Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.ii
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188Public 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.
REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)June 2006
ARL-TR-3814
SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBERS
DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENTApproved for public release; distribution is unlimited..
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
ABSTRACTThis study compared a tactile land navigation system to two operational systems with visual information displays. "Front end" workload and task analyses identified land navigation as having high and conflicting workload. The tactile display was expected to ameliorate the high visual and cognitive workload per Multiple Resource Theory (Wickens, 2002). Fifteen infantry Soldiers navigated three equivalent 1800-meter routes using each of three systems: (a) the personal tactile navigator (PTN) tactile system, (b) the U.S. Army precision lightweight GPS (global positioning system) receiver (PLGR), which is a hand-held GPS with an alpha-numeric display, and (c) the traditional compass system. Note: Each soldier traversed each lane with different navigation systems; we counterbalanced the order in which they used the systems and the lanes that were walked with each system in order to control for any effects attributable to order (such as fatigue) or to the lane itself.The PLGR system was predicted to enhance performance relative to the compass system because of reduced cognitive demands. The PTN system was predicted to enhance performance relative to both PLGR and compass systems because of (a) reduced cognitive demand from more intuitive display (e.g., following direction of tactor) and (b) off load from visual attention demand. Soldiers performed more quickly and accurately when using the PLGR and tactile systems, relative to a compass. However, there was no significant difference between GPS and tactile systems. This is likely because of the low need for focal visual attention during navigation in this experiment; there was not as much interference with the occasional use of a visual display. However, visual attention demand increa...