# Initial Student Attention-Allocation and Flight-Performance Improvements Based on Eye-Movement Data
## 3 Results
### Analysis of the Differences between the Three Groups of Subjects
#### 3.1.2 Eye-Movement Index Differences between the Three Groups  
Since the eye-movement index satisfied the assumption of normality, a T-test was employed to examine the differences in these indicator values due to flight experience and training content. The experimental group still received the conventional ground course training for seven items: the vertical speedometer, the altimeter, the airspeed indicator, others, the horizontal status indicator, the tachometer, and the attitude indicator. Figure 7 illustrates the gaze-duration findings. The gaze durations of the instructors and the control group were significant differences between the gaze durations of the two groups were observed for the remaining five items (\(p\) = 0.027, cohen'd = 1.155, \(p\) = 0.016, cohen'd = 1.28, \(p\) = 0.003, cohen'd = 1.109, \(p\) = 0.001, cohen'd = 2.162, and \(p\) = 0.007, cohen'd = 1.449 for the airspeed indicator, other areas, horizontal status indicator, tachometer, and attitude indicator, respectively). The gaze durations of the instructors and the experimental group were only significantly different with respect to one item, the airspeed indicator (\(p\) = 0.011, cohen'd = 1.354). After completing the attention-allocation training, both the experimental group and the control group demonstrated significant differences in gaze-duration results for the tachometer and the attitude indicator, with significance levels of \(p\) = 0.012, cohen'd = 0.98 and \(p\) = 0.000, cohen'd = 1.967, respectively. With regard to the eye-movement indicators, significant differences were observed between the average gaze durations of different subjects for the airspeed indicator, other areas, the horizontal status indicator, the tachometer, and the attitude indicator. Comparisons of the mean differences indicated that the instructors spent significantly more time observing the tachometer than did the trainees, particularly those in the control group. Figure 7: Average gaze durations of the three groups of subjects with respect to different AOIs (each point represents one individual data, \({}^{*}p<0.05\)\({}^{**}p<0.01\)\({}^{***}p<0.00\).). However, the gaze durations with respect to the airspeed indicator, the horizontal status indicator, the attitude indicator, and other areas were significantly longer for the trainees. Based on the eye-movement data analysis, it was inferred that, after identifying the aircraft stall, the instructors focused on the original cause of the problem, which was reflected by the tachometer since it indicates the engine power output. In contrast, the students in the control group primarily paid attention to the airspeed indicator, the horizontal status indicator, the attitude indicator, and other areas. This result further confirms that the control group experienced more significant speed and altitude losses, as well as course deviations, than the instructors because of their lack of flight experience. The sudden reductions in speed and altitude after the aircraft stalled led to panic, which resulted in attention shifts toward other areas, particularly the instrument panel. Although there were significant differences between the instrument attention allocations of the students and the instructors in the control group, all the participants in the control group managed to correct the stall, which explains the lack of significant differences between the gaze durations with respect to the altimeter. The lack of significant differences between the gaze durations with respect to the vertical speedometer may be attributed to its proximity to the altimeter. The largest gaze-duration percentage of the instructor group was focused on the attitude indicator, which aligns with the findings of [PERSON] et al. [37]. The attention-allocation training received by the experimental group significantly improved the gaze duration with respect to the tachometer compared to that of the control group, although its average gaze duration remained lower than that of the control group with respect to the attitude indicator.