# 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  
#### 3.1.1 Flight Performance Differences between the Three Groups  
Since the flight performance indicators did not exhibit normal distributions, non-parametric tests were employed to examine the differences between the stall correction times, stall warnings, speed losses, altitude losses, and average course deviations of the flight instructors and the flight trainees. The Mann-Whitney test statistic was utilized for the analysis. The results, which are presented in Table 1, demonstrated significant differences between the speed losses, altitude losses, and mean course deviations of the instructors and the control group; these indicators had \(p\)-values of 0.01, 0.004, and 0.001, respectively. Moreover, significant differences were observed between the altitude losses and mean course deviations of the instructors and the experimental group; these indicators had \(p\)-values of 0.006 and 0.001, respectively. Additionally, a significant difference was found between the altitude losses of the experimental group and the control group, with a \(p\)-value of 0.008. Figure 5: Gazes of the exceptional flight instructors with respect to the instrument panel were depicted in gaze charts, in which the dot size illustrated the fixation duration and the dot order indicated the gaze sequence. These gaze charts provided visual representations of the gazing patterns of the individual test participants throughout the recording sessions or of multiple participants within short time intervals. It is evident from the results in Table 1 that flight experience and the training materials had significant impacts on the speed losses, altitude losses, and average course deviations following the stall warnings. To standardize the measurements, the flight performance indicators of the three groups of subjects were normalized. Figure 6 illustrates the normalization results, which indicate that the instructor group exhibited significantly higher speed losses than did the control group, which had speed losses relatively close to those of the experimental group. The altitude losses of the instructors were much lower than those of the other two groups, and the experimental group demonstrated smaller altitude losses than the control group. The average course deviations of the instructors were lower than those of the control group but were similar to those of the experimental group. Video playback and observations of the maneuvers performed by the instructors and trainees during the flight tasks demonstrated that the flight instructors employed smooth stabilizer-rod control, thereby effectively maintaining the required course-deviation and attitude ranges. In contrast, the students in the experimental and control groups exhibited poorer stabilizer-rod control, with the control group demonstrating significant fluctuations. Moreover, the occurrence of sideslip during the stall led to excessive course deviations and further altitude losses. Although both student groups adjusted the rod faster than the instructors and experienced smaller speed losses during the stall, their adjustments were \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline  
* _p \(<\) 0.05 ** _p \(<\) 0.01_.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Flight performance differences between three groups of participants. Figure 6: Comparison chart of the normalized flight performance indicators for the three groups. not as accurate as those made by the instructors; this resulted in less time for corrective action. Consequently, differences between the altitude losses and average course deviations of the instructor and experimental groups were observed, while the control group exhibited significant speed-loss, altitude-loss, and average-course-deviation differences. However, there was no difference between the two groups in terms of the correction duration.