen. 

1 

Eyestrain because of squinting. 2 

Eyestrain due to trying to focus. 1 

Right eye fatigue. 7 

Had to close both eyes to get the best visual. 1 

Would have been easier to use my left eye since I am left eye dominant. 2 

I would develop a headache if used for extended period of time. 2 
40

Comments No. of Responses

Had no clue what I was looking at. 1 

Disorientation after major video disruption. 1 

Disorientation when spun around too quickly. 1 

Visual distortion. 2 

Nausea like I was driving. 1 

Dizziness from no focus. 1 

Motion sickness due to the rapid movement to focus in small monitor. 1 

4. Using the scale below, please rate the following characteristics of the display that you just used: 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Extremely bad Very bad Bad Neutral Good Very good Extremely good 

MEAN DISPLAY CHARACTERISTICS 

A B C D 

a. Resolution (clarity) 3.47 4.25 4.75 3.88 

b. Size of objects appearing in the display 5.19 5.22 4.81 4.63 

c. Comfort of viewing the display 4.81 5.12 4.91 4.00 

d. Contrast between objects 4.44 4.91 4.91 4.29 

e. Display color 4.50 4.78 4.84 4.38 

f. Display brightness 4.69 4.84 5.00 4.47 

g. The effect of the size and shape of the display on mobility of 

the dismounted Soldier 

4.81 4.94 5.09 4.97 

h. Adequacy of a display of this size for tele-operating a robotic 

vehicle 

5.31 5.16 4.97 4.69 

5. Using the scale below, what is your overall rating of the display that you used this iteration? 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Extremely bad Very bad Bad Neutral Good Very good Extremely good 

MEAN 

A B C D 

4.75 5.06 4.96 4.40 

Display A

Good size display. 2 

Easy to use. 2 

No difficulty in positioning and operation. 1 

Best view when identifying targets, IEDs. 1 
41

Comments No. of Responses

When screen was clear, this was the best screen to operate with. 1 

Screen was good when signal was good. 2 

I like the PDA view when driving, and the big screen when identifying targets. 1 

Large objects can be easily seen. 1 

Display size is adequate. 3 

With improvements to the resolution, the display would be great. 1 

This screen should be used for identifying objects close to the ground in plain view. 1 

This size screen would be better suited for a vehicle. It may be too bulky for 

dismounted soldier. 

1 

Lots of interference, but otherwise great. 1 

Get a better resolution camera with anti-shock and then it would be great. 1 

Technical interference of display was only problem. 1 

Video quality/clarity is poor; distorted. 8 

Visual feedback was not as good as expected for the size of the display. Feedback 

too broken; had to stop many times during mission to relocate self and vehicle. 

1 

Lack of clarity made it very difficult to distinguish smaller objects. 1 

Lack of contrast and almost eye blinding brightness at places didn’t help. 1 

Had difficulty identifying targets with the morning sun coming directly into the 

camera. 

2 

Pixels way too big. 1 

Pixilation ruined the advantage of a larger screen. Fix this issue and the screen size. 

There was less pixilation on the CDA size. I’d go with CDA only because of that 

reason. 

2 

1 

Screen kept fading out. 2 

Display B

Best display to this point. 4 

Display was very good. 2 

Better clarity and contrast. 3 

Good blend of size and mobility to display clarity. 1 

Better driving view compared to the big screen. 1 

Could navigate quickly and distinguish objects. 2 

The display was small, but I could see objects of interest. 1 

This size screen would be adequate given the resolution was better. 1 

View was good, but when signal was weak, unable to ID or see smaller devices. 1 
42

Comments No. of Responses

If given the opportunity to periodically stop and let the picture focus, the system 

would be very effective. 

1 

Visual distortion while moving or standing was high. 2 

Could see well when screen wasn’t scrambling. 1 

Screen breakup and light conditions make the robot much harder to operate. 1 

Very blurry. 1 

Camera pixels bad on rough terrain. 1 

Resolution unclear at times, making it difficult to identify objects – even within 10 

meters. 

3 

In bright sunlight, some objects are difficult to see. 1 

Still too bright. 1 

I prefer driving: PDA view. 1 

I prefer location targets: big screen. 1 

Wind really presented reception problems. 1 

Would not recommend this display for the size of the robot. Too much interference 

which took time to correct. 

1 

Had the signal been strong throughout exercise, I believe I would have detected a 

substantial increase in man-made objects. On several targets, I could not get a 

good enough image to discern it from natural and man-made objects. 

1 

Display C

This display was clearly the best of the four. 1 

Best screen for clarity. 1 

The displays were mainly good throughout test. 1 

Easy to navigate course. 1 

I would like to work with this system. 1 

Overall, a good system. 2 

Visibility and clarity were extremely good. 1 

It was better driving the robot compared to the goggles. Anticipation on where I 

was going was a factor. 

1 

For the dismounted soldier, I feel this display is suitable and would provide ease of 

storing if needed. 

1 

When receiving correctly, looks very adequate to accomplish its mission. 1 

Better than CDA, but not quite as good as the FBCB2. 1 

Display, although small, could be used very easily. 1 

Would serve well in theater with some enhancements. 1 

Clarity was good, but I prefer the CDA just because it’s bigger. 1 

Clear, but the brightness was too high, which inhibited distant target viewing. 1 

Sun glare made it difficult to see in certain directions. 1 

Screen too small for me; wouldn’t like to look at this long. 1 
43

Comments No. of Responses

Had to close in on display to achieve better recognition. 1 

Display too small. 2 

Miss some level of detail due to screen size. 2 

Screen kept fading out. 1 

Display changed colors frequently in brighter areas. 1 

The reception was poor, so display was filled with static, and lines with 

discoloration. I needed to stop multiple times to allow the display to quit 

“freezing” before I could continue. 

1 

A lot of feedback from display made control difficult at times. 1 

Signal strength needs improvement for remote use. 1 

Need to enhance picture quality to make positive ID of IED and any other perceived 

threat. 

1 

There was a delay every now and then which would cause me to have to stop for a 

minute until the picture caught up. 

2 

There were lots of flashes and lines on the display which caused it to be difficult to 

see the terrain, objects, and lane. 

1 

Camera viewing was very difficult at times. 1 

Display D

Overall, good equipment. 1 

I was really impressed with the clarity of the picture and precision of the turning 

radius. 

1 

Focus seemed clearer. 1 

The size and fit would be ideal for a dismounted soldier. 1 

Adapted to size quickly. 1 

Would be perfect for small, light units if picture was clearer. 1 

Although awkward getting used to a HUD, it provided a better than the PDA size 

viewer. 

1 

Display was very clear while the robot was still, but broken up during movement. 1 

If the eyepiece (left/right eye dominant) and the distortion was corrected, this would 

be a great piece of equipment. 

2 

Needs great improvement. 1 

Least favorite of all. 1 

Better definition, but still way too bright with not enough contrast between objects. 1 

Could be interesting to try under different light. There were times when the picture 

was great and other times when it was poor. 

1 

A little weird using only one eye, but otherwise the resolution and color were good. 1 

If there could be a way to see the display with the right eye while “blocking out” the 

left eye, it would allow me to concentrate a lot more on the tasks at hand. 

1 
44

Comments No. of Responses

Tried to drive with both eyes, but it was easier to close my left eye. I was trying to 

put myself in a real situation that I have to be aware of my surroundings also while 

my other eye is concentrating on the display. 

1 

This display method is extremely uncomfortable to use as it puts strain on both eyes. 

It was extremely difficult to see and monitor the movements of the robot because 

of poor picture quality and resolution. 

1 

Uncomfortable due to using one eye. 2 

Eye fatigue occurred quickly during exercise. 1 

Display sight picture was at times glaring, making it difficult to see the path of the 

objects. 

1 

The size of the display was not the major issue; the pixilation and poor clarity were. 1 

Everything listed in “display characteristics” (i.e., picture, brightness, color and 

objects) needs to improve to make this system a more effective war fighting tool. 

1 

Signal strength and direct sun saturation are the biggest impediments. 1 

Eyepiece lacks clarity. 2 

Too much delay in video. 1 

This was the most difficult viewing thus far. 1 

Not soldier friendly. 1 

Unable to visualize or figure out where or what I was doing; frustrating! 1 
45

END OF EXPERIMENT 

SAMPLE SIZE = 32 

1. Please rank order the displays in the order of your preference – with 1 being your favorite, 2 

your second choice, etc. 

MEAN 

A B C D 

2.66 1.93 2.23 3.21 

Comments No. of Responses

Display A

Biggest and clearest. 2 

Easiest to pick out objects on. 1 

Best contrast in order to ID potential IEDs. 1 

Size makes it rank well with me. 3 

Good tool. 1 

Easiest. 3 

Enjoyed larger screen, but pixilation and clarity are an issue. 1 

Display needs to be improved. 1 

Largest display was not at clear. 4 

Big enough for target ID, but when reception was bad, the big pixels distorted the 

picture. 

1 

Broken up and distorted. 4 

Resolution is bad. 1 

Couldn’t keep picture. 1 

Display B

Ranking totally based on maneuverability and ability to locate IEDs, etc. I would 

rather have the best equipment than the equipment that is the lightest. 

1 

Easy to use. 2 

Great compromise between size and clarity. 3 

Good size. 4 

Large enough to be comfortable and portable. 2 

Very clear. 6 

OK; some static. 1 

Too big for combat soldier. 1 

Too large to carry. 1 

Not very good. 1 

Bad resolution for its size. 1 
46

Comments No. of Responses

Display C

Good clarity. 7 

Good because resolution was optimal relative to the size of the display. 1 

Good for soldier mobility. 1 

Best mix of size and clarity. 1 

Easier to drive/navigate. 2 

Easy to use. 3 

No problem with the camera. 1 

Good size; easy to carry. 1 

Size is best for dismounted troops. 1 

Most adequate size relative to maneuverability. 1 

Tougher than the others. 1 

Had better graphics. 1 

Liked the portability. It is small enough and can be easily put in a ruck or attached. 

Weighs less and the screen size is optimal for a good view to ID threat. 

2 

Had to get real close to screen, so it wasn’t so clear. 1 

Too small. 3 

Last resort. Straining eyes an issue. 1 

Display D

Size is best for dismounted troops. 1 

I like the size. 2 

Good for functionality. 1 

Ability to localize objects in the ground. 1 

The most convenient item. 1 

Had the most clarity. 1 

Good idea, but needs some black backdrop/shade to be effective. 1 

The clearest, but had to hold goggles close to face in order to use well. 1 

I felt good with this display because it forced me to pay more attention because I 

only had the use of one eye and I thought the technical side was the best. 

1 

Good except for the ability to use only one eye. 2 

Could be very good if clarity was increased. 1 

Made my eyes tired when keeping one eye closed for extended period of time. 5 

Using one eye gave me a headache. 1 

The eyes cause me to be slightly motion sick. 1 

I had to close one eye the entire time because I am left-eye dominant. 1 

While still clear for the most part, it was somewhat distracting as I found myself 

moving my head in a futile attempt to increase the view. 

1 
47

Comments No. of Responses

Uncomfortable. 3 

Picture was way too small. 2 

Focus was not good. 1 

Harder to use. 2 

Required too much effort to see. 2 

Hard to see through. 1 

The resolution (pixeling) was not the same across the board. 1 

Most ineffective due to constraints of vision. 1 

2. Do you have any suggestions for ways to increase the effectiveness of the displays? 

The displays need to be clearer; less distortion. 6 

Use the most effective display that produces maximum results and is comfortable to 

the user. 

1 

Improve resolution. 3 

Reduce the fading out of display. 1 

Work on pixilation. 2 

More pixels on some of the larger displays. The feed from the camera gets distorted 

quite easily with movement. 

1 

Possible use the HUD with both eyes. 1 

Increase the quality of viewing picture. Soldier would benefit from clear picture, 

especially concerning IED detection. 

1 

Improve overall view (color, contrast, brightness, etc.). 2 

Adjust the brightness so that clarity can be maintained in bright or darker conditions. 1 

Enhance the contrast by lowering the brightness. The glare sometimes diminished 

contrast to the point that you couldn’t see the object until it was right there. 

1 

Match the view screen to the dominant eye. 1 

Use the new LCD or plasma tech with system to enhance its display. 1 

Better optics and increase video transfer data rate. 1 

If the camera could move from side to side while the robot is stopped to check on 

items visualized. 

1 

Cameras to monitor displays can be better. 1 

Better visual image from the camera. 1 

The ability to move the camera while leaving the robot on its current heading. 1 

Put some sort of sun visor on the camera. Sun made it difficult to see. 1 

Keep the weight low and compact. 1 

Add a manual zoom adjustment. 1 
48

Comments No. of Responses

The wind affected the display on several iterations. 2 

Shaking of display over bumps. 1 

Improve signal strength to improve remote operations. 2 

Better signal quality. 2 

I prefer the FBCB2 size, but the mega pixels seemed stretched and more grainy. 1 

Better antennas for better reception. 1 

The transmission and reception quality needs to be better for this system to be 

combat effective. 

1 

Difficult to differentiate between shadows from the trees and IEDs. 1 

3. Do you have any suggestions on ways to improve the driving training course? 

No, the course was helpful. 6 

Good training. 3 

White engineer tape is perfect but not all in the course. 1 

Use a different color engineer tape to highlight the course. Neon colors work best. 1 

Have more than one practice session. 1 

Should be trying this in an urban area and roads. Our soldiers are not operating in 

the woods for the most part in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

1 

Integrate more urban obstacles, i.e., small buildings, cars, etc. to better simulate the 

environment soldiers will encounter in Iraq or Afghanistan. 

1 

Give trainees a course where they can see their robot reacting to their joystick 

movements. 

1 

Course was set up well with different kinds of terrain. Maybe a little more sloping 

terrain. 

3 

Incorporate small ditch or trench. 1 

Display needs to be improved. 1 

Go from smooth surface with gentle corners to off-roading with hills and complex 

corners. 

1 

Point out what each item is on the screen as they are seen. 1 

More turns and targets. 1 

Take sun into effect when picking route. 1 

Left/right sensibility a little fast. 1 

Have a smaller hand device. 1 

Improve the image that is transmitted to image screen to have less distortions. 1 
49

4. Do you have any suggestions on ways to improve the driving lanes that you negotiated? 

Comments No. of Responses

No, good. 4 

Lanes were well planned. 1 

It’s a good thing we had a trial first before we went to the lanes. 1 

Make the courses a little more difficult. 1 

Electronic interference was the only bad aspect of it. 1 

Incorporate urban terrain, night time with night vision and desert-like conditions. 2 

Try to use training aides more realistic to theater (artillery shells or mortars, etc.). 1 

Include slide slopes, potholes, muddy terrain, and water holes along the course. 1 

Have buildings and curbs. 2 

More hills. These are harder to navigate and might show other flaws. 4 

More turns. 1 

Add some length to the course; more targets. 1 

Don’t stop when robot goes outside of lane. Give leeway to user to find way back. 1 

Take sun into effect as well. 1 

5. Using the scale below, please rate the importance of the following information that is needed 

for tele-operating a robot. 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 

Extremely 

Unimportant 

Very 

Unimportant 

Unimportant Neutral Important Very 

Important 

Extremely 

Important 

MEAN 

a. Heading information 5.16 

b. Relative distance to obstacles 5.47 

c. Depth of pot holes 4.81 

d. Information on navigability of down slopes (tilt meter) 4.94 

e. Information on navigability of side slopes (tilt meter) 5.03 

f. Identification of any other terrain features that might have an adverse effect on 

the ability of the robot to maneuver through the terrain 

5.41 

g. Ability to determine where the sides of the vehicle are located. (sides are in the 

camera field of view or are marked on the screen) 

5.31 
50

(cont) 

MEAN 

h. Ability to determine where front of the vehicle is located 5.69 

i. Ability to determine where back of the vehicle is located 4.84 

j. Information concerning whether the ground clearance of the vehicle will allow 

negotiation of rugged terrain 

5.12 

k. Indication of the turn radius of the vehicle 5.16 

l. Information on the terrain closer than 6 inches in front of the vehicle 4.94 

m. Information on the terrain 5 to 15 feet in front of vehicle 5.66 

n. Information on the terrain greater than 15 feet in front of vehicle 5.22 

o. Information on current speed of the vehicle (speedometer) 4.34 

p. Information on vehicle revolutions per minute 3.66 

q. Information on the way the vehicle motor sounds 4.06 

r. Information on other noises present in the vehicle’s environment 5.03 

s. Information concerning the color of objects in the environment (color vs. black 

and white camera) 

6.16 

t. Information concerning objects on the side of the vehicle (side facing cameras) 5.31 

u. Information concerning objects behind the vehicle (back facing camera) 5.28 

v. Information concerning the condition of the vehicle tires/tracks. 4.44 

w. Information concerning the temperature of vehicle 4.22 

x. Feedback on the ruggedness of terrain. 4.81 

y. Information concerning any delay between the time the operator sends a vehicle 

command and the time that the vehicle responds (i.e., how long after a stop 

command is sent before the vehicle actually stops) 

5.66 

z. Feedback concerning whether or not the vehicle correctly received a command 5.72 

aa. Battery status 6.19 

bb. Fuel status 6.19 

cc. Vehicle temperature 4.97 

dd. Other information requirement (if any) 5.80 

6. What are your comments on information needed for tele-operating a vehicle? 

Robots surpassed my expectations. 1 

Great experience. Happy I could contribute my input. 1 

Good system. 1 
51

Comments No. of Responses

Picture was clear. 1 

Too heavy (transport big/small). 1 

Hard to maneuver the robots due to the feedback in the screens being so choppy and 

distorted. 

1 

Improve picture and ID capability. 1 

Better optics and training. 1 

At least one camera with telescoping potential. 1 

Signal strength is the biggest contributor to overall ability to discern objects in 

viewer. Needs a very good camera and a very strong/consistent signal. 

1 

If camera had swivel capability to see on each side of the vehicle. 1 

Thermal will help ID people and running vehicles. 1 

Maybe an instrument panel/gauge cluster or display on monitor of above items. 1 

When going uphill, it is more difficult to see close to the front of the vehicle. 1 

It could be better if there was control on speed on the robot. 1 

It could be better if there was a separate control on the camera and robot (i.e., zoom 

in/out, left/right/forward/rear, etc.) 

1 
52

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 1 DEFENSE TECHNICAL 

 (PDF INFORMATION CTR 

 Only) DTIC OCA 

 8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD 

 STE 0944 

 FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-6218 

 1 US ARMY RSRCH DEV & ENGRG CMD 

 SYSTEMS OF SYSTEMS 

 INTEGRATION 

 AMSRD SS T 

 6000 6TH ST STE 100 

 FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-5608 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 IMNE ALC IMS 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRD ARL CI OK TL 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RESEARCH LAB 

 AMSRD ARL CS OK T 

 2800 POWDER MILL RD 

 ADELPHI MD 20783-1197 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR ML J MARTIN 

 MYER CENTER RM 2D311 

 FT MONMOUTH NJ 07703-5601 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MZ A DAVISON 

 199 E 4TH ST STE C TECH PARK BLDG 2 

 FT LEONARD WOOD MO 65473-1949 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MD T COOK 

 BLDG 5400 RM C242 

 REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 35898-7290 

 1 COMMANDANT USAADASCH 

 ATTN ATSA CD 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR ME DR HAWLEY 

 5800 CARTER RD 

 FT BLISS TX 79916-3802 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MM DR V RICE-BERG 

 BLDG 4011 RM 217 

 1750 GREELEY RD 

 FT SAM HOUSTON TX 78234-5002 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MG R SPINE 

 BUILDING 333 

 PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000 

 1 ARL HRED ARMC FLD ELMT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MH C BURNS 

 BLDG 1467B ROOM 336 

 THIRD AVENUE 

 FT KNOX KY 40121 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 AWC FIELD ELEMENT 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MJ D DURBIN 

 BLDG 4506 (DCD) RM 107 

 FT RUCKER AL 36362-5000 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MK MR J REINHART 

 10125 KINGMAN RD 

 FT BELVOIR VA 22060-5828 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MV HQ USAOTC 

 S MIDDLEBROOKS 

 91012 STATION AVE ROOM 348 

 FT HOOD TX 76544-5073 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MY M BARNES 

 2520 HEALY AVE STE 1172 BLDG 51005 

 FT HUACHUCA AZ 85613-7069 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MP D UNGVARSKY 

 BATTLE CMD BATTLE LAB 

 415 SHERMAN AVE UNIT 3 

 FT LEAVENWORTH KS 66027-2326 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MJF J HANSBERGER 

 JFCOM JOINT EXPERIMENTATION J9 

 JOINT FUTURES LAB 

 115 LAKEVIEW PARKWAY SUITE B 

 SUFFOLK VA 23435 
53

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MQ M R FLETCHER 

 US ARMY SBCCOM NATICK SOLDIER CTR 

 AMSRD NSC WS E BLDG 3 RM 343 

 NATICK MA 01760-5020 

 2 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MT J CHEN 

 C KORTENHAUS 

 12350 RESEARCH PARKWAY 

 ORLANDO FL 32826 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MS MR C MANASCO 

 SIGNAL TOWERS ROOM 303 

 FORT GORDON GA 30905-5233 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MU M SINGAPORE 

 6501 E 11 MILE RD MAIL STOP 284 

 BLDG 200A 2ND FL RM 2104 

 WARREN MI 48397-5000 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MF MR C HERNANDEZ 

 BLDG 3040 RM 220 

 FORT SILL OK 73503-5600 

 5 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MW E REDDEN 

 BLDG 4 ROOM 332 

 FT BENNING GA 31905-5400 

 1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY - HRED 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MN R SPENCER 

 DCSFDI HF 

 HQ USASOC BLDG E2929 

 FORT BRAGG NC 28310-5000 

 1 ARMY G1 

 ATTN DAPE MR B KNAPP 

 300 ARMY PENTAGON ROOM 2C489 

 WASHINGTON DC 20310-0300 

 ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL CI OK TECH LIB 

 BLDG 4600 

NO. OF 

COPIES ORGANIZATION

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL CI OK TP S FOPPIANO 

 BLDG 459 

 1 DIRECTOR 

 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 

 ATTN AMSRD ARL HR MR F PARAGALLO 

 BLDG 459