Calendar

May 27

13th Intl. Conf. on New Interfaces for Musical Expression

May 28

Graphics Interface 2013

May 29

Boston UXPA Usability and UX Conf. 2013

May 24

“ For a list of all the ways technology has failed to improve the quality of life, please press three. ”

-- Alice Kahn

Share this quote on...
Get more quotes via RSS or by joining our Usability Quote of the Day Facebook Page

Featured chapter

Read the fascinating history of Wearable Computing, told by its father, Steve Mann

Read Steve's chapter !

Help us help you!

Spread the word:
Donate
Other ways to help

Dennis K. Leedom

Add description

← Button will not work: You have not enabled Javascript. How do I enable it?

Rename / change spelling

Add publication

← Button will not work: You have not enabled Javascript. How do I enable it?

Publications by Dennis K. Leedom (bibliography)

1994

Edit | Del

McAnulty, D. Michael, Hamilton, David B. and Leedom, Dennis K. (1994): Individual Differences in Pilots' Perception of Simulated Night Vision Goggle Scene Imagery and Superimposed Flight Symbology. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting 1994. p. 977.

“During night vision goggle (NVG) helicopter flight, it is difficult and potentially unsafe for aviators to divert their attention from the external scene to scan cockpit instruments. To address this problem, systems (generically called ANVIS-HUD) have been developed that superimpose flight symbology on the imagery in one of the NVG intensifier tubes. However, previous research indicates that superimposed symbology may distract the pilot's attention from obstacle detection, recognition, and avoidance, and may interfere with proper scanning patterns. Flight scenarios that simulated NVG imagery only (IO), symbology only (SO), and the imagery and symbology combined (IS) were presented to 36 helicopter aviators in three sessions. The aviators monitored and responded to predefined targets (scene features and events and/or symbology out-of-tolerance states for four instruments). Both the percentage of correct detections and aviator reaction time were measured. The aviators detected and responded rapidly to a high percentage of IO and SO targets, but performance was better for symbology than for scene targets. Performance was significantly degraded in the IS condition, but the decrement was small compared to the increased information available. The aviators divided their attention effectively between the types of information. There were significant individual differences in ANVIS-HUD performance, however. Older, more experienced aviators performed better with the scene information; younger, less experienced aviators performed better with the symbology information. Presenting the symbology to the aviator's dominant eye generally produced better performance, but there were conflicting results. Most aviators developed a scanning strategy, but the pattern varied.”

1990

Edit | Del

Simon, Robert, Risser, Daniel T., Pawlik, Sr. Eugene A. and Leedom, Dennis K. (1990): A Model for Evaluation and Training in Aircrew Coordination and Cockpit Resource Management. In: D., Woods, and E., Roth, (eds.) Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting 1990, Santa Monica, USA. pp. 1377-1381.

“N/R”

Add publication