FDAI logo   ::  Site Map  ::   
Home  |  About This Website  |  Contact Us
Home » ... » Evidence from Resource

Evidence from Resource 3 pieces of evidence from this resource.

Lin, H.X. & Salvendy, G. (2000). Warning effect on human error reduction. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4(2), 145-161.

  1.  
  2. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: A repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted on the detection data with feedback type as the between-subjects factor and two within-subject factors, concurrent task load and simultaneity. A significant effect was seen for feedback type, F(2, 18) = 17.76, p < ,001. Pilots receiving visual-only feedback detected approximately 83% of the unexpected mode transitions that occurred throughout the flight, whereas pilots in the other two conditions (tactile-visual and tactile only) detected close to 100% of all changes in mode status. (page 546)
    Issue: displays (visual and aural) may be poorly designed (Issue #92) See Issue details
    Strength: +4
    Aircraft: unspecified
    Equipment: automation: displays

  3.  
  4. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "A repeated-measures MANOVA on the detection rates for traffic conflicts and engine deviations did not yield a significant main effect for feedback condition. Significant main effects were found. however, for both simultaneity, F( 1, 18) = 5.86, p < .05, and for flight phase, F(3, 54) = 6.36, p < .Ol. Traffic and engine deviations that were presented individually were more likely to be detected than those presented simultaneously with a mode transition (see Figure 5)." (page 548)
    Issue: displays (visual and aural) may be poorly designed (Issue #92) See Issue details
    Strength: +2
    Aircraft: unspecified
    Equipment: automation: displays

  5.  
  6. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Experiment
    Evidence: "The analysis did not yield a main effect for flight phase but did show a significant interaction between feedback condition and phase of flight, F(6, 54) = 2.91, p < .05. As illustrated in Figure 3, both tactile conditions yielded nearperfect detection rates in each phase of flight, whereas performance in the visual-only condition was markedly affected by the concurrent demands in the A/P Dynamic phase. An additional analysis conducted on the two tactile conditions alone confirmed that detection of tactile cues was not affected by concurrent load." (page 547)
    Issue: displays (visual and aural) may be poorly designed (Issue #92) See Issue details
    Strength: +2
    Aircraft: unspecified
    Equipment: automation: displays
Flight Deck Automation Issues Website  
© 1997-2013 Research Integrations, Inc.