Tracker Mindset for Explosive Device Emplacement 

Indicator Detection

by Kristin M. Schweitzer and Alan D. Davison

ARL-TR-6989 September 2014

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.

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-6989 September 2014

Tracker Mindset for Explosive Device Emplacement 

Indicator Detection

Kristin M. Schweitzer and Alan D. Davison

Human Research and 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)

September 2014

2. REPORT TYPE

Final

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

November 2012–April 2014

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Tracker Mindset for Explosive Device Emplacement Indicator Detection

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Kristin M. Schweitzer and Alan D. Davison

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

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

U.S. Army Research Laboratory

ATTN: RDRL-HRM-AY

Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5425

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

ARL-TR-6989

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

Counter-Improvised Explosive Device Directorate

15152 FLW WP

Ft. Leonard Wood, MO 65473-8926

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT

 NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

While investigating landmine detection training for the AN/PSS-14, we noticed operators were so focused on the detector’s 

auditory output that they were surprisingly unaware of the visual indicators present from the emplacement process and even the 

landmine itself. We expanded our investigation to explore the possibility that visual detection training might improve landmine 

and improvised explosive device detection. We interviewed professional individuals who visually search natural environments, 

identified the methods they used to search an area, and analyzed the cognitive processes they used to interpret the information 

they perceived. We developed a curriculum based on the consistently successful methods most noted amongst the trackers and 

their approach to finding spoor. This study was a first step to evaluate the effectiveness of that visual detection curriculum. Our 

goal was to produce readily deployable training that unit leaders could use to improve their Soldiers’ visual detection skills. 

Each of the 28 Soldier-Engineers we recruited to participate in the study completed a pretraining knowledge test, photograph 

test, and spoor pit test. They participated in classroom instruction and practical exercises and then retook the three tests. We 

conclude that the training positively influenced the Soldiers’ ability to detect and interpret ground indicators, but we 

recommend improvements such as more varied and detailed indicators and scenarios before final deployment of the training.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

visual detection, tracking, tracker, IED, indicator

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 

17. LIMITATION

OF ABSTRACT

UU

18. NUMBER

OF PAGES

106

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Kristin M. Schweitzer

a. REPORT

Unclassified

b. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

520-538-4705

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
iii

Contents

List of Figures v

List of Tables vi

Acknowledgments vii

Executive Summary ix

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Project Background .........................................................................................................1

1.1.1 How Humans See ................................................................................................2

1.1.2 Visual Search Experts: Trackers .........................................................................3

1.1.3 Motivation ...........................................................................................................6

1.1.4 What Does It All Mean for IED Detection?........................................................6

1.2 Objective .........................................................................................................................7

1.3 Hypothesis.......................................................................................................................7

2. Method 7

2.1 Experimental Design .......................................................................................................7

2.2 Demographics..................................................................................................................8

2.3 Apparatus: Training as the Independent Variable...........................................................8

2.3.1 Training Curriculum: Sensation and Perception .................................................8

2.3.2 Training Curriculum: Tracking and Spoor Interpretation ...................................9

2.3.3 Training Curriculum: Spoor Pit Exercises ..........................................................9

2.3.4 Second Day Review ..........................................................................................11

2.4 Testing: Task Performance as the Dependent Variable ................................................12

2.4.1 Knowledge Test.................................................................................................12

2.4.2 Photo Test..........................................................................................................12

2.4.3 Spoor Pit Test ....................................................................................................12

2.5 Assumptions..................................................................................................................13

2.6 Analysis.........................................................................................................................13

2.7 Procedure.......................................................................................................................14
iv

3. Results 15

3.1 Knowledge Test.............................................................................................................15

3.2 Photo Test......................................................................................................................15

3.3 Spoor Pit Test................................................................................................................15

3.4 After Action Reviews....................................................................................................15

4. Discussion 16

5. Conclusions 17

5. References 19

Appendix A. Strangers in Israel: Trip Report 21

Appendix B. Training Curriculum: Classroom Lecture With Notes 27

Appendix C. Grasky Quiz 35

Appendix D. Knowledge Test, Photo Test, Spoor Pit Test, Scoring 39

Appendix E. After Action Review Comments 87

Distribution List 92
v

List of Figures

Figure 1. Tracker skill set and cognitive process.............................................................................5

Figure 2. Spoor pit layout. .............................................................................................................10

Figure B-1. Foot print. ...................................................................................................................34

Figure C-1. Grasky Quiz................................................................................................................36

Figure D-1. Two individuals walking single file. ..........................................................................46

Figure D-2. Covered wire (original). .............................................................................................47

Figure D-3. Covered wire (annotated)...........................................................................................47

Figure D-4. Road crossing and loiter (original).............................................................................49

Figure D-5. Road crossing and loiter (annotated)..........................................................................49

Figure D-6. Meet and leave (original). ..........................................................................................51

Figure D-7. Meet and leave (annotated). .......................................................................................52

Figure D-8. Coming and going (original). .....................................................................................53

Figure D-9. Coming and going (annotated)...................................................................................53

Figure D-10. Reconnaissance, spotter only (original). ..................................................................55

Figure D-11. Reconnaissance, spotter only (annotated). ...............................................................56

Figure D-12. Sit down (original). ..................................................................................................58

Figure D-13. Sit down (annotated). ...............................................................................................59

Figure D-14. Meet and leave involving two people (original). .....................................................61

Figure D-15. Meet and leave involving two people (annotated). ..................................................62

Figure D-16. Emplacement by one person (original). ...................................................................64

Figure D-17. Emplacement by one person (annotated). ................................................................65

Figure D-18. Drag line with one container (original)....................................................................67

Figure D-19. Drag line with one container (annotated).................................................................68

Figure D-20. Spotter and sniper (original).....................................................................................70

Figure D-21. Spotter and sniper (original).....................................................................................71

Figure D-22. Spotter and sniper (sniper annotated).......................................................................72

Figure D-23. Sit down and check pack (original)..........................................................................75

Figure D-24. Sit down and check pack (annotated).......................................................................76

Figure D-25. Meet and leave involving three people (original). ...................................................78

Figure D-26. Meet and leave involving three people (annotated). ................................................79

Figure D-27. Emplacement by two people (original). ...................................................................81
vi

Figure D-28. Emplacement by two people (annotated). ................................................................82

Figure D-29. Drag line with two containers (original). .................................................................84

Figure D-30. Drag line with two containers (annotated). ..............................................................85

List of Tables

Table 1. Participant military occupational specialties. ....................................................................8
vii

Acknowledgments

We want to express special recognition to and thanks for all the help Andrew S. Bodenhamer and 

Elizabeth A. Caplinger, both of the U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Human Research and 

Engineering Directorate-Human Factors Integration Division (ARL-HRED-HFID), who 

contributed in scoring the photo and spoor pit tests, and for Andrew's assistance with the 

statistical analysis. 

We also want to highlight the indispensible work that Kenneth L. Light, Robert D. Clark, and 

Fran Ramsey of ARL-HRED-HFID did setting up the study, and to Michael R. Robinson of the 

Capability Development Integration Directorate at the Maneuver Support Center of Excellence 

for helping us run the study.

The project would not have been so successful without their assistance. 
viii

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
ix

Executive Summary

The goal of this work is to teach visual searchers to use an objective tracker’s mindset to 

automatically sense and become aware of basic improvised explosive device (IED) features, to 

recognize suspicious areas, and to quickly interpret the traces that remain. Achieving the 

appropriate mindset should ultimately result in searchers finding an increased number of IED

emplacement indicators, whether they are from actual devices or hoaxes. The training we 

developed for this study details how humans visually detect items; they first must sense the 

visual stimuli at the physiological level, then become aware of the objects at the conscious level, 

and finally interpret the implications of the objects at a conscious level. The driving principle is 

to sensitize searchers to the desired target’s appearance. Through consistent, mindful practice a 

searcher may eventually transition the higher-level, conscious search task for a particular target 

into an automatic task that requires little to no conscious cognitive effort. 

Performance on a knowledge test, a photograph test, and a spoor pit test was recorded for 28 

Soldiers before they completed our training and again after our training. All three tests required 

answers to open-ended questions or a list of the individual’s observations. Posttraining

performance was superior in all but one case. While better performance was expected, the after 

action reviews captured the essence of the shift in thinking that many Soldiers began. They saw 

how light angle affected the visibility of indicators and how human behavior can be inferred 

from traces on the ground. 

We conclude that our training positively influenced the Soldiers’ ability to detect and interpret 

indicators on the ground. It is very difficult to quantify that influence, but Soldiers’ comments 

indicate that their approach to visual detection followed the tracking principles that we 

introduced. The study focused on dismounted searchers, but the training may also have merit 

with mounted searchers. Ultimately we believe this training is very valuable to small unit 

leaders, whether deployed or at a home station, who wish to improve the unit’s skills. The 

materials may be used as is, but several improvements are recommended before final 

implementation, such as more varied and detailed indicators and scenarios. 
x

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
1

1. Introduction

Terrorists strive to disrupt normal life in any way that might further their cause, and they will use 

any materials on hand to do so. The result is a mishmash of weapons and tactics that are 

challenging to fight with generic countermeasures. Arguably the most common and potentially 

devastating weapon of insurgent choice is an improvised explosive device (IED). An IED is a 

versatile weapon that can assume almost any appearance, fit into almost any tactical niche, and 

inflict anywhere from minor to extreme equipment or infrastructure damage. It can also be very 

deadly. Individuals with any range of experience, from an explosives novice to a war-hardened 

bomb expert, can construct an IED from readily available materials and tailor its function 

according to the planned target. With such variability, finding an IED after the terrorist has 

emplaced it is incredibly difficult.

The majority of IEDs that Soldiers find are detected using unaided vision. Consequently, the 

Department of Defense has focused intently on improving Soldiers’ visual detection 

performance. Visual detection involves knowing what common IED components look like, what 

might be anomalies in the visual environment, and what tactical locations are most likely to hold 

IEDs. To identify individuals who will likely be good IED detectors prior to deployments or 

missions, researchers have attempted to find correlations between visual IED detection 

performance and natural abilities ranging from vision to internal motivation. For example, recent 

Joint IED Defeat Organization-sponsored research has shown that experienced Soldiers quickly 

process a visual scene using tactical and strategic considerations whereas novices process the 

scene using a simple search-and-find process (Murphy, 2010). Other studies support the fact that 

tasks become automatic for individuals as they gain expertise (Fautua, et al., 2010; Mourant & 

Rockwell, 1972). 

This research was designed to evaluate the potential of using fundamental tracking skills to 

improve an individual’s ability to see and interpret spoor—a trace by which the progress of 

someone or something may be followed (Merriam Webster, 2013)—and as a result be able to 

better detect IEDs and their indicators.

1.1 Project Background

“Wherever he steps, whatever he touches, whatever he leaves, even unconsciously, will serve as 

a silent witness against him. Not only his fingerprints or his footprints, but his hair, the fibers 

from his clothes, the glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or 

semen he deposits or collects. All of these and more, bear mute witness against him. 

This is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not 

absent because human witnesses are. It is factual evidence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong, 
2

it cannot perjure itself, it cannot be wholly absent. Only human failure to find it, study and 

understand it, can diminish its value.” 

Dr. Paul Kirk (1902–1970)

Professor of Criminalistics

University of California, 

Berkeley 

Dr. Edmond Locard (1877–1966), the father of forensic science, observed, “It is impossible for a 

criminal to act, especially considering the intensity of a crime, without leaving traces of this 

presence” (Locard, 1923). Restated more concisely, every contact leaves a trace. We know the 

traces of an IED emplacement must exist. We know an enemy was present and that they

disturbed the environment in some way to lay the IED. We know that the enemy departed, 

leaving not only a device that is now an anomaly in the environment but their own spoor, a trace 

that follows them like a permanent shadow wherever they go. The question is, how do we find 

the traces?

1.1.1 How Humans See

Basically speaking, when light from the environment enters the eye, it stimulates the rod and 

cone photoreceptors on the retina to produce electrical impulses. Those impulses are then 

transmitted via the optical nerve to the visual cortex in the brain for processing.

* The eyes 

constantly move in short, closely spaced fixations called saccades to collect enough images for 

the brain to build a mosaic of the scene. The brain then fills any gaps in the mosaic with assumed 

context. However, the brain can only process images at a few degrees per second, so it needs a 

2–3 s dwell time at any given spot for good visual recognition. Fortunately, each fixation informs 

the next, subconsciously preventing people from unintentionally reviewing areas they have just 

seen and enabling them to search an area with near-optimal efficiency (Najemnik & Geisler, 

2005). The whole process is called sensing, where the visual receptors receive or sense visual 

input.

In addition to informed fixations, the brain uses two basic visual strategies to recognize or 

perceive appropriate targets. Bottom-up knowledge is the subconscious perception of the basic 

components of a target and is driven by information from the senses. The saliency or prominence 

of the target’s low-level features is measured by characteristics such as shape, contrast, color,

orientation, texture, and motion (Itti & Koch, 1999). 

Top-down knowledge is context or goal specific – the searcher knows what he is seeking (e.g.,

IED indicators) and is therefore more likely to recognize the target when his eyes sense it (Itti & 

Koch, 1999). Knowledge such as current intelligence or tactics influences the subconsciously 

perceived cues and contributes to an important memory phenomenon called automaticity. 

 

*Rod cells are located around the periphery of the retina and are responsible for peripheral and night vision. Cone cells are 

centrally located on the retina and are responsible for foveal and (daytime) color vision.
3

Through consistent exposure to new scenarios and target configurations a searcher will become 

more sensitive to that target’s appearance. He will eventually transition the higher-level, 

conscious search task for that particular target into a task that requires little to no conscious 

cognitive effort – the process becomes automatic (Holt & Rainey, 2002). 

Why is automaticity important? Automaticity influences several different aspects of visual 

detection. The most important is that it helps people identify IED emplacement indicators more 

quickly, which equates to stopping further away from potential IEDs. Standoff distance normally 

dictates the magnitude of damage a unit might incur, so skills that can increase standoff distance 

may reasonably increase personnel safety and reduce materiel damage. Automaticity can also 

reduce or eliminate the sensitivity decrement in vigilance tasks. For example, after the first half 

hour of a task, operators typically experience a steep decline in vigilance. However, with

observers who are so highly practiced that a task has become automatic rather than controlled, 

the sensitivity decrement to signals or targets is basically eliminated (Holt & Rainey, 2002).

Automaticity affects the way people approach a task. Mourant & Rockwell (1972) conducted a 

driving study that compared novice drivers’ fixations to expert drivers’ fixations. The study 

found that novice drivers would fix their foveal vision on the road and roadsides. They wanted to 

see each individual component of the task in focus and react in a very controlled manner. The 

experts on the other hand, used their peripheral vision to monitor the vehicle’s path and 

subconsciously make minor corrections as needed. They viewed the scene holistically and 

reacted automatically (Mourant & Rockwell, 1972). An everyday example of this is driving 

while tired. It is not uncommon for an experienced, sleepy driver to arrive at their destination, 

startled because they did not remember the drive there. Automatic control of the driving task 

allowed the driver to control the vehicle while their attention was not on the task.

Murphy found similar results involving IED detection. While novice Soldiers would 

methodically search a photograph scene for individual IED indicators, experienced Soldiers 

would view the whole scene from strategic and tactical perspectives first, and then focus their 

conscious search in those areas most likely to contain IEDs (Murphy, 2010). The whole is 

different from the sum of its parts, and experts and novices were seeing different pictures.

The bottom line is that when the primary search task becomes automatic, more processing power 

is available for the searcher to analyze target-specific details and environmental conditions. In 

other words, experts are able to derive more from a scene in a given amount of time than novices 

are able to. Fortunately, automaticity is a process that can be developed, and can it reduce the 

load on working memory by 90% (Eudoblox, 2014). 

1.1.2 Visual Search Experts: Trackers

When people think of trackers they typically envision a silent loner following what seem to be 

invisible signs of someone’s passage. In reality a tracker is a highly practiced individual who 

more often works as part of a team rather than alone. The task might be to follow quarry, 
4

backtrack*to a source, or exploit a site, but the clues are readily apparent to those who know 

how and where to look. To successfully perform these activities, trackers must use all of their 

senses, intuition, and cognitive abilities. They search for deviations from the baseline 

environment that might include disturbances on the ground such as a footprint or damaged 

vegetation, unusual behavior of people, animals, or insects in the area, or circumstances that 

simply do not make sense for a normal situation. The tracker must note all of the idiosyncrasies 

he encounters and then assign a value to them according to the situational context and available 

intelligence—whether it is normal for the situation or not. Even contamination†is useful in that it 

provides a timeline of activities. A tracker must rebuild an event from the evidence he finds, 

much as a detective does when forensically examining a crime scene. The interpretation will help 

the tracker determine whether the quarry is dangerous and might set up an ambush, injured and 

looking for a place to rest, or lost and oblivious that anyone is following. The more a tracker can 

anticipate the quarry, the easier and faster he will safely find it.

Figure 1 shows some of the different features and processes that a tracker’s skill set contains. 

The clouds represent relatively stable characteristics and capabilities that drive an individual’s 

cognitive process in general. They include outside information that will influence top-down 

processing and innate human attributes, some of which may be improved through training. The 

dashed ovals represent early steps in cognition, some of it subconscious and some of it 

conscious, where the tracker is beginning to compile the available information. The solid oval is 

the point at which the tracker is consciously evaluating the indicators, assigning value and 

context, and deciding on a course of action. The solid rectangle is the final interpretation of the 

evidence at hand.

 

*Backtracking is to follow tracks or other sign opposite the direction of travel in order to discover their source.

†Contamination occurs when someone or something comes along after the event of interest and disturbs or destroys the tracks 

and evidence that were left at the scene.
5

Figure 1. Tracker skill set and cognitive process.

To achieve the objective, a tracker draws on the skills and processes in figure 1 to sense the 

traces the quarry left, perceive their meaning, and react quickly and decisively enough to close 

the time-distance gap (i.e., catch up). These skills also form an ideal capability base for tasks 

such as finding unexploded ordnance, landmines, and IEDs. The process is the same—

individuals must first recognize the indicators of an emplacement, either from visually detected 

traces or from the tactical importance (and thus likelihood) of the site, assign a value to the 

indicator, and then decide what action to take. The ultimate goal is to identify targets as quickly 

and accurately as possible by pulling together fragmented knowledge and evidence to holistically 

analyze a situation and draw actionable conclusions. 

The Border Hunter research program sponsored by U.S. Joint Forces Command examined the 

capabilities and training of combat trackers (as well as profilers and observers) in the context of 

IED detection. The evaluation found that expert trackers spent more time looking along the 

trackline (direction of travel) and surrounding area while novice trackers tended to focus on the 

ground more (Fautua, et al., 2010).

Why the difference between novice and expert trackers? The basics have become automatic, 

leaving experts free to focus on the larger picture. Additionally, behavioral observations from the 

Border Hunter exercise noted that most trainees were highly motivated from the start and were 

able to efficiently connect the dots during scene interpretation. The final technical report 

concluded that “The ability to develop explanations of cause-and-effect relationships from
6

evidence collected from the environment proved vital to mission success in both tracking and 

profiling scenarios” (Fautua, et al., 2010). The tracker mindset, using detective-like skills and a 

motivated attitude, enables a tracker to interpret scenes hours and sometimes days after the actors 

have departed—a process and skill set perfectly aligned with visual IED detection.

1.1.3 Motivation

Motivation plays a large role in the successful recognition of targets. It may be extrinsic (seeking 

an external reward) or intrinsic (content with personal satisfaction), and can empower a person to 

excel in visual search tasks or completely fail. Commanders in the Israeli Defense Force, who 

absolutely insist on using trackers to visually inspect all areas for bomb emplacements before 

any troop movement, continually emphasize motivation when it comes to expert visual search 

behavior (Schweitzer, 2007). Details from the meetings with Israeli trackers are in appendix A.

The encouraging part about motivation is that it can be improved in tangible ways. It is easy to 

understand how extrinsic motivation may be increased—simply provide a suitable prize. 

However, intrinsic motivation is more personal and challenging to influence. For example, 

Whitehead (1993) found that four basic concepts can facilitate an improvement of intrinsic 

motivation for sports and exercise: a sense of purpose, the perception of personal control, 

individual mastery, and fun. It is possible that providing or improving one or more of these four 

facets could improve an individual’s intrinsic motivation for other activities as well. For IED 

detection, very few people need to grasp a better sense of purpose. The point is clear—find the 

IEDs or people might die. Nearly every searcher has a strong sense of purpose for the task. 

However, to increase a person’s perception of control and mastery, the person should completely 

understand the task at hand so that they will choose to learn. Complete understanding enables

them to take personal control of the situation by teaching them how they can influence their own 

performance. As they master the necessary skills, their feeling of control will expand and their 

motivation to find a target should increase. The fourth facet of fun does not apply appropriately 

to IED detection and is not addressed here.

1.1.4 What Does It All Mean for IED Detection?

Detecting IEDs is everyone’s job. Strictly speaking, combat engineers are the ones who clear 

routes and must find the IEDs or risk having those behind them hit—a very somber 

responsibility. However, in practice everyone in the vehicle or on the route helps search for the 

devices, whether they are engineers, medics, or VIPs (very important persons). How can we 

improve people’s ability to find IEDs without extensive, expensive training setups? 

All of the aspects discussed here—sensation, preattention, perception, automaticity, tracker 

mindset, and motivation—link back to Kirk’s (1974) and Locard’s (1923) statements that 

“everyone leaves a trace.” Trackers and IED searchers alike must simply find and correctly

interpret the traces of interest. To do so, we need to train the brain to prime better, a process that 

individuals can practice and control. Speed is a weapon, so if we can make the process of 
7

spotting critical strategic emplacement sites automatic instead of a controlled process that the 

searcher must consciously direct, a significant portion of the search process could be done more 

quickly and with relatively little effort. It will also free cognitive faculties to better process other 

information. The searcher must increase their familiarity with the local environment* and with 

the manner in which targets may appear. Familiarity with the locale enables more accurate 

recognition of anomalies or deviations from the baseline environment. All clues are contextual, 

not just for tracks or IED indicators but human and animal behavior, traffic, etc. For example, 

human behaviors differ depending upon whether the interaction is between family members, 

friends, coworkers, or complete strangers (Scott-Donelan, 1998).

The goal is to automatically sense and perceive basic IED features, to recognize suspicious areas, 

and to quickly interpret the traces that remain with an objective tracker’s mindset. The 

embodiment of this is reflected in the behavior of returning route clearance engineers who see 

potential IEDs everywhere, even though they know logically that IEDs are highly improbable 

within U.S. borders.

1.2 Objective

The objective of this study was to develop and evaluate a tailorable, squad-level training package 

that imparts the tracker mindset. The training intent was to improve visual detection capability 

and the number of finds, thereby directly increasing the number of explosive devices identified 

before detonation. The end result would be a decrease in the number of casualties due to 

detonations. The training format was such that noncommissioned officers could readily use the 

material to conduct their own visual detection skill training with their Soldiers.

1.3 Hypothesis

Soldiers can be taught sufficient fundamental vision and tracker skills in an 8-hour course to 

significantly improve their ability to visually identify and interpret ground spoor, including IED 

indicators.

2. Method

2.1 Experimental Design

This study used a within-subjects design to compare pretraining performance to posttraining 

performance. Training was the independent variable while pre- and posttraining performances on 

the knowledge test, photo test, and spoor pit tests were the dependent variables. We trained the 

subjects in two separate groups due to facility and instructor limitations.

 

*

“Local environment” is the area surrounding a searcher within which the searcher can visually distinguish target items from 

the background.
8

2.2 Demographics

Twenty-eight Soldiers volunteered to participate in the study and completed all of the activities. 

Eleven belonged to the first cohort that was trained on days 1 and 2 while 17 belonged to the 

second cohort on days 3 and 4. The overall average age was 27 years (range: 18–43). Participant 

ranks were E-2 (n=1), E-3 (n=1), E-4 (n=16), E-5 (n=7), E-6 (n=2), and O-3 (n=1). More than 

half (n=17) had been in their military occupational specialty for more than 3 years. Overall 

service time in the Army was distributed fairly evenly across participants by 1–2 years (n=7), 

3–4 years (n=5), 4–5 years (n=7), and more than 5 years (n=8). Nine Soldiers had a high schoollevel education while 16 had some college, one had a bachelor’s degree, and one had an 

advanced degree. Most Soldiers were horizontal construction engineers (n=11), bridge 

crewmembers (n=6), or combat engineers (n=3), but the remaining participants came from a 

variety of specialties listed in table 1.

Table 1. Participant military occupational specialties.

Number Military Occupational Specialty

3 12B Combat Engineer

6 12C Bridge Crewmember

11 12N Horizontal Construction Engineer

1 12R Interior Electrician

1 25U Signal Support Systems Specialist

1 91B Wheeled Vehicle Mechanic

1 91C Utilities Equipment Repairer

1 91L Construction Equipment Repairer

1 92F Petroleum Supply Specialist

1 94F Computer Detection Systems Repairer

1 — Officer

Sixteen participants had spent no time in a route clearance convoy, whereas 10 had spent 

6 months or more working route clearance convoys. One Soldier self-reported personal 

discovery of over 30 IEDs, two reported detecting between 16 and 30, and three reported finding 

between 1 and 5. The remaining 22 Soldiers reported that they had never personally found any 

IEDs.

2.3 Apparatus: Training as the Independent Variable

To conduct this study, we created a training curriculum that introduced the basics of human 

visual perception and tracking in the classroom. We then developed a spoor pit for hands-on 

demonstrations, practice, and testing. 

2.3.1 Training Curriculum: Sensation and Perception

The first part of classroom training focused on the fundamentals of how the eye and brain work

in an applied manner. It emphasized the following factors associated with sensation and 

perception: (1) understanding the capabilities and limitations of the eye, (2) understanding how
9

to use environmental and artificial factors to increase target visibility, (3) recognizing that the 

feeling of “something is just not right” likely has a valid source, and (4) understanding why you 

are more likely to detect what you expect to see. The PowerPoint presentation took about an hour 

to brief and provided examples of technical concepts applicable to the tactical environment. For 

example, to put things in a better perspective for the searcher we described the typical 0.5° visual 

angle for foveal vision as being about 1/2-in. diameter (the size of a dime) at 5 ft, or about a 2-in.

circle at 20 ft. Text from the slides we presented is in appendix B.

2.3.2 Training Curriculum: Tracking and Spoor Interpretation

The second part of classroom training introduced the fundamentals of tracking and spoor 

interpretation. We used photographs to illustrate the subtle soil clues that indicate actions such as 

direction or speed of movement, and characteristics such as relative load, weathering, and the 

time-shadow effect. To encourage students to start the interpretive part of tracking, we talked 

through several photographs, describing the visible impressions and discussing options as to how 

they might have been made or why they might be located in the position that they were. The goal 

was for the students to recreate an event from the visible spoor. We described the attributes and 

skills of a good tracker—the fact that some of the characteristics are inherent and some can be 

taught but that none are beyond average human capabilities. The most influential characteristics 

include motivation, patience, visual and aural acuity, common sense, curiosity, endurance 

(vigilance), tactical awareness, and honesty (Scott-Donelan, 1998). The need for honesty often 

surprises people, but a tracker must stand by what he knows to be correct and must be willing to 

admit when he is wrong or unsure. The introductory text for tracking and spoor interpretation 

slides is also in appendix B.

2.3.3 Training Curriculum: Spoor Pit Exercises

Spoor pit construction. A spoor pit is an area with a ground medium that will hold sharp 

impressions. The medium is typically soil but could also be materials such as flour or powder. It 

is especially useful for showing beginners the fine details that a tracker seeks. We typically use 

an outdoor piece of ground with a fine, loose (but not too loose) surface soil and a firm 

subsurface soil. For this study we needed an area that was also close to the classroom, big 

enough to train at least 20 students at a time, had as little shade over the working area as 

possible, and was unlikely to be disturbed when we were absent. The site we selected was an 

outdoor sand volleyball court on the edge of a tree line behind the Libby barrack area at Fort 

Leonard Wood, MO. While the site received some shade in the afternoon and the loose, sandy 

soil was almost too coarse, it provided the best mix of features that we were able to locate.

Initially, vegetation covered much of the sandy court. We weeded and tilled the surface with a 

roto-tiller to remove as much vegetation as possible and then raked and smoothed the bare 

surface by dragging a 2- × 6-in.piece of lumber across the court. The finished surface area still 

contained a limited amount of vegetation, but it was acceptable for the scope of our training. 

Blowing leaves and shadows from clouds and adjacent mostly leafless trees provided uncontrolled
10

variance to the appearance of the ground surface. The loose, sandy soil held reasonably good 

impressions, though due to the coarseness of the sand particles some spoor yielded less crisp 

edges than would occur in finer soils. The pit was divided into eight equal sections, 

approximately 12.5 × 13.5 ft each, with walking lanes set up between the individual sections. 

Each section or “spoor pit” was used to stage separate events. The purpose of the events was for 

students to interpret the story told by the observable markings in the soil. The general setup is 

shown in figure 2. 

Figure 2. Spoor pit layout.

Spoor pit activities. Soldiers spent about half of their training time learning by doing 

“hands-on” activities in the spoor pits. We explained why we see tracks* and created examples. 

We pointed out the dynamics of a footprint, including the primary impact point, foot roll, heel 

strike, terminal point, and toe dig. We taught them how to assess multiple steps in terms of 

stride, pitch angle, straddle, pressure and dwell time, and rhythm and balance. Demonstrations 

included the type of impressions left by an individual accelerating to a run and compared the 

length of strides between a runner and a walker. Other examples included the unique indications 

of hand and finger marks, knee marks, toe digs, the compression of fabric from a person laying 

 

*We see tracks because of edges (outline, recognizable patterns), contrast (shadows, color changes), texture (surface 

roughness), shine (light reflectance or absorption), and rhythm (spacing or recurrence).
11

or sitting, and marks from tools and equipment such as shovels, picks, buckets, and rucksacks. 

We showed Soldiers how to position themselves relative to the light source to optimize the 

visibility of the spoor, whether the source was natural light from the sun or a signal mirror or 

artificial light from a flashlight. We also introduced the use of optics in terms of binoculars and 

colored glasses to illustrate that in some conditions optics can improve the visibility of certain 

indicators.

Once Soldiers understood the fundamental indicators of human activities and methods to view 

spoor in the best light, we had them take a break under a pavilion that was out of sight from the 

spoor pit. We staged a different scenario in each cell and then called the Soldiers back to the pit 

where we challenged them to interpret what human activity had occurred. Soldiers were 

encouraged to spend a few minutes interpreting the scene on their own and then to work as a 

group. We posed questions intended to lead them through an investigative process of identifying 

impressions and clues and then infer meaning or estimate intent for what had occurred. We 

concluded the exercises by reenacting the event so the Soldiers could gain a full understanding of 

the situation.

The final set of “hands-on” instruction was with small groups of Soldiers, two or three, executing 

a militarily feasible event of their choosing within their designated section of the spoor pit. Each 

of these events occurred with only the involved Soldier team present. Once each team had laid 

spoor in their designated areas, the class was challenged to interpret the spoor and describe the 

event as before, essentially deriving the story told by the spoor. Again, we asked questions to 

encourage understanding of the scene. Once the class arrived at a feasible description, the 

responsible team reenacted what had occurred and commented on any missed or incorrect points. 

This part of the training focused on student involvement and student interaction. Virtually all the 

Soldiers participated in the interpretation of the spoor.

2.3.4 Second Day Review

On the second day of training we began with the Gratzky quiz, an exercise designed to challenge 

the student to sort out track contamination, to ease the students back into a tracking-focused 

frame of mind. Nine sets of unique footprints walk up the side of the paper, and the student is 

asked to identify the number of people, the first track to pass, the last track to pass, the pronated 

track, the pigeon-toed track, and the injured walker track. (See the quiz in appendix C.)

We then reviewed the lecture points covered on the previous day. We summarized the visual 

process, including sensation and perception, the structure of the eye and its visual limitations, 

and strategies such as artificial light or priming to “see” better. We played a short movie called 

“Gorillas in Our Midst” to demonstrate one of the consequences of selective attention.

*

 

*

“Gorillas in Our Midst” shows six students passing two basketballs. Three students are wearing white shirts and passing one 

ball to each other while the other three students are wearing black shirts and passing the other ball. The viewer is instructed to 

count the number of passes the white team makes. Part way through the movie a black-costumed gorilla slowly walks through the 

middle of the scene, pauses to look at the camera and beat his chest, and then exits on the other side. Most viewers are so focused 

on counting passes that they never see the gorilla (Simons & Chabris, 1999).
12

The review included a second set of track photos. We gave the students time to examine the 

photos that were projected onto a wall screen, asked them what indicators they saw, and then 

verbally recreated the scene for them.

2.4 Testing: Task Performance as the Dependent Variable

We gave Soldiers three tests prior to the training and the same tests following the training to 

evaluate how much information believed to be relevant to the application of tracker skills was 

learned over the period of instruction. We developed a scoring rubric for the photo task and the 

spoor pit task. This provided a holistic scoring approach, complementing answers from the 

academic perspective, the art of tracking, and tactical knowledge Soldiers brought from the 

battlefield. The rubric is in appendix D.

2.4.1 Knowledge Test

We developed a 21-question knowledge-based test to evaluate the Soldier’s understanding of 

human visual sensation and perception, and fundamental tracking techniques and mindset. The 

premise of the test questions was twofold: (1) an understanding of the visual process would 

motivate students to search in a more effective manner, and (2) an understanding of expert 

tracker techniques and way of approaching a situation would improve a student’s capability to 

detect and interpret spoor. Each question was weighted according to its expected value in 

developing tracking skills. The test is included in appendix D.

2.4.2 Photo Test

For the photo test we projected a picture of ground spoor onto a wall screen for 2 min. During 

this time we asked the students to provide a written description of the spoor. We displayed five 

separate photos, one showing two individuals walking single file in the volleyball spoor pit at 

Fort Leonard Wood and four showing spoor in the finer, more impressionable soil at Fort 

Huachuca (covering wire, road crossing and loiter, meet and leave, and coming and going). The 

intent was to expose the Soldiers to different soil types and lighting conditions. The same set of 

pictures was used in both the pre- and posttraining exams. The annotated photographs used in 

this test are included in appendix D.

2.4.3 Spoor Pit Test

For the spoor pit test we challenged Soldiers to provide a written description of the event that 

had occurred in each cell of the spoor pit. They had 2 min to describe the spoor and interpret 

what might have occurred in the scenario. The test included five separate events, and while preand posttraining events were not exactly the same, they were designed to provide very similar 

scene content. The five scenarios are described in the following paragraphs. Annotated 

photographs of the spoor pit scenarios used in this test are included in appendix D.

1. Reconnaissance. For the pretraining scenario a single person entered the scene, laid prone 

and propped on his elbows to hold binoculars, and then retreated from the scene. For the 
13

posttraining scenario the spotter performed the same actions and we added a sniper who 

entered the scene, laid prone and propped up a rifle on a bipod, and then retreated from the 

scene. 

2. Sit down. For the pretraining scenario a single person entered the scene, sat down in the 

middle, pulled his heels toward his buttocks and propped his elbows on his knees, and then 

stood to continue walking out of the scene. For the posttraining scenario the individual 

again entered the scene, sat down in the middle and pulled his heels toward his buttocks, 

but this time removed a pack from his back and set it to the side, removed an item from the 

pack, and replaced it on his back before standing and then walking forward from the scene. 

3. Meet and leave. For the pretraining scenario two people entered the scene from opposite 

directions, met a short distance from one another in the middle, and then retreated from the 

scene together parallel to the original path. The posttraining scenario was the same except 

that two individuals entered from one side and one individual met them in the middle. All 

three left the scene together in the direction from which the single person came. 

4. Emplacement. In the pretraining scenario one person entered the scene and stopped at the 

opposite side of the spoor pit cell, set down a hard-sided container and dug a hole, covered 

and smoothed the hole, and then walked away. The posttraining scenario again was the 

same except that two individuals entered the scene. One carried the container and then left 

while the second person dug the hole and covered a rock in a hasty emplacement before 

leaving the scene. 

5. Drag line. The pretraining scenario shows one person shuffling backward while dragging a 

hard-sided container. The only differences for the posttraining scenario were that the 

footprints were not as obvious, and a second, barely visible bag was dragged in addition to 

the hard-sided container.

2.5 Assumptions

This study occurred in an outdoor environment where conditions such as ambient light and soil 

moisture were confounds that varied over the course of the day. Given the very applied nature of 

both IED detection and tracking, we considered the environmental variables acceptable and even 

desirable. All four days had very similar conditions. 

2.6 Analysis

We weighted each question on the knowledge test according to its relevance and importance for 

successful acquisition of the tracker mindset. We assigned a maximum of 4 points to questions 

that were critical for developing the tracker mindset to a minimum of 1 point to questions that 

were relevant but not essential to a tracker’s mindset. Scores on the pretraining test questions 

were summed for each participant and then compared to the corresponding sum of scores on the 

posttraining knowledge test, using a t-test to check for significant differences. 
14

We counted the number of correct descriptors for the photo task and the spoor pit task to 

determine whether the Soldiers perceived more indicators after training.

At the end of the two-day research project, we conducted an after action review to solicit Soldier 

comments on what was good and bad about the project. We were particularly interested in 

receiving feedback on what Soldiers felt were the most effective and ineffective elements of the 

training. The review consisted of both a group discussion and individual, written comments. The 

after action comments are summarized in the following results section and reported in full in 

appendix E.

2.7 Procedure

Each of two cohorts of Soldiers participated in two consecutive days of training, and testing. The 

first day started with the administrative procedures, including an explanation of the research 

project followed by an explanation and completion of the Consent Form. In the classroom,

Soldiers then completed the pretraining knowledge test and the pretraining photo test. The next 

task required Soldiers to travel to the spoor pit where they completed the pretraining spoor pit 

test. Following the spoor pit test, we released the Soldiers for lunch. Once they returned, they 

listened to a 1.5 h class on sensation and perception and the techniques and methods of expert 

trackers. Soldiers then traveled back to the spoor pit for an hour of practical exercises in the 

spoor pit. This completed the first day of testing and instruction.

The second day started in the classroom. Soldiers were given the Grasky quiz (appendix C) 

followed by practical examples demonstrating some common fallacies in perception. We 

reviewed the first day’s classroom instruction, and then Soldiers drove to the spoor pit for a 

series of practical exercises. These exercises involved groups of two or three Soldiers staging 

predefined events in the pit and their own group-developed event in the pit while the rest of the 

class remained out of sight. Each event was staged in a separate, discretely marked section. Once 

each group finished laying their scenario, we challenged the class as a whole to interpret what 

had occurred in each section. After the class came to a general consensus on what happened, the 

staging team reenacted the event and the investigators addressed any remaining questions. We 

released the Soldiers for lunch, brushed the spoor pit clean, and laid the final set of scenarios.

Soldiers reconvened after lunch at the spoor pit and completed the posttraining spoor test.

Following the posttraining spoor test, Soldiers returned to the classroom and completed the 

posttraining photo test and the posttraining knowledge test. The two-day research project 

culminated with an after action review. The second cohort research exercise replicated the first 

cohort on the following two days.
15

3. Results

Scoring each of the three tests required careful and sometimes subjective evaluation of the 

answers. To minimize the subjectivity a scoring rubric was developed for each test. For the 

knowledge test, one researcher completed all of the scoring. For the photo and spoor pit test, 

three individuals separately scored the pre- and posttraining answers. Once the scoring was 

completed, the three scorers met, compared scores, discussed scoring outliers, and then 

calculated a mean for each of the scores.

3.1 Knowledge Test

Soldier performance on the knowledge test improved by 185% posttraining. A paired t-test

assuming unequal variances found significant differences between the pretraining scores 

(M = 15.3, SD = 10.4) and posttraining scores (M = 43.5, SD = 14.2), t(27) = –8.49, p = 2.96E-11.

A perfect score was 92 points.

3.2 Photo Test

Soldier performance on the photo task improved by 35% posttraining. A paired t-test assuming 

unequal variances found significant differences between the pretraining scores (M = 17.8, 

SD = 5.5) and posttraining scores (M = 24.0, SD = 5.4), t(27) = –4.21, p = 9.67E-05. A perfect 

score was 10 points.

3.3 Spoor Pit Test

Soldier performance on the spoor pit task improved by 28% posttraining. A paired t-test 

assuming unequal variances found significant differences between the pretraining scores 

(M = 28.2, SD = 8.3) and posttraining scores (M = 36.0, SD = 8.1), t(27) = –3.56, p = 7.88E-04.

A perfect score was 15 points. 

3.4 After Action Reviews

The two sessions were the first time we had presented the tracker mindset material to students, 

and we encouraged their feedback on the course structure and content. Overall the students were 

satisfied with the training. They were particularly happy with the practical exercises that 

reinforced the lecture points and the opportunity to create their own scenarios for the class to 

interpret.

Suggestions for improvement included 11 comments emphasizing the need for a longer course 

with many additional references to the “2 short days” of training, 11 requests to include more 

IED-specific indicators, 9 comments on needing more dirt time, and 9 comments desiring to see 

additional tracking mediums and deeper instructional detail such as a better definition of terms, 

cover and concealment methods and appearance, different angles and light, etc. The photographs 
16

provided some interesting challenges due to lack of depth, and Soldier comments were split over 

whether we should use more or fewer of them in class. Several Soldiers asked about printed 

material to support the training, and the appendices of this report will double as curriculum

documentation for the students of any future training. All things considered, the fresh perspective 

on IED detection was welcomed by nearly all the Soldiers. The subsequent verbatim comments 

were selected to reflect the value that many of the Soldiers expressed, either verbally or in 

writing. 

• “Make this an actual week/40 hr course b/c this is a good tool to have plus some promotion 

points would encourage people/soldiers to learn it.”

• “Really this class was a good introductory course. Two days isn't nearly long enough to get 

very proficient. It would be nice if there was a follow-up class.”

• “Very good training overall. Need more than just two days. Any group or company 

deploying to do route clearance should attend this training.”

• “Course needs to be made into a week long event to get as much as the student can out of 

it. two days is not enough. But in two days you can get the mindset of the basics of tracking 

and cover and concealment events.”

• “It was a great learning experience. Learned a lot and it should be conducted to every 

organization.”

4. Discussion

To find a target, a searcher must first scan for it (sense it) and then recognize the appropriate 

visual input as the target of interest (perceive it). The next challenging step is to derive meaning 

from the object and its context (interpret it). A searcher must know roughly what to expect but 

must be flexible enough to recognize the unexpected. The searcher must look for behavior 

patterns and consider likely tactics and avenues of evasion (Scott-Donelan, 1998). The quarry 

may be erratic, focused, or anywhere in between, so the searcher must use detective-like skills to 

interpret the evidence he encounters and anticipate the movement of his target. 

This training provided Soldiers a set of skills and methods to improve their ability to do all of the 

previously mentioned tasks. These tools included a better understanding of how to mitigate the 

limitations of human vision and how to exploit its strengths. Soldiers learned about the story 

footprints can relate, identification of individuals via print size, estimations of speed and weight, 

and an awareness of attempts to confuse a tracker. Throughout training Soldiers exhibited a 

rapidly developing ability to combine the parts of a visual scene into a scenario and to focus on 

the elements of a visual scene that added relevant information, while discarding other marks that 

had little meaning. 
17

The results are perhaps not surprising. One would expect individuals to score higher on tests they 

have seen before, especially when they receive information through the course of two days that 

help them complete those tests. It is impressive that the students improved their scores on a free 

form knowledge test and that they identified and articulated more relevant indicators in the

photographs and spoor pits posttraining than they did pretraining. The implications are that short, 

informal training segments can help detection skills in certain cases.

However, the after action reviews indicated that something even more significant might have 

influenced the measured performance. We introduced a new way of thinking, a new way of 

approaching the visual detection task. The approach was based on cognition and aspects of 

human functioning that the individual can influence and/or control. Improvements to the 

underlying cognitive process are difficult, if not impossible to truly quantify, but the thoughts 

that Soldiers shared indicated that they began to see the search for IED indicators in a different 

manner. One comment even mentioned how fun the training was—fun being one of the four 

pillars for improving intrinsic motivation for some tasks. This change in mindset, adopting a 

tracker’s mindset for visual detection, was what we hoped to achieve with the curriculum.

Additional testing might aim to isolate and examine whether particular variables were solely or 

symbiotically responsible for detection performance improvements after tracker mindset training. 

5. Conclusions

The purpose of this research project was to develop a training package that could be used by 

noncommissioned officers at the squad level to significantly improve Soldier’s capability to 

visually detect indicators of IEDs while keeping the training sufficiently brief to fit into limited 

available training time. The authors recognize that performance was not measured against actual 

IED detection but believe that the fundamental skills that enable detection and interpretation of 

spoor can generalize to indicators of IEDs and various other tactical information of importance.

The roughly 8 h of instruction time used in this research was only enough to cover the very basic 

fundamentals of the skills that trackers employ. Most tracking courses last from 40 to 80 h, and 

even then instructors recognize that only the fundamental skills are taught. Real skill is only 

gained through many hours of practice in the field.

Still, even with the limited amount of training, results of each of the knowledge, photo, and spoor 

pit testing showed statistically significant improvement in performance. The fact that such 

improvement becomes apparent in such a limited amount of time speaks well for the power of 

even a brief training course in how to perceive and interpret spoor. The results are practically 

significant as well. Many of the Soldiers who participated in this research commented that they 

found the training different from any they had experienced in previous military training, and 

several stated that it provided them with a new tool to use in the tactical environment. 
18

The limited classroom training was important so that Soldiers could learn and experience certain 

capabilities and limitations of sensation and perception that are not intuitively understood. For 

example, most people have no understanding of how little detail humans can perceive in a visual 

scene, or some of the tricks our visual system can play on our perception. Most of the training 

was very hands-on. For example, Soldiers saw how impressions and targets appear or disappear 

based upon the tracker’s position relative to the sun (or artificial light). Actually experimenting 

with how the light angle affected their ability to see or not see the shadows that define a target 

was a powerful learning tool.

Based on the results and the feedback from the Soldiers, we conclude that the training is worth 

conducting. In the absence of commitment to formal training, this “hip pocket” training may 

improve the students’ approach to finding visual IED indicators. The authors are willing to work 

with any organization that would like assistance in implementing this type of training. 

Recommendations

• Modify the curriculum to include more IED-related indicators and a wider array of other 

indicators. Add visualization facilitators such as flour and artificial light. Subjects such as 

terminology, the time-shadow effect, viewing angle, and aging should be covered more 

thoroughly.

• Present a wider variety of photographs and scenarios for the photo and spoor pit tasks. 

• Examine the utility of introducing footprint diagrams, techniques for recording footprints, 

the Erikson technique for determining the chronology of events, and binocular use for 

detail awareness.

Overall—practice!
19

5. References

Eudoblox. What is Automaticity? Eudoblox Reading and Learning Clinic. 

http://www.learninginfo.org/automaticity.htm (accessed 15 August 2012).

Fautua, D.; Schatz, S.; Kobus, D.; Spiker, V. A.; Ross, W.; Johnston, J. H.; Reitz, E. A. Border 

Hunter Research Technical Report; IST-TR-10-01; U.S. Joint Forces Command, Norfolk, 

VA, 2010.

Holt, B. J.; Rainey, S. J. An Overview of Automaticity and Implications for Training the 

Thinking Process; Western Kentucky University, Consortium Research Fellows Program; 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences: Alexandria, VA, 2002.

Itti, L.; Koch, C. Target Detection Using Saliency-Based Attention. Proceedings RTO/SCI-12 

Workshop on Search and Target Acquisition (NATO Unclassified), Utrecht, The 

Netherlands, 21–23 June, 1999; Research and Technology Organisation (NATO) Neuillysur-Seine Cedex, France, 1999; 3.1–3.10. 

Kirk, P. L. Crime Investigation, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1974. 

Locard, E. Manuel de Technique Policiere, Payot, Paris, 1923. 

Merriam Webster. Spoor. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spoor (accessed 1 May 

2013).

Mourant, R.; Rockwell, T. Strategies of Visual Search by Novice and Experienced Drivers. 

Human Factors 1972, 325–335.

Murphy, J. Identifying Experts in the Detection of Improvised Explosive Devices (IED2); U.S. 

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences: Arlington, VA, 2010.

Najemnik, J.; Geisler, W. S. Optimal Eye Movement Strategies in Visual Search. Nature 2005,

387–390.

Schweitzer, K. M. Strangers in Israel - Trip Report; Fort Huachuca: unpublished, 2007.

Scott-Donelan, D. Tactical Tracking Operations: the Essential Guide for Military and Police 

Trackers; Paladin Press: Boulder, CO, 1998.

Simons, D. J.; Chabris, C. F. Gorillas in Our Midst. Perception 1999, 1059–1074.

spoor. Online Etymology Dictionary. From Dictionary.com: http://dictionary.reference.com 

/browse/spoor (accessed 1 May 2013).

Whitehead, J. R. Stay Informed/Research Digest. The President's Challenge. https://www.

presidentschallenge.org/informed/digest/docs/199305digest.pdf (accessed May 1993).
20

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
21

Appendix A. Strangers in Israel: Trip Report

 

This appendix appears in its original form, without editorial change.
22

Date: 21-31 July 2007

Location: Israel

Purpose: To meet with Israel Defence Forces, Israel Border Police, and Israel Police personnel to 

understand how Israel uses tracking to find terrorists and how they find improvised explosive devices. 

Introduction

Terrorist groups such as Hizbullah and Hamas have used religious justification to direct guerrilla attacks 

on Israel, and Israel has had to adjust its military and police responses accordingly. Today the borders 

with Syria and Jordan are relatively quiet, but terrorist and smuggling activities are problematic on the 

Lebanese and Egyptian borders. 

The author traveled with a world renowned, expert tracker to Israel to see how Israel has been as 

successful as it has in fighting terrorists. The specific purposes were to learn how Israel is employing 

trackers and how Israel might select and/or train people to visually detect bombs (i.e. improvised 

explosive devices). The input received is the focus of this report. Individual names have been changed to 

protect privacy.

Input

Ben was our guide for the entire week. For 5 years he headed the Police and Security in the Old City of 

Jerusalem. His knowledge of history, geography, and security was invaluable.

Day 1 (M): Ben gave us lectures on the current borders, geography, and war/security history of Israel in 

the morning. After the lectures, Ben drove us around different Jewish and Muslim neighborhoods to 

familiarize us with the differences between the cultures, took us to see the new security fence with all 

its sensors and cameras (which they call a “clever fence”), and explained the areas where sniper walls 

had to be erected. In the evening, Edan gave us lectures on Muslim fundamentalism, how they are trying 

to indoctrinate others, and the ramifications for non-Muslims. 

Day 2 (T): Ben introduced us to Eliav (well-versed in Arabic) and we first drove out to a monastery of St. 

George (about 20 km from Jerusalem in the Wadi Qilt). Eliav described how trackers are used, in 

combination with tracking and explosives dogs (off-leash), to track in the local terrain. He said that the 

tracking and explosives dogs used in conjunction with the trackers are also trained to attack. Every unit 

goes out with at least one tracker from the operational area and every commander has one senior 

tracker from the operational area to advise him on missions. Next we drove up to visit a retired officer

who was a Bedouin tracker and commander on the Lebanon border. He thinks anyone (city/country 

born, male/female) can be trained to be a tracker if the desire is present – motivation is of primary 

importance. On the successful use of trackers, he insists that total acceptance by and integration with 

command is the only way tracking will work effectively. (He learned this through experience with his 

initially uncooperative command.) 
23

Once we left the officer’s house, we stopped at an IDF border post and discussed tracking with the 

Soldiers who were on duty. We saw the drag road and the vehicle used to take the trackers out to 

search for spoor. The Soldiers maintain that nothing happens without trackers going first. 

Day 3 (W): We picked up a retired army officer in Tel Aviv and drove out to the Negev. The officer

specializes in survival in the desert, but was also a commander for 5 years in the South. While not a 

tracker himself, he commanded trackers and used them very effectively. He insists that the key to 

tracking is to know and understand the terrain – know what routes are possible, which ones are actually 

used, how long they take to travel, what sorts of things travelers will seek (e.g. water), where best to 

intercept the trail, etc. To be a good tracker the officer insists that the person must love the job. If the 

person has no love for the job, his or her background will not make him a good tracker. He emphasized 

that we must know the people and their customs, mannerisms, and taboos, and use them to our 

advantage in order to avoid hostile confrontation whenever possible. [E.g. The COL’s story about 

tracking the men into the Sheik’s camp, asking the Sheik about the hypothetical camel footprints coming 

in but not going out, and keeping his rifle on his lap and loaded during tea because he did not feel 

“safe”.] Knowing how to survive teaches you what to seek and where to search (e.g. Roman road area). 

In the evening we sat with Eliav and the officer to discuss Bomb Detector selection – what would it take 

to select an individual that will be good at finding bombs? When the officer selects people to go through 

tracking training he interviews them by giving them scenarios and listening to how they would handle 

the situation and what information they would derive. He looks for interest in and compatibility with 

nature, and an ability to think and reason well in different situations – like a detective. Eliav said when 

his unit selects people to go through tracking training they have an interview process, personality-type 

tests, and a physical test...the unit has a psychologist who administers the tests. Eliav and the officer

both believe that trackers and bomb detectors cannot be separate. Motivation and drive are very 

important, and knowledge of the terrain, its people, and the climatic environment are essential.

Example scenarios from the officer: (1) See water deep in a well, but have no rope or bucket – how do 

you get water? (2) How do you change a tire in the desert when you have no jack? (3) Father rides the 

camel to market but does not return when expected – what clues does the herder use to know that it 

was he that passed and when?

Day 4 (R): We drove with Ben and the officer to the Egyptian border. The Border Police had closed the 

road we wanted to take due to intelligence reports, and we had to wait for an escort. By chance we met 

Oded, who used to work under Ben in the Old City, and we were able to go into the border post to speak 

with him on how he employs trackers and to speak with two of the Bedouin trackers. Most of the 

infiltrators in that area are smugglers who do not shoot at the Police and do not lay bombs, mines, or 

booby traps. They employ many antitracking techniques, but are basically nonviolent. 

Day 5 (F): We drove with Ben to the Hagoshrim Kibbutz in Upper Galilee to meet Ze’ev, a former officer 

from a South Lebanese Army (SLA) bomb disposal unit who fought and lived among Hizbullah terrorists 

for 25 years. The SLA used trackers to clear the way, employing the least number of Soldiers as possible 

and positioning them as far apart as reasonable to avoid multiple casualties if one detonated a bomb. 
24

After 1990 (and the collapse of the Soviet Union) SLA saw a change in Hizbullah tactics – they 

transitioned from rudimentary tactics and bombs to something more sophisticated. As a result, Lebanon 

was no longer stronger and had to follow and learn (much like the United States is doing now). Most 

often each terrorist knows only what he is supposed to do, nothing more about the network, making it 

extremely difficult to glean intelligence from captives. 

Ze’ev insisted that we must stay out of the cities, villages, markets, and stores – draw the terrorist away 

from the population to us so we can maintain control. He stated that we must change the people’s 

mindset (which has been indoctrinated since birth) that we (the non-Muslims) are the enemy by helping 

them. We need a professional Soldier that will become a part of the people – he must stay in the same 

area of operations. The Soldier needs to use binoculars from the high ground to observe an area from 

many different angles and heights – working from the outside to the inside, from the top to the bottom 

(all the way into the water/sewer tunnels), visually clearing the area before entering. Ze’ev

recommended always video recording in order to learn from mistakes, to take photos before any bombs 

are disturbed, and to make models after neutralization so that others may learn what has been done. He 

said we need to fight in the same manner as the enemy, but the main difficulty is that we fight to live 

and they fight to die – we must see the terrorists as trained Soldiers. In regards to trash: SLA cleared the 

sides of the road (with D-9 bulldozers) and covered them with a layer of different colored sand so that 

any disturbances were obviously a different color. 

Day 6 (S): The lessons to be learned from Ze’ev are that (1) We must learn and understand the enemy 

before we can destroy him; (2) We must always be in control of the area; and (3) We must maintain 

good relations with the people. The officer in charge must be able to employ people in their best 

capacity – keep Soldiers engaged and rotate them for experience. The Soldiers must have the heart and 

information and motivation to do a proficient job. 

Ben spoke with us on security in the Old City. We discussed the tensions, manpower, camera systems, 

catalysts, and how few really want trouble.

Day 7 (S): Walked around the Old City of Jerusalem and discussed the tensions, security, and the riots 

that resulted a few days after Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Dome of the Rock. We visited the Old City Police 

command center where they monitor ~350 security camera feeds (the 35 most sensitive areas stay 

onscreen constantly, while the others are monitored on a rotational basis). Police command, private 

security (for the Jewish families living in the Muslim Quarter), and intelligence are all collocated and 

information was well shared among them.

We visited the Jerusalem Police Bomb Disposal officer in charge, but he said their expertise did not lie 

with what we wanted to know. He suggested that we contact the trackers, as their mission aligned more 

closely with detection.

Thoughts

Several responses recurred with each Israeli commander we met. One of the most important keys to 

defeating the enemy was to know and understand the terrain and climate and normalcy of an area. The 

other key was to know and understand the people and customs of an area. These factors require 
25

someone who is intimately familiar with the area – he must know common avenues of access, stopping 

points, and information points. He must also be familiar with seasonal elements which influence land 

accessibility and human activity. Regarding people and customs, the Israelis we met can, for the most 

part, look at an individual and tell you whether s/he is Jewish or Muslim, which provides a wealth of 

information on the individual’s habits, mindset, and tendencies. For outsiders, this is a challenging, if not 

impossible task. While some amount of instruction such as our visits to the different neighborhoods is 

essential, it takes time and exposure to really learn the people. 

How much time is needed to become familiar enough with the land and the people to operate 

effectively? No one is sure. The only certainty is that foreigners stick out badly in a place where history, 

traditions, and family connections are very strong.

I repeatedly inquired as to the qualities needed for a good bomb detector, distinct from those of 

trackers. None of the commanders we met thought that tracking and bomb detection could be 

separated. They believe that the same skill sets are needed for both tasks and that the same qualities 

are necessary and prevalent in people who are good at the tasks. Considering that in Israeli operations 

the trackers always move into an area first, trackers will usually be the first to encounter any bombs as 

well, making it imperative that they be well aware of where to search and what to seek. Explosives dogs 

are often employed successfully along with trackers to detect bombs (which would seem especially 

useful in cities).

Though not well reflected in the daily input above, Israel demonstrates an extraordinary amount of 

cooperation among her agencies, which enables an excellent intelligence network that is essential for 

driving operations. The agency offices are very often collocated and information is freely shared. 

Conclusions

The driving question was: What is Israel doing to ensure success against terrorism that the United States 

is not doing? A limited answer is: tracking and interagency cooperation. Many of the responses we 

received suggest that the U.S. might need to take a step back to scrutinize procedures and policies 

before selection and/or training can be truly effective.

We learned that the primary quality some Israeli commanders consider necessary for an individual to be 

a good tracker (i.e. bomb detector) is motivation. The selection process includes interviews to gauge 

knowledge and desire and tests to determine cognitive abilities, but the person must also have an 

intimate knowledge of his area of operation (terrain and climate) and the people (their characteristics, 

tendencies, and customs). The best illustration of how important it is to know the land and the people is 

the way Ze’ev always referred to bombs as Strangers, because they are out of place and do not belong. 

We also learned that to be truly effective, tracking must be integrated and fully accepted at the 

command level or else trackers will be wasted. 

The Israel trip confirms many suspicions – that motivation might be more predictive of ability than 

inherent traits or training, and that tracking and bomb detection skills are not just similar, but the same. 

The question of what, exactly, tracking ability imparts that is so valuable for anomaly and change 

detection still remains. Is it continuous training to find minutiae that do not belong? Is it being able to 
26

put clues together like a detective? Is it intensively thinking like the enemy in order to predict him? 

Further investigation of individuals before and after tracking training might lead to some answers, which 

would be directly applicable to the selection and/or training of people for bomb detection. (Better yet 

would be to interview a tracking unit in theater.)

Speaking with commanders, soldiers, and police that deal with the threat of bombs and terrorists every 

day in their home country was very sobering. This trip has led me to believe that training lane fidelity is 

not as important as completely immersing one’s self in how the enemy thinks, seeing where he will go, 

and noticing what changes are apparent in the people when he is or has been near. These things focus 

the “where to search” and are not effectively done from the confines of a vehicle. Training lanes would 

teach the macro details of “what to seek”, but the finer details will vary with each operational area and 

would be most easily honed on foot in the area itself.

Note of Interest

The Ben Gurion International Airport in Tel Aviv had regular obvious security, but they rely heavily on 

profiling, which has been extremely effective in identifying bombers. Once we began paying attention, 

we could see that there were multiple layers of security personnel watching, beginning as we first drove 

into the airport and continuing as we exited the vehicle, stood in the initial security screening line, and 

made our way through multiple ID checks. 
27

Appendix B. Training Curriculum: Classroom Lecture With Notes

 

This appendix appears in its original form, without editorial change.
28

The authors will happily share the classroom lecture slides, notes, and practical examples and activities

upon request. Below are text excerpts from the full presentation.

Training Objectives 

Enhance your capability to visually detect targets

 Understand the human factors in the art of detection

 Understand the capabilities and limitations of the eye

 Understand how to use factors that increase target visibility

 Realize that we naturally tend to see objects as part of a group

 Understand that you are more likely to detect what you expect to see

 Recognized that the feeling “that something is just not right” likely has meaning

The Art of Detection 

Sensation – physiological ability of your eyes

 At or above visual threshold

 Resulting in registering a signal on the retina

 Signal must be of sufficient strength to be transferred to the brain

Perception – the result of a long complex process in which we interpret that which is sensed

• The process relies on the senses, situational context, past experiences, and personal judgment

• Image is meaningless until it is recognized, identified, and interpreted

• A person’s actions are not based on sensations, but on perception of sensations.

• Perception is “not a high fidelity reproduction of stimuli impinging on the receptors, but is a 

reproduction of the objects which these stimuli suggest”.

• Our perception of an object may trigger thoughts about the object, and our memories of objects 

we have seen in the past may influence our perception of the object.

For example, if a person does not know what a bomb looks like, then a bomb painted fluorescent 

orange, with the fuse smoking, laying on the edge of the road would provide no perception of danger.

Activity: Hold up a modified church key and then a quarter. Students are unlikely to recognize the church 

key but most will recognize the quarter. Given context, interpretation of the Rat-Man pictures

LESSON: Being able to see something with your eyes is not enough to consciously know what you saw. 
29

Visual Capabilities

Accommodation – ability of the lens to focus the light rays on the retina

Visual Acuity – ability to discriminate fine detail is limited to a very small area in our vision

• Due to the small area on our retina that has a high concentration of cone cells

• Only objects with a visual angle of about 0.5° or less fall completely on the fovea 

o At 5 feet distance, you see detail in an area about the size of a dime

o At 10 feet distance, you see detail in an area of about a 1 inch circle

o At 20 feet distance, you see detail in an area of about a 2 inch circle

LESSON: To detect fine detail in an area, you will likely have to make several different eye fixations

Night Blind Spot: 5° to 10° because cones populate the central portion of your retina and cones require 

light to function

• At 5’ away the blind spot is a 5” to 10” circle.

• At 10’ away the blind spot is a 10” to 20” circle.

• At 20’away the blind spot is a 20” to 40” circle.

LESSON: Since the night blind spot is in your foveal (central) field of view, you are not capable of 

discriminating fine detail at night.

Day Blind Spot: 5.5° to 7.5° because of the optic nerve (no cones or rods)

• At 5’ away, you are blind to an area of about a 7” circle.

• At 10’ away, you are blind to an area of about a 14” circle.

• At 20’ away, you are blind to an area of about a 28” circle.

Activity – Day Blind Spot Demonstration: Close the right eye. With the left eye, focus on a specific object 

straight ahead. To the left of the focal point, slowly move an object such as your finger or a pencil from in 

front of you to the left side until it becomes invisible. If you use your index finger, typically only the top of 

your finger will disappear for only a few degrees, not far from your focal point.

Visual acuity defines only a small portion of our ability to resolve details. Environmental stimuli provide 

a wide range of spatial frequencies and physical contrasts that affect what we can perceive. Also 

consider that “older” observers require three times more contrast to see wide (low frequency) gratings.

LESSON: Understand the capabilities and limitations of your “personal” equipment.
30

Saccades and Fixations 

Saccades

• A rapid and abrupt jump, about 1/20 of a second, made by the eye as it moves from one fixation 

to another

• Typically 1 to 3 saccades per second

• Vision is impaired during these movements

• Generally of an involuntary nature driven by information gathered during the previous fixation

• Can be reflexive

Fixations

• Each fixation provides information about a small area, and our perception of the whole object or 

scene occurs when we combine the information from a number of fixations

• Our perception of a whole object is constructed from information taken in from smaller parts

For example, consider “busy” pictures, the ones where so many items are crammed into one scene that 

it is difficult to see anything at all. The longer you look at the picture, the more crazy things you see in 

them, and seemingly every time you look at them you will see something new. 

For another example, consider situations such as when you are driving through town. You might drive 

mindlessly home on auto-pilot and “see” very little, or you might drive mindfully while searching for a 

particular address and see all sorts of “hidden” businesses or features. 

LESSON: Since saccades move fixations based on information, knowledge of what to look for is a key 

contributor to detection.

Contrast Sensitivity

• Light Level

• Luminance (light) Contrast

• Color Contrast

• Exposure Time

LESSON: Correct positioning of a light source can make contours or edges more visible.
31

Intuition

Can targets, in some way, be detected at a level below conscious awareness? Can stimulation, of which 

the observer is unaware, still exert a measurable influence on certain response outcomes? 

Probably!

Priming - You need to know what you are looking for and what the target looks like. 

Intentionally increase time viewing potential target areas.

Examples:

1. Subjects were asked to state the meaning of a word presented to them subliminally (below the 

conscious level). The word “cook” was flashed on a screen so rapidly that observers were not 

aware of what was presented. This was followed by the presentation of two words, “bake” and 

“view”, both of which could be clearly seen (and consciously perceived). Subjects were then 

asked which of the two words was most like the subliminally-flashed word. Results were that 

the word “bake” was selected significantly more often than would have occurred by chance.

2. From page 25 of David Scott-Donelan’s tracking manual, regarding the sixth sense: “One must 

never ignore what is called the “Sixth Sense”. The “sixth sense” is merely subtle, unconscious, 

sensory inputs which have not yet been processed by the brain into conscious, recognizable, 

logical thought. It is not foolish to act upon one’s “hunches” while tracking the quarry because 

ignoring these hunches may place the team in great jeopardy.” (Scott-Donelan, 1998)

3. Often Soldiers report to us that they just had a feeling that something was there, prior to finding 

an IED, or something is just not right, before and an attack began. 

LESSON: Heed the feeling of something not being quite right. Spend extra time viewing the area.

Groups and Likelihood

We perceive objects based perceptual groupings – similar things tend to be grouped together.

Our perception of parts of a stimulus depends on the overall stimulus configuration – the whole is 

different from the sum of its parts

We perceive the object that is most likely to be caused by our sensory stimulation. For example, if a 

number of possible objects could have caused a particular pattern of light and dark on the retina, we 

will perceive the object that is most likely to occur in that particular situation
32

For example, consider a comparison between regular and high definition TV. If you only watch a football 

or baseball game on regular TV, you tend to think it is okay. Then you switch to HD and realize how 

much detail you were missing. When you first flip back to regular TV you wonder how you could watch 

such poor resolution, but in a few minutes the picture seems relatively normal again. Your brain fills in 

much of the missing information, based on your expectations. 

So what?

LESSON: Recognize that you tend to view a scene as a whole, but that you may need to take it apart to 

perceive the target. Knowledge about the target improves the likelihood of detecting it.

Figure-Ground Segregation

• A figure appears more “thing-like” and is seen in front of the ground.

• The ground appears as unformed material.

• Any contour separating the figure from the ground appears to belong to the figure.

Activity: Try to read the license plate, first when it is upside down, and then when it is right side up. 

The Rubin vase/profile illusion is an ambiguous figure/ground illusion.

Stanford psychologist Roger Shepard’s drawing of the woman and the candlestick

The Gestalt perceptual drawing in which one may perceive either an old woman or a young woman

LESSON: You are much more likely to perceive something that you expect. 

Why do we see things?

• Shape – Recognizable shape of familiar things

• Shine – Reflected light from shiny objects

• Shadow – Changes contrast

• Silhouette – Contrasting colors and breaking the skyline

• Surface – Wide, single color surfaces

• Spacing – Regular spacing, out of balance with natural environment

• Movement – Moving objects which attract attention

• Sensors – Infrared / thermal, magnetic, movement or seismic sensors

• Smell – out of place in natural environment

• Noise – Unnatural, out of place noises or vibrations

• Intuition – Sixth sense or unprocessed data inputs
33

Key elements that are often indicators of an IED

• Foot prints

• Knee prints

• Hand prints

• Tool prints

• Indicators of a hole and its shape

• Relative positions of digging indicators

• Global indicators of target areas

Subliminal Perception

If the presentation of an object is too brief for identification, it is subliminal in that subjects cannot 

identify it, and therefore they are unaware of the name. At the same time, however, they might be 

aware of other aspects of the object, such as orientation or texture. In that sense, awareness is a set of 

dimensions on which a threshold may be defined.

A person is often unaware of the specific cues and clues to which he is reacting not because the stimulus 

is insufficient to cross the threshold into consciousness but because the effort to be fully aware of all the 

cues all the time would create too great a cognitive strain. However, recognition thresholds vary 

tremendously, not only among individuals, but also in the same individual from one time to another, in 

accordance with his physical situation, his physiological condition, and above all the degree to which he 

is psychologically attuned to the particular content of the message.

Can expert knowledge increase sensitivity to subliminal information or enhance the potential that 

subliminal perceptions will cross the threshold to conscious awareness?

Yes!

For example, when you buy a new car you become an “expert” at finding that car – in the parking lot, 

waiting for someone driving it to pick you up, etc. You begin seeing the same model car everywhere, 

even if you are driving yours and have no need to search for it. You are subconsciously seeking and 

finding “your” car. The same principle may be applied to finding any object. The more often you search 

for it, the more likely you are to find it and the more automatic the process becomes. Consider the times 

when you are driving a rental car and you find yourself in the parking lot trying to open a stranger’s 

vehicle because it looks just like yours at home!

Bottom Line: Just being able to sense something is not enough to consciously know that you saw it. 

Tactical knowledge, correct expectations of targets, memory, and experiences along with knowledge 

about the capability and limitations of your eyes are all key to your ability to quickly and accurately 

detect targets.
34

Description of a foot print in the Fort Leonard Wood volleyball sand pit

Figure B-1. Foot print.

The primary impact point is distinct at the heel with a small plume of sand at the toe, indicating forward 

travel. The lengthy shadow suggests a deep print in soft, “fluffy” sand. Given the apparent coarseness of 

the surrounding soil, the detail of the print indicates that the sand must be somewhat moist. Soil color 

differences, most apparent at the toe plume and in the parallel lines along the bottom of the picture 

(rake marks), indicate that the soil is likely drying in the morning sun. The darker toe plume means the 

print is fresh – the subsurface soil is still moist while the surrounding soil is drier. The rake marks show 

paler (and drier) mounds and slightly darker furrows, suggesting the area may have been raked not long 

before the foot print was made. 
35

Appendix C. Grasky Quiz
36

Figure C-1. Grasky Quiz.

Grasky’s Track Reading Quiz Answers

1. How many people?

Nine – one of the authors named the tracks Pebbles, Crosses, Swoosh, Outline, Sunburst, Mesh, 

Furrows, Tire Tracks, and Knob-heel (with the chevron soles).
37

2. Who is the leader (1st person in the group)? 

Pebbles was first – all other tracks are on top of Pebbles.

3. Who is the last person through?

Crosses was last – Crosses is on top of all other tracks.

4. Who is the “pronated (duck walk) individual?

Swoosh is pronated – both of Swoosh’s prints (left and right) are pitched outward.

5. Who is the “pigeon-toed” walker?

Outline is pigeon-toed – both of Outline’s prints (left and right) are pitched inward.

6. Who has the “injured” right leg? 

Sunburst is injured – Sunburst’s right print has a significant outward pitch while the left print has 

a normal pitch.
38

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
39

Appendix D. Knowledge Test, Photo Test, Spoor Pit Test, Scoring

 

This appendix appears in its original form, without editorial change.
40

 Knowledge test and scoring rubric

 Photo task with annotations for (i) two individuals walking single file, (ii) covered wire, (iii) road 

crossing and loiter, (iv) meet and leave, and (v) coming and going. 

 Pre-training spoor pit test – annotated photographs and scoring for (i) reconnaissance (spotter only), 

(ii) sit down, (iii) meet and leave involving two people, (iv) emplacement by one person, and (v) drag line 

with one container.

 Post-training spoor pit test – annotated photographs and scoring for (i) spotter and sniper, (ii) sit 

down and check pack, (iii) meet and leave involving three people, (iv) emplacement by two people, and 

(v) drag line with two containers. 
Knowledge Test and Scoring Rubric

41

Tracker Mindset for Explosive Device Emplacement Detection – Knowledge Test ID Number ______

The scoring approach was to provide a value to each question based on its relative importance to 

understand the topic and then identify the correct answers. Given the open-ended nature of the 

questions, scorers awarded points to participant answers that were reasonably correct, or could be 

correct with a different interpretation of the question, even if the answer was not listed in the rubric.

Physiology & Psychology

1. List or briefly describe three methods or techniques you can use to improve your chance of 

seeing visual cues on the ground. (6 points possible)

 Use central vision, foveal vision

 Increase the stare time at an area (dwell time)

 Place the target between yourself and the lateral direction of the sun

 Search right to left

 Use enhanced viewing optics such as colored glasses or binoculars (2 pts)

 Look for shape or colors that don’t fit (2 pts)

 Change perspective, angle of viewing, closeness (2 pts)

 Look at a smaller group and then put the scenario together (2 pts)

 Use mirror to reflect light for shadow (2 pts)

 Use flashlight (2 pts)

 Smell – scents may give cue (1 pt)

2. If you are looking at the ground 10 feet away from you, how big of an area on the ground can 

you see with the most possible detail? (2 points possible)

About the size of a quarter or a 1-inch circle

3. If you are searching for an IED, why is it important in terms of eye movement that you have an 

idea of what the visual indicators should look like? (6 points possible)

Our eyes search an area with a series of movements (saccades) followed by fixations. Most 

fixations are very short, 1 to 3 per second. Information gained during a fixation guides the 

location of the following fixation. If you have knowledge of what you are looking for, then 

the fixations are driven by useful information as opposed to random information. 

4. Can feelings that “something is just not right” be worthy of further consideration? If so why, if 

not, why not? (6 points possible)

Yes, we may see something that does not reach the level in the brain where we perceive it. 

That is, what we see may not reach the threshold of conscious recognition. 
Knowledge Test and Scoring Rubric

42

5. Why is it difficult to see detail in very low light level conditions? (2 points possible)

 Cone cells provide the capability to see detail but do not function in low light conditions

 Light creates the shadow to indicate edges (1 pt)

 Rods do not provide good acuity (2 pts)

 The eyes cannot see color as well at night (1 pt)

 No shadows (1 pt)

 Light contrasts the prints (1 pt)

 Cones shut down and rods do not see color (1 pt)

6. How do novices and experts typically analyze a scene differently? (4 points possible)

Novices look at the parts, experts look at the sum of the parts (whole picture)

 Novice sees everything but does not know how to interpret the data gathered. The 

expert knows how to put the information together. (4 pts)

 Experts put things together like a puzzle thinking like a detective (4 pts)

 Experts know more clues, understand the patterns to recognize, and how to obtain 

more info from the clues (4 pts)

 Experts know what to look for and where to look (3 pts)

 Experts pick up the fine detail (2 pts)

7. How long should your attention dwell in one spot so that the brain has time to process what the 

eye sees? (2 points possible)

2-3 seconds

8. What psychological process allows us to process information faster? (4 points possible)

Automaticity

9. How can the process in #8 be improved? (4 points possible)

Practice; experience

Tracking Basics

10. What is spoor? (4 points possible)

Indicators of a person’s passage (4 pts)

11. What is a track trap? (4 points possible)

An area of ground that holds impressions especially well
Knowledge Test and Scoring Rubric

43

12. What two features of a track enables us to see it? (6 points possible)

 Shadows; color changes

 Depth (2 pts)

 Impression (2 pts)

 Pressure and light (2 pts)

 Patterns and contrast (4 pts)

 Color, contrast (4 pts)

13. How should the tracker be positioned so that he sees the best tracks? (6 points possible)

Facing the sun, with the track between the tracker and the sun

14. What is the most significant, unpredictable influence on the visual appearance of spoor? 

(4 points possible)

 Weather/aging; contamination

 Humans and weather (6 pts)

Tracker Mindset & Situational Awareness

15. What indicators does a tracker note? (6 points possible)

 Deviations from the natural state... any changes (6 pts)

 Target behavior – carrying load, limping, running, jumping, sitting, etc. (6 pts)

 Anything out of place (6 pts)

 Types of indicators; size, depth, clarity, color (3 pts)

 How many people, direction, what they are doing (2 pts)

 Depth, which way the track is going (1 pt)

 Shadows and shine (4 pts)

 Direction, activities (4 pts)

16. How does a tracker anticipate his quarry? (6 points possible)

 Likely avenues; intelligence (external), including movement behaviors

 Guess needs or wants (4 pts)

 Past behavior (4 pts)

 Typical behavior (4 pts)

 Think like they think (6 pts)

 Building a profile based on previous tracks (6 pts)

 Try to figure out where he is going (3 pts)

 Thinking about what they are doing and may be headed (6 pts)
Knowledge Test and Scoring Rubric

44

17. What are the characteristics of the tracker’s mindset? (6 points possible)

 Think like a detective; consider the scene as a whole; automatically note deviations

 Focus and situationally aware (2 pts)

 Aware, alert, observant (3 pts)

 Methodic, analytical, recognizes patterns, experienced (4 pts)

 Know what quarry is likely to do (2 pts)

 That of a hunter (4 pts)

 Mindset of a detective, more aware of detail and surroundings (4 pts)

 Who, what, when and why to find out what went on (4 pts)

 Knows what to look for (1 pt)

 Detail oriented, groups concepts to build profiles (4 pts)

 Think like a detective (4 pts)

 Looking for details (2 pts)

18. What makes a tracker more aware of his surroundings? (6 points possible)

 Vulnerability; possibility of ambush; understanding of what is normal for an area; 

different perspective (boots on the ground)

 Knowing what to look for and recognizing things out of place (4 pts)

 Being familiar with conditions (3 pts)

 Knowing what indicators are and what they mean (3 pts)

 Practice (2 pts)

 Knowledge of the area (3 pts)

 Ability to use only the info the really need (3 pts)

 Time and skill (2 pts)

 Visual mindset of what to look at or for (3 pts)

 The bigger picture of things (2 pts)

 Possibly getting ambushed (3 pts)

 Knowing people might hurt him if and when he gets to a certain spot (3 pts)

 Training and practice (2 pts)

 Know how to look for stuff that doesn’t belong. (3 pts)
Knowledge Test and Scoring Rubric

45

19. How does a tracker’s situational awareness transfer to IED detection? (4 points possible)

 Tactical significance of emplacement sites (ambush); change detection (deviations from 

the natural state – environmental and behavioral)

 Indicator can be found (2 pts)

 Can help to locate what transpired (1 pt)

 IEDs out of place, dirt different color (2 pts)

 Enable tracking of planters (1 pt)

 Picks up on cues quicker and knows where to look for next cue (2 pts)

 Gives indicator of where people were and what they were doing (2 pts)

 So you can see indicators before you come upon it (2 pts)

 Being aware of surroundings and not becoming complacent (2 pts)

 More focus, dealing with IEDs, they will tend to be more aware (2 pts)

 Always scanning, always alert (2 pts)

 Know what to look for (3 pts)

 Can see a spot on the trail for good IED placement (4 pts)

 Training eye and mind to detect unnatural occurrences (2 pts)

 Able to notice slight change in surroundings (2 pts)

 Pays attention to finer details (2 pts)

 Soils, tracks, misplace objects, etc. (2 pts)

 Can tell when an area has been disturbed (2 pts)

 Knows what wrong looks like (2 pts)

20. How can you improve your awareness? (4 points possible)

 Consider different perspectives; approach with an open mind; practice constantly!

 Slow down and take more time (2 pts)

 More tracking class (2 pts)

 Practice (2 pts)

 Pay attention to detail (2 pts)

 Set up own spoor pit and test (3 pts)

 Practice, employ, education (3 pts)

 Take time to observe (2 pts)

 Work on it everyday (2 pts)

 Learn indicators and gain experience (2 pts)
Photograph Test and Scoring Rubric

46

Tracker Mindset for Explosive Device Emplacement Detection – Photo Test

The first photo in each section (or for Photo 1, the only photo) is the unmarked picture that participants 

saw for the test. The second photo in each section contains annotations that label each indicator. 

Impressions from Photo 1 – Two individuals walking single file (10 points possible)

Figure D-1. Two individuals walking single file.

• Two individuals traveled in the same direction in single file. Cannot say who walked first, as no 

tracks appear to overlap another.

• Travel was from R to L, as evidenced by the toe drags that are characteristic of forward travel. 

(Backward travel would have heel drags.)

• Travel was mission-focused, as evidenced by the regular stride and straight line of travel.

• The pace was slow to moderate, as demonstrated by the stride length.

• Individuals likely carried no load, as the prints have no significant toe dig.

• The larger print is a boot-patterned sole with a separate heel, likely (but not definitively) made 

by a male because it is bigger.

• The smaller print appears to have a relatively smooth sole with a separate heel, likely (but not 

definitively) made by a female or juvenile because it is shorter and narrower.

General

• Soil on the bottom R is wet, as suggested by the darker color and supported by the well-defined 

sole patterns and edges.

• Soil on the top L is dry sand, as determined from the lighter color and ill-defined sole patterns 

and edges.

• Parallel lines in the sand indicate the ground was swept or raked before the tracks were laid.
Photograph Test and Scoring Rubric

47

• The photograph is aimed toward the sun, which significantly improves the visibility of the 

shadows that accentuate the prints.

Impressions from Photo 2 – Covered wire (10 points possible)

Figure D-2. Covered wire (original).

Figure D-3. Covered wire (annotated).
Photograph Test and Scoring Rubric

48

Børn boot prints (with a separate heel), called “Cobble” for the cobblestone-like sole pattern

• Most prominent in the scene is the smoothed area in the center from a right knee print.

• The accompanying toe print from the right foot appears to the L and just above the knee print.

• A well-defined print from the left support foot appears in the fine soil of a tire track directly 

above the knee print. Some soil is mounded on the outside edge of the print, indicating that 

extra weight was likely distributed on the outside of the foot (as might occur when reaching 

from a kneeling position).

• The chevron-like marks are finger drags, like those made when brushing soil together to cover 

something. The long parallel marks down the middle of the chevrons are also finger drags, as 

one might make when smoothing a surface. 

• Interpretation: it appears that Cobble entered the scene from the left, knelt on the right knee 

and covered something long and narrow in the road, and then backed away from the scene at 

the top L. 

Moccasin prints, called “Zigzag” for the distinctive sole pattern

• Entered the scene at top center, turned L and walked to the R along the fine soil tire track, and 

then exited at top R (only three clear foot prints are visible).

• Interpretation: Zigzag does not appear to loiter, but strides purposefully out of the scene along 

the tire track, suggesting that the individual was not connected to Cobble. However, it is curious 

why Zigzag would suddenly change direction.

General

• All foot prints are fresher than the tire tracks, as all foot prints lie on top of the tire tracks.

• One tire track appears to have heavier, mud-type tires.

• The hoof print was made when the ground was soft (i.e. wet).

• The photograph is aimed toward the sun, which significantly improves the visibility of the 

shadows that accentuate the prints.
Photograph Test and Scoring Rubric

49

Impressions from Photo 3 – Road crossing and loiter (10 points possible)

Figure D-4. Road crossing and loiter (original).

Figure D-5. Road crossing and loiter (annotated).
Photograph Test and Scoring Rubric

50

Moccasin prints, called “Zigzag” for the distinctive sole pattern

• Entered the scene at bottom, just L of center. Right foot (R0) stepped on the pale, soft shoulder 

sand and left foot stepped onto the hard roadbed. 

• Loitered on the roadside for a short time, as evidenced by the parallel, overlaid prints about 

shoulder width apart. First faced perpendicular to the road (L1 & R1), turned to the left (L2 & 

R2), turned to the right (L3-4 & R3-4), and then faced perpendicular once again (L5 & R5). [Note: 

The left Cobble print completely obscures the L4 print in this photo. Check the pre-Cobble photo 

on slide 6 to see the complete set of Zigzag prints.]

• Continued across the road, stepping with the right foot first (R6).

• Close examination reveals return prints with a short stride and wide straddle at the top R of the 

scene.

• Interpretation: Zigzag stepped onto the roadside, possibly checked each direction for traffic or 

for clear fields of view, and then crossed the road away from the observer. Either before or after 

the initial roadside loiter, Zigzag crossed the road toward the observer’s right. 

Børn boot prints (with a separate heel), called “Cobble” for the cobblestone-like sole pattern

• Entered the scene at bottom L in the very soft, sandy shoulder with the left foot (L1). 

• The next step (R1) is on top of the Zigzag prints, indicating a later passing. The right print 

appears deeper than the others with a significant toe dig. 

• The next left heel print (L2) appears slightly deeper than normal. The following right (R2) and 

left (L3) prints appear normal. 

• Interpretation: Cobble made a slight hop across the subtle depression between the soft 

shoulder and the firm roadbed, leaving two slightly deeper prints, and then continued at a brisk 

pace to angle across the road. 

Before Cobble entered the scene...

• Zigzag entered the scene at bottom, just L of center. Right foot stepped on the pale, soft 

shoulder sand and left foot stepped onto the hard roadbed. 

• Loitered on the roadside for a short time, as evidenced by the parallel, overlaid prints about 

shoulder width apart. First faced perpendicular to the road, turned to the left, turned to the 

right, and then faced perpendicular once again. 

• Continued across the road, stepping with the right foot first.

• Close examination reveals return prints with a short stride and wide straddle at the top R of the 

scene.

• Interpretation: Zigzag stepped onto the roadside, possibly checked each direction for traffic or 

for clear fields of view, and then crossed the road away from the observer. Either before or after 

the initial roadside loiter, Zigzag crossed the road toward the observer’s right. 

General

• Interpretation: the two tracks are seemingly not associated, as Cobble strides purposefully over 

the Zigzag loiter point without hesitation. 

• All foot prints are fresher than the tire tracks, as all foot prints lie on top of the tire tracks.

• The photograph is aimed toward the sun, which significantly improves the visibility of the 

shadows that accentuate the prints.
Photograph Test and Scoring Rubric

51

Impressions for Photo 4 – Meet and leave (10 points possible)

Figure D-6. Meet and leave (original).
Photograph Test and Scoring Rubric

52

Figure D-7. Meet and leave (annotated).

Moccasin prints, called “Zigzag” for the distinctive sole pattern

• Entered the scene at bottom L. 

• Walked a couple of steps (R1 & L1) and then loitered for a short time, as evidenced by the 

parallel, overlaid prints about shoulder width apart (R2-3 & L2-3). 

• Retraced original path (R4). 

Børn boot prints (with a separate heel), called “Cobble” for the cobblestone-like sole pattern

• Entered the scene at top R. 

• Walked a few steps (L1-2 & R1-2) and then loitered for a short time, as evidenced by the 

parallel, overlaid prints about shoulder width apart (L3-4 & R3). 

• Retraced original path (L5 & R5). 

General

• Interpretation: Zigzag and Cobble walked toward one another and stopped within handshake 

distance (personal space), indicating some familiarity with each other. [Note: Close familiarity or 

non-American cultures may move closer to hugging distance or to stand within smaller personal 

bubbles. Individuals hostile with each other would likely stop further apart.] The two possibly 

looked to the right, as suggested by the right-facing tracks. Both individuals turned around and 

retreated in the direction from whence they came.

• The photograph is aimed toward the sun, which significantly improves the visibility of the 

shadows that accentuate the prints.
Photograph Test and Scoring Rubric

53

Impressions for Photo 5 – Coming and going (10 points possible)

Figure D-8. Coming and going (original).

Figure D-9. Coming and going (annotated).
Photograph Test and Scoring Rubric

54

Børn boot prints (with a separate heel), called “Cobble L” for the cobblestone-like sole pattern 

traveling left

• First tracks on the scene entered at top R and traveled to bottom L. The heel strike shadows are 

fairly pronounced.

“Cobble R” (Cobble traveling right) and boat shoe prints, called “Eyelet” for the horizontal circles-onlines sole pattern

• Both Cobble R and Eyelet entered the scene at L. Their track lines are close together, but never 

overlap – either prints on prints or single file alignment.

• Eyelet passed this location after Cobble L passed, as evidenced by Eyelet’s print overlaid on 

Cobble L’s print in the center. 

• Eyelet’s first print on the L has a long heel drag.

General

• Interpretation: Cobble passed this point first, and then returned with Eyelet. The regular 

distance between and closeness of Cobble’s and Eyelet’s prints suggest that they may have 

walked side by side and were familiar with one another. [Note: Non-American cultures may 

move within smaller personal bubbles, regardless of close familiarity. Individuals unfamiliar or 

hostile with each other would likely walk further apart.]

• All foot prints are fresher than the tire tracks, as all foot prints lie on top of the tire tracks.

• Two roads merge, as evidenced from the general direction of tire tracks at the top and L.

• Drag line along the bottom R of the scene.

• The photograph is aimed toward the sun, which significantly improves the visibility of the 

shadows that accentuate the prints.
Pre-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

55

Tracker Mindset for Explosive Device Emplacement Detection – Pre-training Spoor Pit Test

The authors conducted the spoor pit task 13-16 Nov 2012 at Fort Leonard Wood, MO in a sand volleyball 

court. They photographed the pre-training spoor pit scenarios on Monday, 12 Nov 2012 in the late 

morning. What follows is only a small sample of the photos needed to provide a thorough description of 

the impressions. The authors will happily supply a full set of original and annotated photographs upon 

request. The first photo in each section that follows is an unmarked picture of the spoor pit’s natural 

appearance. The second photo in each section contains annotations that label each indicator. 

Pre-training spoor pit 1 – reconnaissance, spotter only

(15 points possible, up to 5 for each spoor identified and up to 10 for correct scene interpretation.)

Figure D-10. Reconnaissance, spotter only (original).
Pre-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

56

Figure D-11. Reconnaissance, spotter only (annotated).

General

• The photograph is aimed toward the sun, which significantly improves the visibility of the 

shadows that accentuate the prints.

• The “seam” running parallel to the upper left foot path resulted from sweeping half of the pit 

from the foot paths on either side of the pit (right path not visible).

Impressions – one individual with a running “w” sole pattern foot print

• This scene contains impressions from many different body parts, mostly located R of center –

toe digs, knee prints, thigh prints, body print, hand prints, arm prints, elbow prints. Notice the 

gently wrinkled effect from fabric and the sharp parallel lines from the front zipper. [Note: 

Sometimes we saw the slanted impressions from Army uniform name tags or the square rank 

tags, but not in this particular scenario.]

• It appears that one elbow (the left) pressed more deeply into the sand with no accompanying 

arm impression while the right elbow impression is more shallow and lies at the end of a fabric 

impression. It also appears that the left knee impression is deeper than the right, and that the 

right toe dig is deeper than the left toe dig.
Pre-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

57

• Two sets of foot prints were made by the same shoe, both facing the same direction. The 

individual entered the scene walking forward from L to R, and then exited the scene walking 

backward from R to L.

• The distant photos do not show enough detail to determine which direction the individual was 

traveling, so we looked at a close-up photo (not shown here) of the two print sets to establish 

sequence. 

o The most prominent indicator is the toe plume on the bottom center print (R1) showing 

that the toe drug some sand forward as the individual lifted his foot for the next step. 

The same can be seen on the toe print (left foot) that is just visible on the left edge of 

the photo. 

o The top set of prints most prominently shows a leaf drag (ending at L2 toe), indicating 

backward travel. A subtle heel plume appears on R1 showing that the heel drug some 

sand backward as the individual lifted his foot for the next step. (There is no tell-tale toe 

plume.) The irregular stride length (distance from left heel to right heel) is often an 

indicator of backward travel as well.

Sequence of Impressions - The individual entered along the bottom track, laid prone and created the 

toe digs in the process, and then rose and exited backward along the top track. 

• Black L1 foot is the left support foot as the individual knelt onto his right knee first. The track is 

quite distorted from the person shifting weight and drawing the foot back to lay down.

• Black R1 hand is the first support hand placed on the ground. It is partially smudged by the right 

thigh print, causing the palm portion of R1 to be indistinct and indicating it was laid before the 

thigh print. 

• Black L1 hand and then black R2 hand are the next prints made as the person laid his body 

prone. 

• The left elbow and the right forearm prints would have come next, followed by the right elbow 

print. (The edge of the right elbow print appears to overlay the right forearm print.)

• To rise the person rolled slightly to the left, causing deeper impressions along that side of the 

body (elbow and knee) and used the right hand (blue R1 hand) to push back onto his knees. This 

left a deep impression from the thumb. Blue L1 hand came next to provide balance, overlaying 

the palm of black L1 hand.

• The person used his right foot (blue R1 foot) to stand and then departed backward, stepping 

first with blue L1 foot.

Interpretation: The individual walked forward into the scene (L to R) and knelt down, left knee first. He 

used his empty hands to “walk” his body into a prone position (right hand first) and propped himself on 

his left elbow first while resting his right forearm on the ground (long sleeves, right hand off the 

ground). He adjusted his body to prop on both elbows, ideal for a pose holding binoculars. He then 

rolled slightly to the left to push himself back to standing, stepping up from kneeling with the right foot 

first, and then walked backward out of the scene (R to L). 
Pre-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

58

Visual Points

1. Right elbow

2. Right forearm

3. R2 hand

4. R1 hand

5. Deep right hand thumb print

6. R1 hand

7. Right thigh

8. Right knee 

9. R1 foot

10. Left elbow

11. L1 hand

12. L1 Hand

13. Torso and zipper

14. Left thigh

15. Left knee

16. L1 foot

17. Series of footprints walking 

into and out of position.

Pre-training spoor pit 2 – sit down

(15 points possible, up to 5 for each spoor identified and up to 10 for correct scene interpretation.)

Figure D-12. Sit down (original).
Pre-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

59

Figure D-13. Sit down (annotated).

Impressions – one individual with a running “w” sole pattern foot print 

• Individual entered the scene from bottom center with the right foot. 

• The flattened area in the center of the scene contains wrinkled impressions akin to what fabric 

would leave. 

• Hand prints, one on the left and two on the right, are located on either side of the flattened 

area. The orientation of the right hand prints are more of a load bearing position, and the depth 

and detail of the second impression especially indicate significant weight was placed on the 

hand. 

• Two of the three divots above the fabric are shaped appropriately for heel prints, with a 

crescent back (in sunshine) and sloping front (in shadow). The third divot (left heel, second dig) 

is shaped differently, but the plume of sand covering the adjacent foot print suggests that the 

heel may have been twisted before being lifted right-ward, wallowing the original crescentshaped divot and dragging sand in the direction of movement.

• The orientation of the right foot prints and the tilt (i.e. roll) of the impressions indicate that the 

individual shifted weight to the right.
Pre-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

60

• The roll of the departing foot prints indicate that the person was slightly off-balance, appearing 

to leave with a right and then a left foot step when actually the foot steps were left and then 

right.

Interpretation: The person walked to the center of the scene and sat down using the left hand for 

balance. He sat with knees bent upward, as one would when propping elbows, causing his heels to dig 

into the ground. He adjusted his position to pull is left heel toward his body, causing the second (lower) 

heel dig and the light foot impression. When he rose he rolled his weight to the right side, as indicated 

by the right-facing foot prints, and used his right hand twice to push himself up. In the process of rising, 

his left heel dug into the ground a bit, rounding the divot. Once standing he was slightly off-balance and 

his left foot rolled to the outside. He took a final step (right foot) and exited the scene. 

Visual Points

1. R1 foot print

2. Right hand first push

3. Thumb

4. Right hand second push 

5. R2-4 foot prints

6. Right heel

7. Left hand

8. Left 1-3 foot print

9. Left heel dig (first)

10. Left heel dig (second)

11. Buttocks

12. L4 foot print

13. R5 foot print
Pre-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

61

Pre-training spoor pit 3 – meet and leave involving two people 

(15 points possible, up to 5 for each spoor identified and up to 10 for correct scene interpretation.)

Figure D-14. Meet and leave involving two people (original).
Pre-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

62

Figure D-15. Meet and leave involving two people (annotated).

Impressions – two sets of tracks – one has a running “w” sole pattern and one has an indistinct hiking 

boot sole pattern. 

• The “W” print entered the scene from the bottom – left-right-left foot steps, and then the right 

foot stepped to parallel with the left as the individual stopped.

• W’s stop was likely short, as no overlapping prints that typically accompany weight shifts or 

sight-seeing are present. 

• W continued in his original direction of travel.
Pre-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

63

• The Hiker print entered the scene from the top – left-right-left-right-left foot steps, and then the 

right foot stepped to parallel with the left as the individual stopped within cheek-kiss distance of 

W’s prints. 

• It is likely that Hiker did not stop for long either, as the only overlapping prints seem to be from 

his change in direction. 

• Hiker turned to the left, overlapping several of his original prints, and returned the way he 

came. 

• Given the manner in which W’s and Hiker’s converging prints align and the consistent spacing 

between their retreating tracks, it is likely they were present in this scene at the same time. 

Interpretation: Two individuals met, greeted one another in a familiar manner, and then walked away 

together. 

Visual Points

1. L1 W foot print (entering from bottom)

2. R1 W foot print

3. L2 W foot print

4. R2 W foot print – side by side of W L2 foot 

print (stopped position)

5. Hiker (H) L1 foot print (entering from top)

6. H R1 foot print

7. H L2 foot print

8. H R2 footprint

9. H L3 foot print

10. H R3 foot print side by side of H L3 foot 

print and in front of W R2 and L2 foot 

prints

11. H R4 (reverse turn to exit back out top of 

picture and to L of W

12. H L4 foot print

13. H R5 foot print

14. H L5 foot print

15. 15.H R6 foot print (departs top of picture 

and pit with W to his R.
Pre-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

64

Pre-training spoor pit 4 – emplacement by one person

(15 points possible, up to 5 for each spoor identified and up to 10 for correct scene interpretation.)

Figure D-16. Emplacement by one person (original).
Pre-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

65

Figure D-17. Emplacement by one person (annotated).

Impressions – one individual with a running “w” sole pattern foot print 

• One individual entered the scene right-left-right from the left and then stopped in the center, 

stepping the left foot parallel with the right.

• The feet were shifted slightly, marring the precise outline of the shoe. The left standing print 

shows a double heel where the foot was pivoted counterclockwise a smidge.

• There is a divot in front of the right foot print.

• The smoothed area on the right appears to have been compressed all at once, indicating some 

object was placed on the ground.

• The smoothed area at the top is rough, indicating an uneven smoothing action with something 

like a hand or tool.

• The individual exited the scene at the bottom right, stepping left and then right. 

Interpretation: The individual walked into the scene and set down a container that was in his right hand. 

He pushed a tool (most likely a shovel, given the circumstances) with his left foot to disturb the soil, 

leaving a heel divot as the tool either sank into the ground or slipped along the surface. He then 

smoothed the soil, picked up the container (unless he buried it), and walked around the disturbance and 

out of the scene. 
Pre-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

66

Visual Points

1. R1 (person enters scene from bottom)

2. L1

3. R2

4. L2 (besides R2) shows double heel mark

5. R3 & R4 partially overlap just in front of R2

6. L heel dig to front of R3 and just L of Soil disturbance

7. Container print just below R2 & R4
Pre-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

67

Pre-training spoor pit 5 – drag line with one container

(15 points possible, up to 5 for each spoor identified and up to 10 for correct scene interpretation.)

Figure D-18. Drag line with one container (original).
Pre-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

68

Figure D-19. Drag line with one container (annotated).

Impressions – one individual with a running “w” sole pattern foot print 

• One set of tracks with only the left foot print visible. Though the two right foot prints are not 

readily visible in this photo, the next photo from a different angle will show them more clearly.

• The individual was walking backwards, as evidenced by the heel plumes.

• The object left a smooth drag line, suggesting the material was rigid rather than flexible. Its 

passing knocked loose sand on top of the foot prints, indicating the person passed before the 

object. 

• The jags in the drag line are consistent with the person’s stride. 

Interpretation: It appears that the individual was bent over pulling something along, as the pitch of the 

foot is outward and the heel strike is deep.
Pre-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

69

Visual Points

1. Impression of object drug through the length of the picture

2. Seven or more distinct left W footprints are visible to the left of the slide

3. Heel plumes at back of left footprint indicates that person is walking backwards

4. Drag soil on footprint, bottom left indicates drag followed footprint

5. Two right footprints are visible 3⁄4 way to top of picture and just right of drag
Post-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

70

Tracker Mindset for Explosive Device Emplacement Detection – Post-training Spoor Pit Test

The authors conducted the spoor pit task 13-16 Nov 2012 at Fort Leonard Wood, MO in a sand volleyball 

court. They photographed the pre-training spoor pit scenarios on Tuesday, 13 Nov 2012 in the late 

afternoon. What follows is only a small sample of the photos needed to provide a thorough description 

of the impressions. The authors will happily supply a full set of original and annotated photographs upon 

request. The first photo in each section that follows is an unmarked picture of the spoor pit’s natural 

appearance. The second photo in each section contains annotations that label each indicator. 

Post-training spoor pit 1 – spotter and sniper 

(15 points possible, up to 5 for each spoor identified and up to 10 for correct scene interpretation.)

Figure D-20. Spotter and sniper (original).
Post-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

71

Figure D-21. Spotter and sniper (original).
Post-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

72

Figure D-22. Spotter and sniper (sniper annotated).

General

The sun is to the cameraman’s left in these photos, which makes it more difficult to see the hand prints 

and fabric wrinkles.

Impressions – two individuals, one with a hiking boot sole pattern on the left and one with lines for 

the sole pattern on the right 

For both individuals, the smoothed area central to the toe, knee, and elbow prints contains wrinkles that 

are characteristic of fabric, presumably a prone individual’s clothing, which can give indicators of his 

identity. For example, canted rectangular impressions at the breast pocket level might indicate a name 

tag for a uniform. A straight line up the middle suggests a fastening jacket rather than a pullover (which 

may favor a civilian rather than military subject). 

Shooter impressions – the Hiker sole pattern 

• Hiker entered the scene from the bottom left with his right foot (R1, only forward half of the 

print is visible).

• The second right foot impression (R2) is toed-in in preparation for the individual to lower 

himself to the ground, suggesting that he knelt with the right knee (R3) on the ground first. 
Post-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

73

• The first left toe dig (L2) was for balance until the individual settled into a prone position with 

the left knee hiked up (L3 toe dig and L4 knee print, R3 right knee print). The soil at L4 is pushed 

up significantly, indicating the knee was scooted forward rather than placed into position.

• No hand impressions are visible, suggesting the individual was holding something and had to use 

his elbows for prone movement.

• The elbow impressions are fairly widely spaced – ideal for balance. They are aligned with three 

other impressions that are consistent with a bipod and rifle butt, indicating that perhaps the 

individual was in a prone shooting position. 

• The significant soil disturbances at the L3 and R3 locations indicate foot movement without a 

clear, weighted step. 

• The clear exit prints show balanced, purposeful movement.

Spotter impressions – the Lines sole pattern 

• Lines entered the scene from the bottom right with the right foot (R1). The print is not visible in 

this photo due to the overlaying exit print (R3), but the preceding lead-in prints outside the 

bottom boundary of the photo indicate that the right foot entered the scene there.

• The deeper knee and toe impressions on the left side suggest that the individual lowered 

himself to the left knee first.

• The deeper hand and thumb prints on the right suggest that the individual rolled left to rise, 

enabling him to pull his right foot (R2) up first to stand.

• Since the first exit foot print for the left foot (L2) has distinct (sharp) detail and no heel 

impression, it is likely that weight was shifted promptly from the ball of the left foot back to the 

full right foot (R3). The uneven weight distribution could be the result of an injury or loss of 

balance (or both), or simply a characteristic way of moving. 

• The elbow impressions are fairly close together – not ideal for balance, indicating that perhaps 

the individual was holding something that required two hands, such as binoculars.
Post-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

74

Visual Points

Hiker (shooter):

1. R1 foot print

2. L1 foot print

3. R2 foot print

4. L2 left toe dig

5. R3 right knee print

6. L3 left toe dig

7. R4 foot print

8. L4 foot print

9. Fabric wrinkles 

10. E3 two separate elbow prints (R & L)

11. Rifle butt print

12. L5 rising left foot print

13. R5 right foot print

14. L6 left foot print

15. L7 departing left foot print

Lines (spotter):

1. R3 right foot print

2. Right toe digs

3. L2 left ball of foot

4. Right toe digs

5. Left toe digs

6. Right knee print

7. R2 rising right foot print

8. Left knee print

9. Fabric wrinkles

10. Right hand prints with thumb digs

11. Left hand print with thumb dig
Post-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

75

Post-training spoor pit 2 – sit down and check pack

(15 points possible, up to 5 for each spoor identified and up to 10 for correct scene interpretation.)

Figure D-23. Sit down and check pack (original).
Post-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

76

Figure D-24. Sit down and check pack (annotated).

Impressions – one individual with a lined heel sole pattern foot print

• Lined Heel enters from bottom center (L1) and walks (R1, L2, R2, L3) to the center of the scene. 

• A rear-pointing right hand print is visible. The print has no significant thumb dig, suggesting that 

weight was evenly applied (i.e. perhaps the individual was using the hand support to sit down 

rather than rise).

• The smoothed area in the center has wrinkle impressions, such as those observed with fabric. It 

is likely that the individual sat down, shifting the right foot (R3) in the process.

• Two digs (L4, R4) resemble the shape, depth, and angle consistent with heel digs from a seated 

position.

• To the left of the wrinkle impressions is a significant soil disturbance. It is hard to definitively 

describe what caused the disturbance, but indicators such as wrinkle impressions, hard lines, 

and location might suggest something like a backpack. 

• The “tool” prints to the right of the wrinkle impressions are shaped like a rifle butt. However, no 

supporting indicators are visible. The upper tool print is deeper than the lower tool print, 

indicating that more pressure was applied, possibly as a crutch to assist the person in rising from 

the ground. 

• Foot prints lead away from the scene, indicating the individual rose (L5, R5) and left (R6).
Post-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

77

Visual Points

1. L1 left foot print

2. R1 right foot print

3. Right hand print

4. L2 left foot print

5. Wrinkled fabric

6. Disturbance

7. Tool marks (2 each)

8. R2 & R3 foot prints

9. L3 foot print

10. R4 right heel dig

11. L3 left foot print

12. L4 left heel dig

13. L5 left foot print / heel dig

14. R5 right foot print / heel dig

15. R6 right foot print moving on
Post-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

78

Post-training spoor pit 3 – meet and leave involving three people

(15 points possible, up to 5 for each spoor identified and up to 10 for correct scene interpretation.)

Figure D-25. Meet and leave involving three people (original).
Post-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

79

Figure D-26. Meet and leave involving three people (annotated).

Impressions – two individuals with a hiker boot sole pattern foot print and one individual with a mesh 

sole pattern foot print 

• Black Hiker entered the scene from the left and walked to center (L1, R1). 

• Blue Mesh and Red Hiker entered the scene from the right and walked to center (L1, R1).

• All three individuals stopped approximately handshake distance from one another and loitered 

for a short time, as evidenced by only a few overlapping prints rather than many. 

• Black Hiker returned in the direction from which he came (R2, L2). Blue Mesh and Red Hiker 

continued their original line of travel (R2, L2, R3, L3, R4). In this picture, none of the exiting 

prints from the three individuals overlay one another in this scene, so it is impossible to prove 

the sequence of passing. However, given the distance between the track lines, it is reasonable to 

assume that Black Hiker walked before Blue Mesh, giving him room to travel the same direction. 

Red Hiker was far enough away from the other tracks that it is not reasonable to estimate his 

place in the sequence. 

• The tool marks could be made by anything from a walking stick to a shovel. The term “tool” is 

only meant to indicate an unknown item separate from the human. 

• In a separate photo (not shown), one can see Red Hiker’s prints overlaying Black Hiker’s – clear 

evidence that Red Hiker’s track line was laid after Black Hiker’s track line. One may deduce that 

Black Hiker turned and led while Blue Mesh and Red Hiker followed.
Post-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

80

Visual Points

Black Hiker: Entered scene from

left and walked to the center, 

then turned about and walked 

out in same direction entered 

the scene.

1. L1 foot print 

(going in)

2. R1 foot print 

(going in)

3. Loitered

4. R2 foot print (headed 

back)

5. L2 foot print 

(headed back)

Blue Mesh: Entered scene from 

right and walked to the center, 

loitered, then continued in same 

direction.

1. R1 foot print

2. L1 foot print

3. R2 foot print 

4. Loiter –within 

handshake distance 

of Black Hiker

5. Tool mark

6. L2 foot print

7. R3 foot print

8. Tool mark

9. L3 foot print

10. R4 foot print

Red Hiker: Entered scene from 

right and walked to the center, 

loitered, then continued in same 

direction.

1. L1 foot print

2. R1 foot print

3. Short loiter

4. L2 foot print

5. R2 foot print

6. L3 foot print
Post-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

81

Post-training spoor pit 4 – emplacement by two people

(15 points possible, up to 5 for each spoor identified and up to 10 for correct scene interpretation.)

Figure D-27. Emplacement by two people (original).
Post-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

82

Figure D-28. Emplacement by two people (annotated).

Impressions – one individual with a hiker boot sole pattern foot print and one individual with a 

smooth sole pattern foot print 

• Hiker (black) enters the scene from bottom center and exits the scene top center. 

• Hiker’s L2 print orientation suggests acknowledgement of the ground disturbance or some 

activity in that area. The gait appears otherwise regular and unhurried. 

• Smooth Sole (blue) enters the scene from the bottom left and appears to loiter a short time 

near the ground disturbance (R2, L2, R3, L3). Several impressions are visible, possibly tool marks. 

Two look like the grooves on the back of a shovel and 3 look like slice marks from the shovel 

blade.

• Smooth Sole continues around the ground disturbance and exits the scene near top center. 

• The spacing between the two track lines as they enter the scene indicates that the two 

individuals could have been walking side by side. No overlapping prints indicate a sequence of 

passing. However, the direction of travel for Smooth Sole (blue) as he exits the scene would 

cross Hiker’s path, suggesting that they left the scene a different times. 

Interpretation: Combined with the location of the tool marks and the assumption that the semi-buried 

object was carried into the scene, the interpretation is that Smooth Sole carried a shovel to the 

emplacement site and dug the hole. Hiker walked roughly alongside Smooth Sole, placed the object in 
Post-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

83

the hole, and walked away. Smooth Sole roughly/hastily covered the object and walked around the 

object to depart. 

Visual Points

Hiker (black)

1. R1 right foot print

2. L1 left foot print

3. R2 right foot print

4. L2 left foot print (angled to the left)

5. R3 right foot print – departing scene

6. L3 left foot print – departing scene

7. R4 right foot print- departing scene

Smooth Sole (blue)

1. R1 right foot print

2. L1 left foot print

3. R3 right foot print

4. L2 & L3 left foot prints very close

5. Loiter indications

6. Possible tool marks

7. Obvious ground disturbance (hole)

8. L4 left foot print

9. R4 right foot print
Post-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

84

Post-training spoor pit 5 – drag line with two containers

(15 points possible, up to 5 for each spoor identified and up to 10 for correct scene interpretation.)

Figure D-29. Drag line with two containers (original).
Post-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

85

Figure D-30. Drag line with two containers (annotated).

Impressions – one individual with a smooth sole pattern foot print

• A smoothed area crosses the scene diagonally from bottom right to top center. The area has 

two components – a grooved segment and a very smooth segment. The terminal point at top 

center shows the grooved segment ending first, revealing that the smoothed section is much 

wider than was apparent from the rest of the impression line. 

• The smoothed area spills over the R3 print, indicating the foot print was laid first.

• Interpretation: one individual was walking backward, dragging two items – possibly a rigid 

container, as evidenced by the regular grooves along the entire impression line and a soft 
Post-Training Spoor Pit Test and Scoring Rubric

86

container such as a bag, given the smooth wavy impression line. The soft container passed 

before the rigid container. 

Interpretation: one individual was walking backward, dragging two items – possibly a rigid container, as 

evidenced by the regular grooves along the entire impression line and a soft container such as a bag, 

given the smooth wavy impression line. The soft container passed before the rigid container. 

Visual Points:

1. R1 right foot print (walking backwards)

2. R2 right foot print (walking backwards)

3. R3 right foot print (walking backwards)

4. R4 right foot print (walking backwards)

5. Left foot prints were covered over by the dragging action
87

Appendix E. After Action Review Comments

 

This appendix appears in its original form, without editorial change.
88

Comments from the AAR

Husky can find pressure plates for about 2 months, then they disappear (to the Husky)

Took off panels and replaced with rakes (many in theater)

Off road with Husky was gold.

Comments

ID

1. What things did you like 

most about the training?

2. What things did you like 

least about the training?

3. What would you do 

differently (add / delete / 

change) if you had only 8 

hours to conduct this 

training?

4. What additional comments 

would you like to make?

2 There was scientific 

backing for what was 

taught; instructors have a 

good knowledge of 

tracking techniques

The photos are a good 

introduction, but field 

time is the best way to 

look a scenarios

Add more spoor pit time 

in larger areas; have a 

culminating event at the 

end of the 8 hours; add 

how to work in team 

size elements; add 

tracking over a distance

Adding IED components 

to the areas and imprints 

for Soldiers to get an 

idea for objects they 

would encounter again.

3 Hands on; explanation on 

everything was really 

good

We just did dirt, I would 

like to see grass, gravel, 

clay, different terrain.

Take away death by 

PowerPoint

Instructors were 

awesome. They knew 

their information and 

followed through very 

well.

4 It was new information 

with a fresh perspective 

on an old problem 

(finding IEDs). It was very 

informative.

Probably the photo 

guessing. Not because it 

didn't contribute, more 

because it was 

frustrating. It was more 

difficult and you 

couldn't get different 

angles.

Having slides dedicated 

to specific clues (after 

the initial testing).

Really this class was a 

good introductory 

course. 2 days isn't 

nearly long enough to 

get very proficient. It 

would be nice if there 

was a follow-up class.

5 Informative; good pace I wanted more samples 

of different actions and 

what the tracks look 

like. Also, what spoor 

looks like in different 

terrain (gravel, 

pavement, wooded 

area, etc)

More feedback on spoor I'd like to attend a longer 

version of this, one 

where we actually track 

someone instead of 

interpret spoor in a 

volleyball court.

6 Not knowing anything I 

liked the subject in 

general. I feel it is a very 

large subject to cover in 

2 days, but is a great 

introduction.

I felt like it was too 

much information for 2 

days. This is a subject 

that needs more time 

even for an intro to it.

Better organization 

could get more 

information out.
89

ID

1. What things did you like 

most about the training?

2. What things did you like

least about the training?

3. What would you do 

differently (add / delete / 

change) if you had only 8 

hours to conduct this 

training?

4. What additional comments 

would you like to make?

7 Hands on going outside 

to get the full effect of 

the training

That there are indicators 

when in theater or 

during a deployment 

there are none

Put command wire in 

the training

None

8 There was a lot of hands 

on training

Not being able to know 

the answers till the end

Add different training 

areas maybe mud, 

pavement

Good class learned a lot

10 Teaching your eye to see 

more with different light 

or tech. Location was 

nice with sand pit.

Really there was nothing 

I didn't like, but could 

have been better with 

lones [?] while walking 

through the woods 

around building show 

actual events situations.

No delete, but would 

change or put actual IED 

so our eye could train 

on that for war time.

Good job. I'm walking 

away with more than I 

came in with.

11 Instructor's knowledge 

on the topic; the visual 

aids; hands on 

experience

Lanes were small; class 

was only 2 days; need 

more hands on; better 

definition of terms

Split the time up 4 hr 

class rm/4 hour field or 

6x2.

12 Learning to read a spoor Nothing I would add training 

IEDs so you can learn to 

pick up the indicators of 

the PP & CD IEDs, i.e. 

stick lanes

Very good training 

overall. Need more than 

just two days. Any group 

or company deploying to 

do route clearance 

should attend this 

training.

13 The information on how 

to save my life and battle 

buddies

___ [?] we ___[?] more 

about IED

Make the training 

longer. 2 days was not 

enough.

Overall it was a good 

class; new information 

giving out.

21 I liked the sand pits. There wasn't and like 

creators 

like make creator 

[crater?] with tracks 

around it like 3 meters 

off

I would put more 

training with IEDs 

placing them making 

tracks.

Training was good I know 

a lot more than I came 

here with

22 The class teaches you the 

1st step to reading 

tracks, how to properly 

look at them, how to 

read them, basics for a 

beginner.

Class needs to be 

longer, a week course to 

cover as much material 

as possible in regards to 

IED. Cover and 

concealment How to 

detect as much as you 

can.

[Circled "add"]

Booklet for students to

take with them for their 

own personal use for in 

the field.

Course needs to be 

made into a week long 

event to get as much as 

the student can out of it. 

2 days is not enough. But 

in 2 days you can get the 

mind set of the basics of 

tracking and cover and 

concealment events.

23 I liked that it not only 

involved classroom but 

had an outside hands-on 

look on the subject as 

well.

I thought that having 

IED simulators or some 

sort of visual IED to train 

on would have been 

more realistic.

I would change the 

different pits on the 

classroom side and 

move it to complete 

outdoors hands-on

I thought it was a good 

base for a class and 

could be helpful and 

effective
90

ID

1. What things did you like 

most about the training?

2. What things did you like 

least about the training?

3. What would you do 

differently (add / delete / 

change) if you had only 8 

hours to conduct this 

training?

4. What additional comments 

would you like to make?

24 The check on learning. 

Hands on. Actually 

making a scene

Changing of classrooms More hands on training It was a great learning 

experience

Learned a lot and it 

should be conducted to 

every organization

25 Some the information 

about tracking and soil 

marks

Not enough examples 

with actual IED in spoor

Make sure that the class 

is more understand 

because not all troops 

have had classes on 

types of IED

Make sure to have 

several different soil 

type for spoors

26 Identifying prints and 

have an idea on what 

they were doing. 

Instructors were very 

informative.

Distance between 

classroom and spoor 

site

27 The way it taught me 

how to look more into 

detail about tracks, and 

how to interpret them.

I didn't care for the 

slides of the spoor pit as 

much as I did being 

outside and getting 

different angles and 

views

Do away with some of 

the slides and spend 

more time identifying 

different scenarios

Instructors were very 

knowledgeable and 

helpful. The class was a 

big eye opener to 

tracking skills.

28 Practical exercises made 

the classroom portion 

understandable

Not enough field 

practice

Remove some of the 

soldier concept 

scenarios at the spoor 

pit on Day 1, add more 

IED specific tracking 

techniques.

I feel the class was 

misrepresented as an IED 

class. I do realize that 

this is a juvenile 

program, however, little 

if any time was spent on 

IED specifics. Perhaps 

adding command wire 

burying, debris removal, 

and or placement.

29 Very different training 

than had before, a new 

set of skills

For different scenes in 

the spoor pit, have a 

little more analyzing 

time to get all details

Add in possible 

woods/forest tracking

30 New training

Hands on

Back and forth to 

training

More in depth 

classroom time

This is a good class but 

could be longer and 

more information added.

31 Hands on training 

actually making a scene 

helped understand

Angles and light were 

limited by weather

Made hard to 

understand and 

determine what was 

going on

+ more hands on 

actually make scenario 

and go out and let the 

class crawl around and 

figure out the scene

Good training and very 

knowledgeable 

instructors
91

ID

1. What things did you like 

most about the training?

2. What things did you like 

least about the training?

3. What would you do 

differently (add / delete / 

change) if you had only 8 

hours to conduct this 

training?

4. What additional comments 

would you like to make?

32 It was good to know b/c 

not only is this gonna 

help me hunt in my off 

time but survive down 

range.

Paperwork honestly. Make this an actual 

week/40 hr course b/c 

this IS a good tool to 

have plus some 

promotion points would 

encourage 

people/soldiers to learn 

it.

Maybe a longer lunch 

say 2 hrs b/c slides are a 

good form of sleep 

therapy.

33 The field training at 

spoor pit was good.

Overall I felt the training 

was well presented

I would have liked to 

have spent more time 

with print reading.

I think a better spoor pit 

would help increase 

teaching. Maybe having 

one built specifically for 

training would be great.

34 Knowledgeable 

instructors, hands on 

training and snacks

Keep it the same. Great class and I did walk 

away with more 

knowledge than I had 

before.

It was new learning and it 

was fun trying to figure 

out what happened in 

each situation.

Pictures were kind of 

hard to distinguish 

things at times

Maybe have a little 

more time in the sand 

pit.

36 I liked that we learned a 

different skill to help 

with identifying IEDs and 

IED identifiers.

There wasn't anything I 

didn't like about the 

training. Except I wasn't 

aware of what I was 

doing before I got into 

the class.

I would add a small 

portion of IED training. 

Mainly the ones most 

used in Afghanistan.

It was a great class. I 

learned a bunch in the 

short 2 days.

37 The pics and the 

information put out by 

the trainers

The repetitive scenarios Terrain, weather like 

stuff, like weather, grass 

etc

More props for exercise

More pics and different 

type scenarios but 

overall good info and 

keep up the good work. 

Thank you
92

1 DEFENSE TECHNICAL

(PDF) INFORMATION CTR

DTIC OCA

2 DIRECTOR

(PDF) US ARMY RESEARCH LAB

RDRL CIO LL

IMAL HRA MAIL & RECORDS MGMT

1 GOVT PRINTG OFC

(PDF) A MALHOTRA

1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

(PDF) RDRL HRM D

T DAVIS

BLDG 5400 RM C242

REDSTONE ARSENAL AL 35898-7290

1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

(PDF) RDRL HRS EA DR V J RICE

BLDG 4011 RM 217

1750 GREELEY RD

FORT SAM HOUSTON TX 78234-5002

1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

(PDF) RDRL HRM DG J RUBINSTEIN

BLDG 333

PICATINNY ARSENAL NJ 07806-5000

1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

(PDF) ARMC FIELD ELEMENT

RDRL HRM CH C BURNS

THIRD AVE BLDG 1467B RM 336

FORT KNOX KY 40121

1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

(PDF) AWC FIELD ELEMENT

RDRL HRM DJ D DURBIN

BLDG 4506 (DCD) RM 107

FORT RUCKER AL 36362-5000 

1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

(PDF) RDRL HRM CK J REINHART

10125 KINGMAN RD BLDG 317

FORT BELVOIR VA 22060-5828

1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

(PDF) RDRL HRM AY M BARNES

2520 HEALY AVE 

STE 1172 BLDG 51005

FORT HUACHUCA AZ 85613-7069

1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

(PDF) RDRL HRM AT J CHEN

12423 RESEARCH PKWY

ORLANDO FL 32826-3276

1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

(PDF) RDRL HRM AP D UNGVARSKY

POPE HALL BLDG 470 

BCBL 806 HARRISON DR

FORT LEAVENWORTH KS 66027-2302

1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

(PDF) RDRL HRM AT C KORTENHAUS

12350 RESEARCH PKWY

ORLANDO FL 32826-3276 

1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

(PDF) RDRL HRM CU B LUTAS-SPENCER

6501 E 11 MILE RD MS 284

BLDG 200A 2ND FL RM 2104

WARREN MI 48397-5000

1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

(PDF) FIRES CTR OF EXCELLENCE 

FIELD ELEMENT

RDRL HRM AF C HERNANDEZ

3040 NW AUSTIN RD RM 221

FORT SILL OK 73503-9043

1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

(PDF) RDRL HRM AV W CULBERTSON

91012 STATION AVE 

FORT HOOD TX 76544-5073

1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

(PDF) HUMAN RSRCH AND ENGRNG 

DIRCTRT MCOE FIELD ELEMENT

RDRL HRM DW C CARSTENS

6450 WAY ST

BLDG 2839 RM 310

FORT BENNING GA 31905-5400

1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

(PDF) RDRL HRM DE A MARES

1733 PLEASONTON RD BOX 3

FORT BLISS TX 79916-6816

8 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

(PDF) SIMULATION & TRAINING

TECHNOLOGY CENTER

RDRL HRT COL M CLARKE

RDRL HRT I MARTINEZ

RDRL HRT T R SOTTILARE

RDRL HRT B N FINKELSTEIN

RDRL HRT G A RODRIGUEZ

RDRL HRT I J HART

RDRL HRT M C METEVIER

RDRL HRT S B PETTIT

12423 RESEARCH PARKWAY

ORLANDO FL 32826
93

1 ARMY RSCH LABORATORY – HRED

(PDF) HQ USASOC

RDRL HRM CN R SPENCER

BLDG E2929 DESERT STORM DRIVE

FORT BRAGG NC 28310

1 ARMY G1

(PDF) DAPE MR B KNAPP

300 ARMY PENTAGON RM 2C489

WASHINGTON DC 20310-0300

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

12 DIR USARL

(PDF) RDRL HR

L ALLENDER

P FRANASZCZUK

RDRL HRM

P SAVAGE-KNEPSHIELD

RDRL HRM AL

C PAULILLO

RDRL HRM AY

A SCHWEITZER

RDRL HRM B

J GRYNOVICKI

RDRL HRM C

L GARRETT

RDRL HRS

J LOCKETT

RDRL HRS B

M LAFIANDRA

RDRL HRS C

K MCDOWELL

RDRL HRS D

B AMREIN

RDRL HRS E

D HEADLEY
94

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.