NASA TP-1998-3703

Multimodal Perception and Multicriterion

Control of Nested Systems:
II. Constraints on Crew Members During Space
Vehicle Abort, Entry, and Landing
P. Vernon McDonald, Gary E. Riccio, Gregg E. Irvin, and Jacob J. Bloomberg
April 1998
The NASA STI Program Office . . . in Profile
Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to
the advancement of aeronautics and space
science. The NASA Scientific and Technical
Information (STI) Program Office plays a key
part in helping NASA maintain this important
role.
The NASA STI Program Office is operated by
Langley Research Center, the lead center for
NASAs scientific and technical information.
The NASA STI Program Office provides access
to the NASA STI Database, the largest
collection of aeronautical and space science STI
in the world. The Program Office is also
NASAs institutional mechanism for
disseminating the results of its research and
development activities. These results are
published by NASA in the NASA STI Report
Series, which includes the following report
types:
TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of
completed research or a major significant
phase of research that present the results of
NASA programs and include extensive data
or theoretical analysis. Includes
compilations of significant scientific and
technical data and information deemed to be
of continuing reference value. NASAs
counterpart of peer-reviewed formal
professional papers but has less stringent
limitations on manuscript length and extent
of graphic presentations.
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific
and technical findings that are preliminary
or of specialized interest, e.g., quick release
reports, working papers, and bibliographies
that contain minimal annotation. Does not
contain extensive analysis.
CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and
technical findings by NASA-sponsored
contractors and grantees.
CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected
papers from scientific and technical confer-
ences, symposia, seminars, or other meetings
sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.
SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific,
technical, or historical information from
NASA programs, projects, and mission, often
concerned with subjects having substantial
public interest.
TECHNICAL TRANSLATION.
English-language translations of foreign
scientific and technical material pertinent to
NASAs mission.
Specialized services that complement the STI
Program Offices diverse offerings include
creating custom thesauri, building customized
databases, organizing and publishing research
results . . . even providing videos.
For more information about the NASA STI
Program Office, see the following:
Access the NASA STI Program Home Page
at http://www.sti.nasa.gov
E-mail your question via the Internet to
help@sti.nasa.gov
Fax your question to the NASA Access Help
Desk at (301) 621-0134
Telephone the NASA Access Help Desk at
(301) 621-0390
Write to:
NASA Access Help Desk
NASA Center for AeroSpace Information
800 Elkridge Landing Road
Linthicum Heights, MD 21090-2934
NASA TP-1998-3703
Multimodal Perception and Multicriterion
Control of Nested Systems:
II. Constraints on Crew Members During Space
Vehicle Abort, Entry, and Landing
P. Vernon McDonald
KRUG Life Sciences Inc.
Gary E. Riccio
Nascent Technologies
Gregg E. Irvin
Nascent Technologies
Jacob J. Bloomberg
NASA JSC Life Sciences Research Laboratories
April 1998
Acknowledgments
The ideas presented in this report grew out of several projects in which Dr. Riccio was involved while at
the Wright-Patterson AFB (1984-1988, 1991-1993). One project, conducted with Grant McMillan,
involved the analysis of drive algorithms for a dynamic seat that would allow the associated pattern of
somatosensory stimulation to substitute for the vestibular stimulation that is present during whole-body
movement. Another project, conducted with Gregg Zacharias and Rik Warren, involved the develop-
ment of Optimal Control Models for learning in flight simulators. A key project, conducted with Frank
Cardullo and John Sinacori, involved the analysis of new approaches to motion cuing in flight simula-
tors. The conclusions of these and other Air Force projects were integrated in a series of AFOSR-
sponsored projects conducted with Grant McMillan, Rik Warren, and Robert Eggleston while Dr. Riccio
was on the faculty at the University of Illinois (see e.g., Riccio, 1995). The ideas in this report are being
applied, with Jacob Bloomberg at NASA JSC, to several problems involving human perception and
performance in orbital or trans-orbital conditions. We are indebted to these colleagues for their insights
and creativity regarding multimodal perception and human performance in aerospace environments. We
would also like to thank John Flach, Peter Beek, Robert Shaw, William Mace, Tom Stoffregen, Bill
Paloski, and Victoria Tepe for comments on this report and on various preliminary versions of the report.
While preparing this report, Dr. Vernon McDonald was supported in part via a contract with the National
Space Biomedical Research Institute.
Available from:
NASA Center for AeroSpace Information National Technical Information Service
800 Elkridge Landing Road 5285 Port Royal Road
Linthicum Heights, MD 21090-2934 Springfield, VA 22161
Price Code: A17 Price Code: A10
Contents
Page
iii
Preface ........................................................................................................................................ 1
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ 2
1. Identification and Significance of the Issues ................................................................................. 2
2. Shuttle Flight Deck Operations & Conditions................................................................................ 5
2.1 Visual and Manual Demands on the Flight Deck................................................................... 5
2.2 Shuttle Launch/Reentry/Landing Conditions ......................................................................... 8
2.3 Current & New Technologies for Space Vehicle Flight Decks.............................................. 12
2.3.1 Current Displays And Controls
(Adapted from the Shuttle Reference Manual) ....................................................................... 12
2.3.2 Future Displays And Controls..................................................................................... 13
3. Human Perception and Performance .............................................................................................. 14
3.1 Effects of Whole-Body Perturbations on Visual and Manual Performance........................... 14
3.2 Human Performance Adaptations to Weightlessness............................................................. 20
4. Multicriterion Control and Coordination in Nested Systems ........................................................ 22
4.1 Theoretical Foundations ......................................................................................................... 22
4.2 Relevance to Flight Deck Performance .................................................................................. 24
4.2.1 Task Constraints .......................................................................................................... 24
4.2.2 Whole-Body Perturbations .......................................................................................... 25
4.2.3 Visual/Manual Performance........................................................................................ 25
4.2.4 Coordination of Nested Systems ................................................................................. 26
5. Cockpit Design Implications........................................................................................................... 27
5.1 Robustness of Cockpit Displays and Controls........................................................................ 27
5.2 Robust Cockpit Design ........................................................................................................... 27
6. Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................... 29
iv
Figures
Page
1 Schematic showing panel identification for current shuttle flight deck controls
and displays..................................................................................................................................... 5
2 Typical shuttle acceleration time history during ascent ................................................................. 10
3 STS-5 flight deck z-axis vibration power spectra vs time during ascent ....................................... 11
4 STS-5 flight deck z-axis vibration power spectra vs time during ascent ....................................... 11
5 G-load vs. time for 3-DOF simulated reentry profile..................................................................... 12
6 Transmissibility as a function of vibration frequency. Center curve is mean
vibration amplitude; top and bottom curves are 1 standard deviation.
(From Boff & Lincoln, 1988) ......................................................................................................... 15
7 Reading error for three display viewing conditions, 0.5-5 Hz.
(From Boff & Lincoln, 1988) ......................................................................................................... 16
8 Reading error: whole-body vibration, 2.8-63 Hz. (From Boff & Lincoln, 1988) .......................... 17
9 Effect of vertical, horizontal, and dual axis (circular) vibration on visual performance.
(From Boff & Lincoln, 1988) ......................................................................................................... 17
10 Increase in mean reading error with vibration magnitude for four character sizes.
(From Boff & Lincoln, 1988) ......................................................................................................... 18
11 Effect of whole-body vertical vibration on contrast threshold for sinusoidal gratings
with spatial frequencies of 7.5, 10, and 12.5 cycles/deg. (From Boff & Lincoln, 1988) .............. 18
12 Effect of modulation contrast on reading errors with panel-mounted displays.
(From Boff & Lincoln, 1988) ......................................................................................................... 19
13 Increase in root mean square tracking error/vibration acceleration level observed
during z-axis whole-body vibration. Total static error = 7 mm rms for zero-order dy
namics and 15 mm rms for first-order dynamics. (From Boff & Lincoln, 1988) ........................ 20
14 Postflight dynamic visual acuity performance presented as a percentage of preflight performance
after long duration flight. Numbers under each box indicate the number
of subjects ....................................................................................................................................... 21
15 Ratio of axial head acceleration to the initial foot contact ground reaction force peak
before and after long duration flight. Numbers under each box indicate the number
of subjects ....................................................................................................................................... 21
v
Acronyms
A/L approach/landing
ADI attitude director indicator
AMI alpha/Mach indicator
BFS backup flight system
CRT cathode ray tube
CSS control stick steering
DOF degrees of freedom
ET external tank
GN&C guidance, navigation, and control
HUD head-up display
ISS International Space Station
LCD liquid crystal display
MECO main engine cut off
MEDS multifunctional electronic display system
PASS primary avionics software system
PIO pilot-induced oscillation
SPI surface position indicator
SRB solid rocket booster
TAEM terminal area energy management
VOR vestibulo-ocular reflex
1
Preface
This series of three reports will describe the challenges to human perception and motor control that result
from whole-body perturbations during locomotion. Our approach to this set of problems is based on the
assumption that individuals, in the context of their surroundings, are adaptive nonlinear control systems
with multiple levels of nesting, multiple inputs, and multiple outputs. We consider interactions between
individuals and their surroundings to be the fundamental unit of analysis for research in human perception
and movement. Our approach to the analysis of nested biological control systems was developed over more
than a decade of research on human-machine interactions in aerospace operations. The early research was
conducted in collaboration with the Air Force Armstrong Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
Ohio (see e.g., Brown, Cardullo, McMillan, Riccio & Sinacori, 1991; Riccio, 1993b; Zacharias, Warren &
Riccio, 1986). Recent research also includes collaboration with the Neuroscience Laboratory at the NASA
Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas (see e.g., Riccio, McDonald, Peters, Layne & Bloomberg, 1997).
The first report in the series, Multimodal Perception and Multicriterion Control of Nested Systems: I.
Coordination of Postural Control and Vehicular Control, describes the theoretical and operational
foundations for our analysis of human-environment interactions. This report focuses on the coupled
biological control systems involved in piloting an air vehicle and in stabilizing perception and movement
in the cockpit. It is emphasized that the analysis is not limited to vehicular control. The analysis is
presented in a way that is generalized to all forms of locomotion and to other activities that involve
whole-body perturbations. In addition, the report motivates and facilitates comparisons between
conditions of real and simulated vehicular motion. This provides a framework for assessing human
perception and performance in real-world conditions, in controlled conditions that allow for more refined
measurement and evaluation, and in simulations that are intended to foster the development of skill.
The second report in the series, Multimodal Perception and Multicriterion Control of Nested Systems:
II. Constraints on Crew Members During Space Vehicle Abort, Entry, and Landing, applies our
theoretical framework for nested human-environment interactions to the problems of flight crew
perception and performance during planned and potential aerodynamic maneuvers of space vehicles.
This report presents an approach to identification of task demands on perceptual and motor systems on
the flight deck, to the measurement of perturbations to and interactions among the various subsystems of
the human body, to the assessment of the skills involved in coordinating the nested subsystems in the
presence of such disturbances, and to the development of flight deck displays and controls that promote
such skill and that increase robustness of the human-machine system.
The third report in the series, Multimodal Perception and Multicriterion Control of Nested Systems: III.
Assessment of Visual Stability During Treadmill Locomotion, applies our theoretical framework to the
problem of eye-head-trunk coordination during walking or running. This report presents a method for
evaluating visual resolution and gaze stability during common activities involving whole-body motion.
The functional visual assessment test that is described provides a measure of visual acuity that is
sensitive to coordination between the oculomotor subsystems and other biomechanical subsystems of the
body. This approach enhances diagnostic sensitivity to a variety of physiological impairments, and it
enhances diagnostic relevance with respect to operational or everyday activities.
2
Abstract
This report reviews the operational demands made of a Shuttle pilot or commander within the context of
a proven empirical methodology for describing human sensorimotor performance and whole-body
coordination in mechanically and perceptually complex environments. The conclusions of this review
pertain to
a) methods for improving our understanding of the psychophysics and biomechanics of visual/manual
control and whole-body coordination in space vehicle cockpits.
b) the application of scientific knowledge about human perception and performance in dynamic inertial
conditions to the development of technology, procedures, and training for personnel in space vehicle
cockpits.
c) recommendations for mitigation of safety and reliability concerns about human performance in space
vehicle cockpits.
d) in-flight evaluation of flight crew performance during nominal and off-nominal launch and reentry
scenarios.
1. Identification and Significance of the Issues
In this report we review the factors that affect the stability and adaptability of flight crew visual and manual
performance during space vehicle launch, reentry, and landing maneuvers. The operational relevance of
these effects are specified in terms of the implications for current and advanced cockpit design.
A large proportion of the information the crew monitors in the current Orbiter cockpit is visual. At the
same time, the crew accomplishes the majority of its control inputs manually. As in other vehicles,
maintenance of visual stability and manual stability is a fundamental component of piloting skill. Visual
and manual stability are complicated by postural perturbations that result from controlled maneuvers and
uncontrolled disturbances of the space vehicle during ascent and descent. Consequently, three related
behavioral goals are to stabilize gaze for visual acuity, stabilize the hand for manual control, and control
the nested eye-head-torso-arm-hand system in the presence of mechanical disturbances. Moreover, at the
time of atmosphere reentry, the crew may be adapted to weightlessness while they must function reliably
in a rapidly changing inertial environment. Whole-body coordination must be sufficiently adaptable to
ensure stability of the visual and manual subsystems given such challenging conditions. The Shuttle
pilot and commander must be prepared for the following specific challenges:
Both the sensory and musculoskeletal systems are effected by weightlessness. The severity of the
aftereffects that can be detected immediately postflight depend on the amount of time spent in
weightlessness.
The reentry phase of a mission is characterized by a rapidly changing inertial environment. Nominal
Shuttle reentry entails varying g-loads up to 1.5g (nominally through the z-axis) occurring
immediately following the transition from weightlessness.
Launch abort scenarios (e.g., East Coast Abort) will entail rapidly changing g-loads deviating from
the +3g acceleration of a nominal Shuttle launch.
3
Buffeting as a result of variations in the air mass causes vibration of the airframe and the operators
during entry and landing.
Transient disturbances (e.g. wind gusts) can occur unexpectedly during the entry and landing.
The opportunities for breaking off a particular flight procedure are either nonexistent or rapidly
diminishing irrespective of the challenges that are encountered during abort, entry, or landing.
There is not a second chance.
We believe that crew effectiveness in these scenarios must be addressed for a number of reasons, including
the following:
NASA-sponsored research has shown that control of the eyes, head, and trunk is compromised by
the aftereffects of weightlessness. The task-relevant consequences of such aftereffects include, for
example, significant changes in visual performance immediately postflight.
NASA-sponsored research is providing increasing evidence of changes in human perception and
performance following short- and long-duration space flight. Depending on the length of the flight
these effects can be severe.
Research conducted outside of NASA indicates that whole-body coordination is compromised by
levels of variation in the inertial environment that are within nominal parameters for Shuttle entry
and landing.
Research conducted outside of NASA indicates whole body coordination is compromised by levels
of vehicular vibration that are within nominal parameters for Shuttle entry and landing. There is
clear evidence that human perception and performance in aircraft cockpits is affected by vibration
and other environmental stressors to the extent that whole-body coordination is compromised.
There is a notable lack of information about the capabilities and limitations of whole-body
coordination on the flight decks of space vehicles, especially in off-nominal reentry and landing
conditions.
There is a notable lack of information about the operational robustness of human perception and
performance on the flight decks of space vehicles during off-nominal scenarios.
Visual and manual stability during space vehicle launch/reentry/landing is important for the detection of
deviations from nominal flight conditions and for the timely and reliable execution of actions that are
appropriate for any off-nominal conditions. Decisions will be made with less confidence and will be
delayed when circumstances degrade visual performance. Similarly, control responses may be
inaccurate and delayed when circumstances degrade manual performance. In this report we evaluate the
nature and extent of changes in visual and manual performance due to the aftereffects of weightlessness,
the effects of aero disturbances, and the effects of a variable-g environment. Our intent is to evaluate
these effects in the specific context of flight deck operations so as to determine the implications for
design of flight deck technology.
Our review will focus on visual/manual control and to the timeliness and confidence of the attendant
decisions. It also will relate indirectly to the adaptability and stability of the pilots more-or-less continuous
flight control actions. We have shown that results from conventional psychophysical studies of sensory
systems can help explain characteristics of manual control and sensorimotor integration observed in
simulation aircraft (Flach, Riccio, McMillan, & Warren, 1986; Riccio & Cress, 1986; Zacharias, Warren &
Riccio, 1986). Such research is important because, in the atmosphere, the Shuttle operates like a
4
conventional aircraft in a low lift/drag approach (Berry, Powers, Szalai, & Wilson, 1982). The rotational
hand controller controls the elevons for pitch and roll, and pedals control the rudder for yaw.
Control of a vehicle and control of the pilot-vehicle system depends on the characteristics of the human
sensory systems as well as the characteristics of the human motor systems. Visual stability and
resolution, for example, are important during the various phases of landing (e.g. heading alignment, flare,
and touchdown) insofar as it influences pilot workload and handling qualities (Berry et al., 1982; Smith
& Bailey, 1982; Weingarten, 1978, 1979). As with damage to the Shuttles structure or flight-control
systems, impairment of the pilots sensory or motor systems can lead to degraded flying qualities, pilot-
induced oscillations (PIOs) and catastrophic failure. It is important to note that degradation in handling
qualities and flight-control performance is highly nonlinear or explosive over smooth changes in
parameters of the pilot-vehicle system (Smith & Bailey, 1982). This quantitative finding is reinforced by
pilot comments: an unsatisfactory or worse flight control system can look benign until taxed near the
limit (Berry et al., 1982, p. 323). These qualitative and quantitative characteristics have been noted
since the initial test and evaluation of Shuttle Orbiter landing (e.g., Weingarten, 1978, 1979). It follows
that problems with off-nominal conditions may not be predicted from behavior observed under nominal
conditions unless one more closely examines the human subsystems involved in control of the pilot-
vehicle system (Riccio, 1995; Riccio et al., 1997).
There have been occasions where Shuttle flight crew have made direct reference to visual problems
during reentry and landing. Comments we are aware of have been made to the authors of this report, to a
member of the NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC) Advanced Orbiter Cockpit team, and to engineers in
the JSC Structures and Mechanics Division. To date these comments have been informal observations,
but the JSC Advanced Orbiter Cockpit team is currently surveying all the active flight crew for their
opinions pertaining to the human interface of current Shuttle flight deck displays and controls especially
with reference to launch, ascent, reentry, and landing. Finally, at least one Shuttle commander is firmly
convinced that there is no way he could land the Shuttle after a long-duration flight (>1 month) given the
adaptive effects of long-duration flight.
Understanding crew effectiveness has direct implications for space vehicle design. The future Shuttle
flight deck will incorporate new display and control technology that improves crew effectiveness to the
extent that constraints on human perception and performance are addressed during design. Orbiter
upgrade efforts that increase flight crew autonomy and situational awareness could correspondingly
increase the reliance on human perception and performance. Any effort to increase flight crew
situational awareness will rely on accurate perception of system status through flight deck displays and
controls. In the near future, we will have crews flying on the International Space Station (ISS). ISS
emergency evacuation will require that crew members pilot a crew return vehicle after having spent up to
several months in weightlessness. The ISS crew return vehicle currently is being designed. Finally,
successful landing of a manned spacecraft during future missions to Mars will depend on the capabilities
of a human operator who has spent 6 months or more in weightlessness.
5
2. Shuttle Flight Deck Operations and Conditions
2.1 Visual and Manual Demands on the Flight Deck
This section presents material for the purpose of evaluating task demands on visual and manual control
in the flight deck of extant and planned space vehicles. Knowing the exact nature of the flight crew
responsibilities is critical to display and control design and accurate evaluation of the relevance of
physiological and environmental factors.
A characteristic activity of the Shuttle pilot and commander during reentry and landing is to monitor multiple
instruments and displays that are spatially distributed over the flight deck console (Fig. 1). The spatial
distribution of manual controls is such that, even in a nominal reentry, a stick must be used to reach certain
switches. Such spatially distributed manual and visual tasks are complicated by postural perturbations that
result from controlled maneuvers and uncontrolled disturbances of the Shuttle during ascent and descent.
Consequently everything from postural control in the cockpit to looking and reaching patterns must be
considered as part of a pilots skill. This skill allows a pilot to perform effectively in the visually and
mechanically complex aerospace environment. Adaptability is an essential aspect of such whole-body skills,
and it allows a pilot to perform adequately even in novel or unusual circumstances. The design of controls
and displays and the development of flight-control procedures takes into account, explicitly or implicitly,
such skill and adaptability. Planning for new environments or emergency situations is greatly facilitated by a
technical understanding of the limits of human skill and adaptability.
Figure 1. Schematic showing panel identification for current Shuttle
flight deck controls and displays.
6
The extent of the Shuttle flight deck reach and visibility problem is best explained in the following
excerpt from document JSC-12770, Shuttle Flight Operations Manual, Mission Operations Directorate
Training Division, 1985 (3.28, Visibility and Reach Provisions: 3.28.1 Introduction):
Visibility and reach provisions are those hardware items necessary to allow the crew to see/actuate
essential displays and controls (D&C) while restrained in their seats during critical flight phases.
These provisions include the reach aid, the adjustable mirrors, and the wicket tabs. The reach aid
(sometimes known as the swizzle stick) is a short bar that is used to actuate controls that are out
of reach of the seated crew member (figures 3.28-1 and 3.28-2). The two-axis adjustments of the
Commander (CDR) and Pilot (PLT) operational seats (sec. 3.4) is also intended to make controls
more accessible.
Two adjustable mirrors provide rear and side visibility to the CDR and PLT for assessing
separation of the external tank from the Orbiter and for checking D&C and man/seat interfaces (fig
3.28-3). Fields of view through the flight deck windows are shown in figure 3.28-5. Vision
restrictions are usually more severe than reach restrictions; therefore, certain switches will be
operated in the blind (by feel) if necessary. Wicket tabs have been developed to aid the crew in the
operation of controls by touch (fig 3.28-4). The wicket tabs may be used as reference points for
actuating controls, permitting visual freedom for concentrating on other flight phases.
It is important to note the full meaning of the words see and actuate when discussing the crew
member-control interface on the Orbiter. See defines the ability of the crew member to read
nomenclature on the controls, discern the positions of circuit breakers, and toggle switches, read
numbers on rotary detent switches and CRT [cathode ray tube] displays, discern colors on warning
lights, read gauges, and determine if particular lights are on or off. Actuate refers to the ability of
the crew member to flip toggle switches, turn knobs, pull circuit breakers, push detent buttons, and
make manual inputs into CRT keysets and other related controls. Both see and actuate refer
directly to the vision and reach envelopes of the crew member at his crew station during particular
phases of flight.
The limitations of the CDRs and PLTs reach and vision envelopes are functions of the crew
members anthropometry, helmet, seat adjustability, seat back angle, Orbiter orientation, and
acceleration forces. The reach and vision limitations in table 3.28-1 and in figures 3.28-6 through
3.28-11 describe envelopes (without the reach aid) determined in a JSC mockup review of NASA
astronauts wearing flight suits. It should be understood that this study was done in a 1g situation,
and therefore is only a simulated measure of launch g-loading. Furthermore, the definition of see
and actuate were not rigorously enforced throughout the test. Discretion should be used
interpreting these results and applying them to real-time Shuttle reach and vision envelopes for
ascent loads over 1.5g. Reach envelopes in figures 3.28-6 through 3.28-11 are omitted where there
are no limitations.
JSC-12770 indicates that, during powered ascent (>2gx), only 12 panels of 30 are fully accessible from
the Pilot/Commander positions. A full 60% of the panels therefore are either partially or totally
inaccessible during this mission phase.
Manual control in the Shuttle flight deck is a combination of discrete (e.g. turning a switch) and
continuous (e.g. controlling the stick) activities. The continuous activities tend to be confined to a
specific location in the reach envelope. However, the discrete activities can be distributed anterior,
posterior, lateral, superior, and inferior to the shoulder. The reach envelopes of astronaut pilots, and the
associated postural configurations, have been rigorously evaluated in relation to flight-deck displays and
controls and under a variety of typical g-loads (Bagian et al., 1993). Such data have important design
implications, some of which are not obvious without an understanding of the whole-body involvement in
visual and manual control. For example, the postural configuration required to support a manual task is
critical in determining how vibration is transmitted through the body to the hand (Levison & Harrah,
1977). It is reasonable to propose therefore that the spatial distribution of manual tasks can be optimized
so as to avoid those postures most susceptible to vibration. How manual performance is compromised
7
by vibration will also depend on the resistance to motion offered by the controlled device, as well as the
control dimension of the device (displacement, force, velocity, etc.).
No guidance, navigation, and control (GN&C)-related crew actions are planned for first stage of ascent
unless a failure occurs. To ensure that the auto flight control system is maintaining the expected ascent
profile, the flight crew can verify that the vehicle is at the correct pitch attitude (via the attitude director
indicator) and altitude rate (via the altitude/vertical velocity indicator) at each of five designated times
during first-stage ascent. The flight crew can monitor that the main engines correctly throttle down and
up. They can also ensure that the Pc-50 message (chamber pressure greater than 50 psi) correctly
appears on the major mode 102 (first-stage) ascent trajectory CRT display before solid rocket booster
(SRB) separation and that SRB separation occurs on time. Manual intervention by the crew is required if
these events are not automatically accomplished. The crew is also responsible for monitoring main
engine performance. During first-stage ascent, only limited information is available to the crew on the
primary avionics software system (PASS) and backup flight system major mode 102 displays.
During second-stage ascent, the flight crew monitors the onboard systems to ensure that the major
GN&C events occur correctly and on time. These events include closed-loop guidance convergence, 3-g
throttling, main engine cut off (MECO), external tank (ET) separation and the negative Z translation
following ET separation. To monitor these events, the flight crew uses the dedicated displays: the main
engine status lights on panel F7 and the PASS ascent trajectory and the bakcup flight system (BFS)
ascent trajectory 2 displays.
The crew can monitor guidance convergence by noting if the guidance-computed time of MECO is
stabilized on the ascent trajectory display. If not, the crew takes manual control of the vehicle. They can
also ensure that acceleration does not exceed 3 gs via the BFS ascent trajectory 2 display as well as the
accel tape on the alpha/Mach indicator (AMI). The crew can monitor MECO velocity on the BFS ascent
trajectory 2 display as well as on the M/vel tape on the AMI. MECO is detected by the illumination of
three red main engine status lights and by the main propulsion system chamber pressure meters on panel
F7 going to zero.
Depending on mission requirements, the crew may be required to translate in the plus X direction, using
the translational hand controller for 11 seconds, to allow the ET camera to photograph the tank.
At specified points during second-stage ascent, the Mission Control Center will make voice calls to the
crew indicating their status with respect to aborts. For example, the negative return call indicates that
it is too late to select a return-to-launch-site abort.
During landing, in the automatic mode, the Orbiter is essentially a missile, and the flight crew monitors
the instruments to verify that the vehicle is following the correct trajectory. The onboard computers
execute the flight control laws (equations). If the vehicle diverges from the trajectory, the crew can take
over at any time by switching to control stick steering (CSS). The Orbiter can fly to a landing in the
automatic mode (only landing gear extension and braking action on the runway are required by the flight
crew). The autoland mode capability of the Orbiter is used by the crew usually to a predetermined point
in flying around the heading alignment cylinder. In flights to date, the crew has switched to CSS when
the Orbiter is subsonic.
About five minutes before entry interface, the crew adjusts the software to major mode 304. During this
mode, which lasts until terminal area energy management (TAEM) interface, five CRTs become
8
available sequentially and are used to monitor auto guidance and the Orbiter trajectory compared to the
planned entry profile. The five displays are identical except for the central plot, which shows the
Orbiters velocity versus range or energy/weight versus range with a changing scale as the Orbiter
approaches the landing site. This plot also includes static background lines that allow the crew to
monitor the Orbiters progression compared to planned entry profiles.
Once TAEM interface is reached, the software automatically makes a transition to major mode 305.
The CRT vertical situation 1 display then becomes available. It includes a central plot of Orbiter altitude
with respect to range. This plot has three background lines that represent the nominal altitude versus
range profile, a dynamic pressure limit in guidance profile and a maximum lift-over-drag profile. At
30,000 feet, the scale and title on the display change to vertical situation 2, and the display is used
through landing. When the approach and landing interface conditions are met, a flashing A/L appears
on the display.
Another prime CRT display used during entry is the horizontal situation. In addition to providing insight
into and control over navigation parameters, this display gives the crew Orbiter position and heading
information once the Orbiter is below 200,000 feet.
The flight crew then uses the entry trajectory, vertical situation, and horizontal situation CRT displays to
monitor the GN&C software. They crew can also use them to determine whether a manual takeover is
required.
In summary, it is clear that human operations are integral to Shuttle flight control. While complex
monitoring encompasses the majority of nominal launch and landing activities, there is the expectation
that the crew can manually control the Shuttle, should it be necessary. Such off-nominal activities are
more complex given the need for discrete and continuous manual control inputs in addition to complex
visual monitoring.
2.2 Shuttle Launch/Reentry/Landing Conditions
This section presents material for the purpose of evaluating disturbances that are common during Shuttle
launch & reentry. These include vibrations, transient disturbances, and changes in the g-loads.
Excerpts from NASA-STD-3000/Vol.1/Rev.B describe NASAs position on the launch and reentry
environment, and vibration phenomena from a human performance perspective.
Vibration seldom occurs in the operational situation as a single isolated variable. Other
environmental variables such as weightlessness, linear acceleration, etc., can be expected to
interact with vibration either to reduce or to increase the debilitating effects. Equipment variables
include size of graduations or illumination of instruments, inflated pressure suits, etc.; procedural
variables include task load, variations in time of performance, etc.; and finally, personal variables,
such as fatigue and deconditioning. The effects of some of these can be predicted at this time;
others must await further research....Studies of human response to vibration have been conducted
in field environments and in complex laboratory simulations. However, most of the available
information results from laboratory experiments. The most useful information shows the effects of
changing the characteristics of vibration (magnitude, frequency, etc.), the influence of modifying
the transmission of vibration to the body (by seating and postural alterations), the sources and
extent of individual variability, and the effects of alterations to the operators task. [Section 5.5.2
Vibration Design Consideration]
9
Significant levels of vibration occur routinely in space module operations during the maximum
aerodynamic pressure portion of boost. The vibration is coupled with a significant linear
acceleration bias...The Mercury astronauts complained that vibration during boost interfered with
their vision. The Titan II rocket produced intense vibration at 11Hz. [Section 5.5.2.1.1 Launch
Phase Vibrations]
Significant vibration levels occur during reentry but these levels are not as intense as experienced
during the launch phase. The vibration is coupled with a significant linear deceleration bias...
During entry, low-frequency oscillation may occur if entry angle is too steep. If the angle is more
than one or two degrees, high peak oscillation, depending on the shape of the vehicle, may be
produced. The frequency of such oscillations reach a peak coincident with the entry deceleration
peak. The amplitude of the oscillation progressively decreases during deceleration. For an entry
angle of ten degrees, a 2 Hz oscillation with a peak of 0.12-g and an arc of one degree has been
predicted. Skip-glide entry of a lift-drag vehicle may produce oscillations. [Section 5.5.2.1.3
Entry Phase Vibrations]
Vibration may affect crew member performance, and may produce physiological and biodynamic
effects, as well as subjective or annoyance effects. Whole-body vibration may act additively with
noise to cause stress and fatigue and degrade vigilance and performance. There has been limited
research combining vibration with other environmental stressors such as acceleration, noise, and
altitude. [Section 5.5.2.3 Human Responses to Vibration-Design Considerations]
The physical responses of the body are primarily the result of the body acting as a complex system
of masses, elasticities, dampings, and couplings in the low frequency range, i.e., up to 50 Hz. The
impedance of the body and its parts and organs damp vibration over certain frequency ranges and
may amplify vibration over other frequency ranges within various portions or all of the body.
[Section 5.5.2.3.1 Physiological Effects of Vibration]
Vibration affects performance either by modifying perception or by influencing control
movements. [Section 5.5.2.3.2 Performance Effects of Vibration]
Notable in this material is the lack of detail in descriptions of the vibration environment, including the
resulting postural perturbations, on the Shuttle flight deck during reentry. Data were collected on early
Shuttle flights, but were directed more to evaluating structural integrity of the flight deck and
instrumentation. Little or no attention appears to have been given to the human performance
implications of these vibrations. However, some acknowledgment of these implications can be found in
the Shuttle Crew Operations Manual (last update: August 1996). This document is provided as a
reference for Space Shuttle crew members and contains information on each shuttle system and every
phase of a generic Space Shuttle mission. Following are some specific items pertaining to sensations
associated with Ascent and Entry:
Prelaunch, SSME [Space Shuttle main engine] gimbal checks can be felt throughout the shuttle
structure... First stage is characterized by a rapid g buildup to slightly over 2g, accompanied by a
great deal of noise and vibration. Instruments and CRT displays can be monitored, but precise
tasks are difficult. [7.1 Ascent: Sensory Cues]
The digital auto pilot (DAP) includes bending filters in all axes that protect the DAP from coupling
with the Orbiter structure in a resonant oscillation. If the bending filter constants were wrong, it
could be possible to cause an oscillation...Symptoms are a high frequency oscillation (4 Hz),
accompanied by airframe vibration caused by oscillation of the aero surfaces. The crew may
observe these oscillations on the SPI [surface position indicator] or the ADI [attitude director
indicator] rate needles. A yaw jet limit cycle may also occur. [7.3 Entry]
Returning from orbit, some crew members have reported increased sensitivity to g as it builds
during entry. One crew member observed that when you hit a quarter g on entry, it seems like
two gs in the T-38...Crew members should be aware that their ability to perform entry tasks may
be degraded from that experienced in the SMS during training. Keep in mind that gs stay around
1.3 until Mach 2.5. [7.3 Entry: Sensory Cues]
On the recent STS-78 launch, NASA positioned a video camera on the flight deck to record the ascent.
A review of this tape and the associated comments made by the pilot during the subsequent downlink
10
indicate the nature of the disturbances from the powered ascent:
Pilot: Now we are in, obviously, first stage. Pretty bumpy ride, and you can feel the throttle down.
CapCom: it sure does show the rough ride of the solids.
Pilot: Yeah, as you well know, it is a pretty impressive ride on those boosters.
Quantification of these phenomena can be seen in Figures 2, 3, and 4, which present data of actual ascent
g-loads and vibrations. The [y-axis] of the Shuttle runs from wing tip to wing tip, the z-axis runs from
the topside to the underside of the wings. The vibration data in Figures 3 and 4 were gathered from
accelerometers located in the nose of the Shuttle. Unfortunately, we were unable to obtain similar
detailed vibration data for reentry. Figure 5 depicts a simulated reentry g-load profile. Reentry flight
deck vibrations were described by structural engineers at NASA as "relatively benign" compared to the
launch vibrations. However, those same engineers did report that postflight conversations with Shuttle
crew members revealed a heightened sensitivity to any vibration and acceleration.
Figure 2. Typical Shuttle acceleration time history during ascent.
11
Figure 3. STS-5 flight deck y-axis vibration power spectra vs time during ascent.
Figure 4. STS-5 flight deck z-axis vibration power spectra vs time during ascent.
12
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0
0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Mission Elapsed Time (sec)
T
o
t
a
l

S
e
n
s
e
d

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
E
a
r
t
h

g

s
)
Figure 5. G-load vs. time for 3-DOF simulated reentry profile
2.3 Current and New Technologies for Space Vehicle Flight Decks
On the basis of interactions with the Advanced Orbiter Cockpit program, we will evaluate the
implications of human performance characteristics discussed above for current and proposed flight deck
displays and controls.
2.3.1 Current Displays and Controls (Adapted from the Shuttle Reference Manual)
The crew compartment of the Orbiter contains the most complicated displays and controls ever
developed for an aerodynamic vehicle. The displays and controls exist in a variety of configurations,
with toggle, push button, thumbwheel, and rotary switches; and circular meters, rectangular dials, and
rectangular tapes. Switches and circuit breakers are positioned in groups corresponding to their
functions.
All controls are protected against inadvertent activation. Toggle switches are protected by wicket
guards, and lever lock switches are used wherever inadvertent action would be detrimental to flight
operations or could damage equipment. Cover guards are used on switches where inadvertent actuation
would be irreversible.
The displays and controls in the Orbiter crew compartment enable the flight crew members to supervise,
control, and monitor the Space Shuttle mission and vehicle. They include controllers, CRT displays and
keyboards, coding and conversion electronics for instruments and controllers, lighting, timing devices,
and a caution and warning system.
All displays and controls have dimmable floodlighting in addition to integral meter lighting.
There are more than 2,020 displays and controls in the forward and aft flight decks and middeck of the
Orbiter. This represents more than 100 times the number of controls and displays found in the average
automobile.
13
Orbiter displays and controls consist of panel displays, mechanical controls, and electrically operated
controls. Generally, the displays and controls are grouped by function and arranged in operational
sequence from left to right or top to bottom with the most critical and most frequently used devices
located to maximize the crews performance and efficiency.
The forward flight control area panels are labeled L for the left, or commanders position; R for the right,
or pilots position; F for the front section; O for the overhead position, and C for the lower center section
(Fig. 1).
The head-up display (HUD) was introduced to the Shuttle to ease the demands on the fight crew, after
HUD technology had proven so useful in military aircraft. The HUD is an optical miniprocessor that
cues the commander and/or pilot during the final phase of entry and particularly in the final approach to
the runway. With minimal movement of their eyes from the forward windows (head up) to the dedicated
display instruments (head down), the commander and pilot can read data from HUDs located in front of
them on their respective glareshields. The HUD displays the same data presented on several other
instruments, including the ADI, SPI, AMI, and altitude/vertical velocity indicator.
The HUD allows out-of-the-window viewing by superimposing flight commands and information on a
transparent combiner in the windows field of view. The baseline Orbiter, like most commercial aircraft,
presents conventional electromechanical display on a panel beneath the glareshield, which necessitates
that the flight crew look down for information and then up to see out the window. During critical flight
phases, particularly approach and landing, this is not an easy task. In the Orbiter, with its unique vehicle
dynamics and approach trajectories, this situation is even more difficult.
The current caution and warning system is worthy of note also. The system consists of software and
electronics that provide the crew with visual and aural cues when a system exceeds predefined operating
limits. Visual cues consist of four red MASTER ALARM lights, a 40-light array on panel F7, a 120-light
array on panel R13U, and CRT messages. The aural cue is sent to the communications system for
distribution to flight crew headsets or speaker boxes. Fault messages for some parameters are issued
every time the software completes the required number of data counts with the parameter out of limits.
This can result in a steady stream of fault messages and MASTER ALARMs that may obscure other
important fault messages. If this situation is encountered, the crew or Mission Control can inhibit the
affected parameter to prevent nuisance messages in alarms in OPS 2 or OPS 4. In OPS 1, OPS 6, or
OPS 3 the crew generally has to tolerate the extra alarms/fault messages and pay extra close attention to
the fault summary display.
2.3.2 Future Displays and Controls
One upgrade item already scheduled for integration into the Orbiter flight deck is the multifunctional
electronic display system (MEDS). This upgrade will replace the current Orbiter cockpit displays, which
are early 1970s technology. The current displays which provide command and control of the Space
Shuttle are single string electromechanical devices that are experiencing life-related failures and are
maintenance-intensive. The MEDS upgrade uses a state-of-the-art, multiple-redundant liquid crystal
display (LCD) system to replace these devices. However, the MEDS system is intended to simply
replicate the symbology and layout of the current displays. In essence, the MEDS LCDs will draw the
displays so that they look identical to those currently used in the Shuttle.
14
Other efforts within NASA are addressing a complete overhaul of the Orbiter flight deck. The end result
may have very little resemblance to todays Shuttle flight deck. In particular, efforts are under way to
develop a state-of-the-art glass fight deck leveraged on the best glass cockpit implementations in the
military and commercial sectors. Such a development would result in a reconfigurable flight deck in
which only context relevant (e.g. ascent, orbit, reentry) displays and controls would be presented to the
operator. One current working example of state-of-the-art flight deck technology, symbology, and
architecture is seen in the Boeing 777. Reference for these upgrades include MIL-STD-1787B, Aircraft
Display Symbology, and AFGS-87213B, Displays, Airborne, Electronically/Optically Generated.
Candidate technologies that have been considered to date include head down and head up displays,
information display and symbology, information control technologies (e.g. hands-on throttle and stick),
automation technologies, health monitoring, detection, and diagnosis implementations, and caution,
advisory and warning implementations.
Find up-to-date information concerning advanced Orbiter cockpit concepts at the website of JSCs Rapid
Prototyping and Interface Development Lab (http://dp4.jsc.nasa.gov:8001/PROJECTS/AOC/).
3. Human Perception and Performance
This section describes the effects of vehicular disturbances and the effects of adaptation to
weightlessness on visual and manual performance in conditions that are relevant or comparable to
Shuttle launch and reentry.
3.1 Effects of Whole-Body Perturbations on Visual and Manual Performance
Vibration and transients have consequences for nonrigid organisms in general (Riccio & Stoffregen,
1988) and, in particular, for occupants of vehicles who are neither rigid nor rigidly attached to the
vehicle (Boff & Lincoln, 1988, pp. 2076-2081; Griffin, 1975; Riccio, 1995; Riccio et al., 1997). Because
of the nonrigidity of the body and nonuniformities in the mass and moment of inertia of various body
segments, relative motion of body segments is generated by the vibration and transients encountered
during whole-body movement. Such disturbances can degrade vehicular control by interfering with
perception and action in the cockpit. For example, movements of the head relative to the cockpit can
degrade the pickup of information from instruments and displays (Boff & Lincoln, 1988, pp. 2082-2101;
Griffin & Lewis, 1978; Lewis & Griffin, 1978; Moseley & Griffin, 1986). Uncontrolled body
movements can also degrade manual control performance (Boff & Lincoln, 1988, pp. 2106-2117; Lewis
& Griffin, 1977, 1978, 1979). A rich source of data on transmissibility of forces to the head and torso is
the research on whole-body vibration of seated individuals (summarized in Boff and Lincoln 1988).
There is a peak in transmissibility for both vertical and pitch motion of the head at vertical perturbation
frequencies of 3-8 Hz (Fig. 6). At low frequencies, significant amounts of head motion can occur at the
first harmonic of the vertical perturbation force. Transmission of vertical perturbations to the head has
been shown to be affected by posture, muscle tension, body size, sustained acceleration, and attachment
of extra masses (Griffin 1975), and by adaptation to space flight (McDonald et al., 1996).
15
Z
-
A
x
i
s

H
e
a
d

M
o
t
i
o
n
Z
-
A
x
i
s

S
e
a
t

M
o
t
i
o
n
0 14 28 42 56 70 0 14 28 42 56 70
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
Vi bration Frequency (hertz)
Pitch head motion;
seat with back
Pitch head motion;
flat seat
H
e
a
d

P
i
t
c
h

(
r
a
d
i
a
n
s

/
s
e
c
o
n
d
2
)
/
Z
-
A
x
i
s

S
e
a
t

M
o
t
i
o
n

(
m
e
t
e
r
s

/
s
e
c
o
n
d
2
)


0 14 28 42 56 70 0 14 28 42 56 70
30
24
18
12
6
0
Vibration Frequency (hertz)
Z-axis head
motion; seat
with back
Z-axis head motion;
flat seat
Figure 6. Transmissibility as a function of vibration frequency. Center curve is mean vibration
amplitude; top and bottom curves are 1 standard deviation. (From Boff & Lincoln, 1988).
The research on whole-body vibration provides an important source of data on the effects that postural
perturbations in an aircraft have on vision and manual control (Griffin & Lewis, 1978). Research on
vibration and display perception, in particular, provides an experimental paradigm that can be adapted to
assess the functional efficacy of postural skills with respect to visual and manual tasks that are characteristic
of Shuttle reentry and landing. Such tasks are different than the tasks in which most of the data have been
collected in the research on whole-body vibration. Visual tasks in the vibration research generally involve
unitary foveal displays while visual tasks in the Shuttle involve multiple displays that are distributed over a
wide field of view. Other research has evaluated visual performance with multiple foveal and parafoveal
displays, albeit without whole body vibration (see e.g., Wickens, 1986). These studies show that attentional
workload increases and visual performance decreases with respect to each display as the number of displays
increases. Thus the effects of postural perturbations in the complex environment of the cockpit should be
expected to be more severe than in research on whole-body vibration. Multiple displays generally require a
larger field-of-view over which information can be picked up by the human visual system. This adds another
difficulty insofar as visual performance decreases as the retinal eccentricity of displays increases (Allen,
Clement, & Jex, 1970; Moss, 1964). The decrease in visual performance is attributed mostly to the loss of
visual resolution with increasing retinal eccentricity and, the loss in visual resolution can be modeled as a
decrease in the signal-to-noise ratio for the parameter that is monitored in the parafoveal display (Levison,
Elkin, & Ward, 1971). This is noteworthy because the visual effects of vibration also can be modeled as a
16
reduction in the signal-to-noise ratio for task-dependent parameters that are visually displayed (Zacharias &
Levison, 1979). Thus, the effects of retinal eccentricity and vibration are commensurable. The research on
whole-body vibration can be adapted, by including tasks that are typical of the Shuttle cockpit, to develop a
mature paradigm for evaluating human performance during Shuttle reentry and landing.
Effects of vertical perturbations on visual performance are greater when the task requires maintenance of
the point of regard on an object in the near field than when the task simply requires maintenance of the
direction of gaze (Moseley and Griffin, 1986; Wilson, 1974). The effects of vertical perturbations on
visual performance are influenced directly by the size and contrast of the task-relevant optical detail as
in any visual acuity task (Figs. 9 and 10; Furness, 1981; Lewis and Griffin, 1979). Effects also are
influenced by the magnitude and frequency of the perturbations (Figs. 7-10). Significant impairments in
visual performance have been observed at vertical seat accelerations as low as 0.25 g and for frequencies
of seat vibrations below 10 Hz (Moseley and Griffin, 1986). Effects on visual performance are greater
for combined horizontal and vertical perturbations than for vertical alone (See Fig. 9; Meddick and
Griffin, 1976). This is noteworthy because there are multiaxis perturbations during vehicular motion.
Other features known to interact with visual performance include spatial frequency and luminance
contrast. Whole-body vertical vibration increases contrast thresholds for sinusoidal grating patterns by
an increasing proportion as spatial frequency of the grating increases. In identical vibration conditions,
the largest number of reading errors in a reading task occurs with characters that have the largest
amounts of high-spatial-frequency information (Fig. 11). Display legibility increases as luminance
contrast increases for low and moderate contrast levels. However, very high values of luminance
contrast may degrade the legibility of displays viewed in a vibration environment (Fig. 12).
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.1 1.0 10
Frequency (hertz)
Display
vibration
Whole-body
vibration
Whole-body
and display
vibration
R
e
a
d
i
n
g

E
r
r
o
r

(
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
)
Figure 7. Reading error for three display viewing conditions, 0.5-5 Hz. (from Boff & Lincoln, 1988)
17
0
20
40
60
80
100
1.0 10 100
Frequency (hertz)
R
e
a
d
i
n
g

E
r
r
o
r

(
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
)
Figure 8. Reading error: whole-body vibration, 2.8-63 Hz. (from Boff & Lincoln, 1988)
Vibration Frequency (hertz)
R
e
a
d
i
n
g

T
i
m
e

(
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
)
Ci rcul ar
Vert i cal
Horizont al
8.7 mm double
amplitude
6.9 mm double
amplitude
4.7 mm double
amplitude
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 9. Effect of vertical, horizontal, and dual axis (circular) vibration on visual performance.
(from Boff & Lincoln, 1988)
18
CHARACTER SIZE
1 mm (4.58 min arc)
1.25 mm (5.73 min arc)
1.65 mm (7.56 min arc)
2 mm (9.17 min arc)

R
e
a
d
i
n
g

E
r
r
o
r
s

(
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
0.56 1.12 1.68 2.24 2.80
Vibration Magnitude (meters/second
2
root mean square)
4 Hz VIBRATION 11.2 Hz VIBRATION
Figure 10. Increase in mean reading error with vibration magnitude for four character sizes.
(from Boff & Lincoln, 1988)
100
80
60
40
20
0
SINUSOIDAL GRATINGS
7.5 10 12.5
Spatial Frequency (cycles/degree)
ORIENTATION
Horizontal
Vertical



I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

i
n

C
o
n
t
r
a
s
t

T
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
(
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
)
Figure 11. Effect of whole-body vertical vibration on contrast threshold for sinusoidal gratings with
spatial frequencies of 7.5, 10, and 12.5 cycles/deg. (from Boff & Lincoln, 1988)
19
0
10
12
0.20 0.33 0.60 0.78 0.88 0.94 0.97 0.99
Modulation Contrast
ACCELERATION LEVEL
(m/ sec
2
)
B 1.25
C 1.60
D 2.00
E 2.50
F 2.80
A 0.00
R
e
a
d
i
n
g

E
r
r
o
r

(
%
)
A
B
C
D
E
F
8
6
4
2
Figure 12. Effect of modulation contrast on reading errors with panel-mounted displays.
(From Boff & Lincoln, 1988).
As stated above, manual control is also susceptible to vibration interference. Manual tracking is most
sensitive to disruption by whole-body vibration in the region of 3-8 Hz (Fig. 13). Sensitivity of a task to
disruption depends upon both system dynamics and vibration frequency content. Dynamics with a
simple gain (zero-order dynamics) transmit all frequencies equally. Direct transmission of vibration
through the body and into the control system (breakthrough) therefore contributes a large proportion of
error in zero-order systems. Dynamics with pure integration (first-order dynamics) attenuate in inverse
proportion to frequency. First-order tasks are therefore less sensitive to direct breakthrough. However,
first-order tasks are more sensitive to other forms of vibration-induced disruption. It should be noted that
translational body motion can induce considerable rotary motion at the controlling limb; rotary knobs
can therefore show as much breakthrough as joysticks (see Boff & Lincoln, 1988, for details).
Measurement of visual and manual performance in the Shuttle flight deck would provide a unique
opportunity to obtain a quantitative and meaningful evaluation of the functional consequences of
vehicular vibration and adaptive coordination in the eye-head-torso-hand system.
20
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e

i
n

R
o
o
t

M
e
a
n

S
q
u
a
r
e

V
e
c
t
o
r
/
E
r
r
o
r

(
m
i
l
l
i
m
e
t
e
r
s
)
/
V
i
b
r
a
t
i
o
n

M
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
m
e
t
e
r
s
/
s
e
c
o
n
d
2

r
o
o
t

m
e
a
n

s
q
u
a
r
e
)
6
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 2 3 5 10 20
Vi br at i on Fr equency ( her tz)

Total Error
First order
Zero order
Figure 13. Increase in root mean square tracking error/vibration acceleration level observed during
z-axis whole-body vibration. Total static error = 7 mm rms for zero-order dynamics and 15 mm rms
for first-order dynamics. (from Boff & Lincoln, 1988)
3.2 Human Performance Adaptations to Weightlessness
There is a clear need for stable visual and manual control during flight deck operations. However, we
have data which show that stable visual performance is compromised following short- and long-duration
flight. In ongoing investigations of gaze stability while walking on a treadmill, crew members have
consistently reported increased oscillopsia (movement of the visual world) following flight while
fixating gaze on a target 30 cm from their eyes (Bloomberg et al., 1997). We have also detected changes
in eye-head-trunk coordination in this same task. Space flight adaptation appears to disrupt the
compensatory synergy of the eye-head-trunk which together act to maintain stable gaze under conditions
of vertical trunk motion (with each step) and head vibration (Bloomberg et al., 1997).
We have recently extended this investigation to include an evaluation of dynamic visual acuity following
long-duration flight. This task entails walking and running on a treadmill while reading back numbers
displayed on a computer screen. We have clear evidence indicating that performance following flight is
decreased (Fig. 14). We consider this task analogous to reading under vibratory conditions since the
interaction with the support surface causes vibration of the head, especially around heel strike. Usually
the body acts to attenuate this vibration. However, we have reason to believe adaptation to weightless-
ness also causes changes in this capacity (McDonald et al., 1997). The data in Figure 15 suggest this
may well be true. Figure 15 presents the ratio of the peak axial head acceleration, measured within
100 ms of heel strike, to the initial foot contact ground reaction force peak. Note that the ratio tends to
increase, suggesting relatively greater head acceleration postflight.
While we have measured these changes postflight, often several hours or even days after crew members
have returned to earth, crew members begin to experience these adaptive changes during reentry.
Indeed, we fully expect the response to be even more severe than that observed after landing. Given
such changes, the ability to deal with mechanical disturbances, and the ability to control visual and
manual stability during reentry and landing will be compromised.
21
0
1 3 6 10 120
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
1
3
6 6 4 2
Number of Days Postflight
Figure 14. Postflight dynamic visual acuity performance presented as a percentage of preflight
performance after long-duration flight. Numbers under each box indicate the number of subjects.
Number of Days Postflight
Preflight 0 1 3 6
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
2
6
6
6
6
Figure 15. Ratio of axial head acceleration to the initial foot contact ground reaction force peak
before and after long duration flight. Numbers under each box indicate the number of subjects.
22
Further evidence for disruptions in oculomotor coordination as a result of spaceflight is found in studies
of the vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR). The VOR is used in the generation of compensatory eye
movements during head rotation. The VOR operates so that, during head movements, gaze can be
stabilized permitting fixation on the desired location. Evidence to date indicates that the coordination
between head and eye is modified by exposure to weightlessness both during target acquisition (see
Reschke, 1994, for a summary), ocular saccadic activities (Uri et al., 1989), and pursuit tracking
(Kornilova et al., 1991). These data are consistent with the note that is included in the Shuttle Crew
Operations Manual which suggests:
When returning from orbit, crew members should be aware of the potential for some change in the
vestibular sensations. Head movements will tend to make these changes more noticeable. Flight
crew members should avoid exaggerated head movements during landing to reduce the possibility
of disorientation. (p. 7.4-24)
Crew members flying aboard the SLS-1 mission participated in an investigation of preflight, inflight, and
postflight limb positioning ability (Young et al., 1993). Subjects, with their eyes closed, were required to
point at five remembered targets. While preflight pointing in the absence of vision was highly accurate,
performance was clearly degraded both during and immediately after flight. Inflight, two subjects who
were very accurate preflight, showed a pointing bias predominantly toward the floor. After two subjects
made several errors when trying to touch various body parts, they noted that their arms were not where
they expected them to be when their eyes were open both during and after flight. While one may prefer
to look where one is pointing/reaching, the physical layout of the Shuttle flight displays and controls
does not always permit this preference.
Manual activities during Shuttle operation require more than simple pointing tasks. More often than not
a prehensile component is necessary while flicking a switch or adjusting a knob. It appears that this
prehensile capacity may also be compromised during unusual inertial conditions. Recent data on
grasping of virtual objects in altered gravity indicated that the final grip aperture was 15% smaller than
in normal 1g, and the peak grip aperture was 30% less affected by target size. These findings were
consistent in both hyper- and micro-g (Bock, 1996).
In summary, this evidence indicates the human capacity for accurate and reliable visual and manual
control is compromised under the conditions experienced during Shuttle ascent, reentry, and landing.
The nature of these changes in performance should be exploited in determining design specifications for
future cockpit displays and controls.
4. Multicriterion Control and Coordination in Nested Systems
This section lays out the theoretical foundation for the interpretation of the material discussed thus far
in the context of advanced cockpit design. A more complete exposition of this theoretical orientation is
presented in Part I of this series
1
.
4.1 Theoretical Foundations
There are important consequences of mobility and flexibility of the pilot in the aircraft. On the one hand,
movements of the pilot that are due to vehicular motion can provide information for vehicular control.

1
Riccio, G.E. & McDonald, P.V. (1998). Multimodal Perception and Multicriterion Control of Nested Systems:
I. Coordination of Postural Control and Vehicular Control.
23
On the other hand, uncontrolled movements of the body can interfere with perception and action in the
cockpit. If uncontrolled movements interfere with vehicular control, reduction of uncontrolled
movements should improve vehicular control. One method of reducing uncontrolled movements is to
reduce mobility and flexibility of the pilot by adding passive restraints in the cockpit. For example,
adding shoulder restraint pads to the conventional lap belt and shoulder harness in the cockpit of a high-
performance vehicle improves tracking performance when the pilot is subjected to sustained or
fluctuating lateral forces that are due to vehicular motion (Van Patten, Repperger, Hudsen, & Frazier,
1983). Reduction of uncontrolled movements through such a system of passive restraints improves both
the precision and accuracy of control; fewer control errors are made and there is less cross-coupling
among the various degrees of freedom (DOF) in the multi-input multi-output control that is typical of
flight.
The pilot, and other occupants of a vehicle, also reduce uncontrolled movements through adaptive
postural control activity. The various segments of the body must be actively stabilized whenever one is
not passively stabilized (Riccio & Stoffregen, 1990; Stoffregen & Riccio, 1988). Even when it is
reasonable to maximize passive restraints on the torso (e.g., in a vehicle), it is important to allow some
mobility of the head and limbs to facilitate looking at, around, and through; and to facilitate reaching and
manual control (Riccio et al., 1997; Riccio & Stoffregen, 1988). Mobility can be increased through
reduction of passive restraint, but this also increases the demands on active stabilization, that is, on
postural control. Postural control with various body segments is limited by passive restraints such as seat
belts and shoulder harnesses. Pushing on support surfaces with the legs and arms can be used to
compensate for torques due to tilt or imbalance (cf., Riccio & Stoffregen, 1988; Zacharkow, 1988), but
such postural control strategies can lead to inappropriate actions on the control stick and rudder pedals
(Van Patten et al., 1983). In an aircraft cockpit, the major body segments that can be coordinated in this
way are the head and the upper torso (Riccio, 1995; Riccio et al., 1997).
The dynamics of balance in the cockpit vary because of variation in the gravitoinertial vector within and
across typical flight maneuvers (see e.g., Brown et al., 1991; Riccio, 1995; Riccio et al., 1997). Linear
and centripetal acceleration of the aircraft change both the direction and magnitude of the gravitoinertial
vector. Changes in the direction of this vector shift the location of the potential gradient for balance in
the postural configuration space. Changes in the magnitude of this vector change the steepness of the
gradient and change the size of the region within which postural perturbations can be reversed. Thus,
postural control in vehicles must be robust, or it must adapt, to variations in both the direction of balance
and the consequences of imbalance. Postural aftereffects of exposure to altered gravitoinertial environ-
ments have been demonstrated in several investigations using human centrifuges (Bles & de Graaf, 1992;
Hamilton, Kantor, & Magee, 1989; Martin & Riccio, 1993). These studies reveal that limits on
adaptability vary among individuals and that, beyond these limits, individuals experience postural
instability and motion sickness. In some cases, stability limits are avoided by adopting robust postural
control strategies characterized by stiff, robot-like, or other movement patterns with reduced DOF.
Adaptability is also important because the evaluation functions, and associated potential gradients, for
postural control are influenced by situation-specific factors other than torques on the body segments
(Riccio, 1993; Riccio & Stoffregen, 1988; 1991). Such factors include different constraints which are
imposed on postural control by different tasks. We have shown that postural perturbations are different
for tasks involving reading, low-force tapping, or simply maintaining balance when the mechanical
conditions are otherwise identical (Riccio, Lee, & Martin, 1993). These results also suggest that task
constraints can have effects that are similar to the effects of mechanical constraints, and these constraints
24
can be modeled in the similar ways. In particular, movement of the head due to whole-body perturbation
was reduced for the reading task while movement of other body segments was unaffected. Thus,
adaptation of multisegment (i.e., nonrigid) postural control to task constraints was both specific and
functional. In many cases, such coordination requires exquisite observability and controllability of the
interaction between translation and rotation of the head. Given that prolonged weightlessness alters
vestibular perception of translation and rotation, we suspect that space flight adaptation may result in
head-trunk coordination that is less specific and less functional given the task demands of reentry.
The meaning of the sensory information, its implications for action, is influenced by the context. For
example, perceived rotational motion or change in orientation may or may not require a compensatory
postural action. Disturbances on the aircraft can result in changes in orientation (e.g., pitch and roll) of
the aircraft that may not be visible if outside-the-cockpit optical structure is impoverished. In addition,
the visible surroundings inside the cockpits of many aircraft are often more extensive and richer in
optical structure than the visible surroundings outside the cockpit, and the visible surroundings inside the
cockpit are more relevant to perception and action in the cockpit (e.g., viewing instruments and handling
controls). Furthermore, the support surfaces move with the visible surroundings inside the cockpit. This
presents a problem for postural control that may be difficult to overcome: Posture may be controlled
with respect to the support surfaces and visible surroundings inside the cockpit to facilitate interaction
with the cockpit environment, but posture must also be controlled with respect to the inertial environ-
ment to avoid or limit imbalance (note that this is a problem even when the surroundings outside the
cockpit are visible). This situation is analogous to sway referencing of the support surface and visible
surroundings during the experimental or diagnostic evaluation of stance (see Nashner & McCollum,
1985). It is well known that vestibular sensitivity to imbalance mitigates the destabilizing effects of
these unusual environments. We suspect that space flight adaptation may result in difficulties with
perception and action in the cockpit over changes in the g-vector and over the complex relationships
among sensory reference frames during reentry.
4.2 Relevance to Flight Deck Performance
4.2.1 Task Constraints
The adaptability and sensitivity of postural control must be considered with specific reference to
(nonmechanical) task constraints imposed in particular phases of the mission. Only under these
circumstances could this information indicate whether visual and manual stability is governed by tacit
knowledge of the effects that head and trunk motion has on visual and manual performance (Riccio,
1993, 1995; Riccio et al., 1997; Riccio & Stoffregen, 1988, 1991). Individual differences due to
experience in postural stabilization and in performance under challenging cockpit conditions also shed
light on these aspects of piloting skill. As noted above, everything from postural control in the cockpit to
looking and reaching patterns must be considered as part of a pilot's skill. This skill allows a pilot to
perform effectively in the visually and mechanically complex aerospace environment. Adaptability is an
essential aspect of such whole-body skills, and it allows a pilot to perform adequately even in novel or
unusual circumstances. The design of controls and displays and the development of flight-control
procedures takes into account, explicitly or implicitly, such skill and adaptability. Planning for new
environments or emergency situations is greatly facilitated by a technical understanding of the limits of
human skill and adaptability.
25
4.2.2 Whole-Body Perturbations
There is a conspicuous lack of detail in descriptions of the vibration environment, including the resulting
postural perturbations, on the Shuttle flight deck during reentry. Data were collected on early Shuttle
flights, but were directed more to evaluating structural integrity of the flight deck and instrumentation.
Little or no attention appears to have been given to the human performance implications of these
vibrations. From the material we have reviewed it is clear that the relation between motion of the crew
members head, trunk, and seat is critical for preserving robust visual and manual control. Moreover,
each phase of a mission presents different challenges to preserving this control. Specifically, attention
must be given to the context specific performance:
during predictable and unpredictable disturbances
during ascent/abort performance
during reentry/landing performance
for different types and axes of disturbances
for different body configurations (e.g. head up vs. head down)
Evaluations of performance in these contexts will provide detailed information about postural
perturbations during vehicular disturbances that are typical of abort, entry and landing. Such data will be
useful in future applications of human performance models to advanced cockpit design.
4.2.3 Visual/Manual Performance
Measurement of visual and manual performance provides a unique opportunity to obtain a quantitative
and meaningful evaluation of the functional consequences of vehicular vibration and adaptive coordina-
tion in the eye-head-torso-hand system. On the basis of the material reviewed here, one would expect
that there will be significant impairments in visual and manual performance under conditions of whole-
body perturbations that are common during Shuttle ascent and reentry. Visual performance should
decrease with increases in the RMS magnitude of disturbances in all translational and rotational axes.
Uncorrelated disturbances in multiple axes will have a significantly greater effect on visual performance.
Visual performance should increase with increases in modal frequency of disturbance power between
1 and 10 Hz. Below 5 Hz, the effect of the disturbance spectrum on visual performance should be
influenced by the known dynamics of the vestibulo-ocular reflex. As indicated in Section 3.1, manual
control is also susceptible to vibration interference. We expect that the greatest disruption in manual
tracking will occur for whole-body vibration in the region of 3-8 Hz. The frequency dependence of
effects on visual performance and manual control should be different for different types and axes of
disturbance because of the dynamics and adaptability of shock absorption for the corresponding body
axes. Predictability of disturbances should reduce the effects of disturbances, and this interaction should
be frequency dependent.
The specification of the disturbance profile and associated human response capabilities will determine
the robustness of human performance in the cockpit. The consequences of such relate directly to
handling qualities and flight control (see e.g., Riccio, 1995; Riccio et al., 1997). Indicators of potential
problems include time delays, spatial errors such as overshoot, PIOs, damped oscillations of the
simulated vehicle that suggest imminent PIOs, and degraded visual performance that can lead to such
problems with spatiotemporal accuracy and precision. It is necessary to identify, by direct observation or
26
extrapolation, the magnitudes of perturbation that lead to delayed or inaccurate responses. Such
boundaries can be specified for particular axes and for particular combinations of axes. Soft or fuzzy
boundaries can be represented, for example, in gradients implicit in nested iso-performance contours in
joint parameter spaces (Riccio, 1993, 1995; Riccio et al., 1997; Stoffregen and Riccio, 1988, 1991). The
key is to identify regions where degradation in handling qualities and flight-control performance is
highly nonlinear or "explosive" over smooth changes in parameters of the pilot-vehicle system. The
resulting relationships describe the domain of perturbations within which visual perception and manual
control are sufficiently robust to allow for stable flight control and acceptable handling qualities.
4.2.4 Coordination of Nested Systems
We are convinced that it is crucial to gather quantitative information about the effects of stability and
adaptability of whole-body coordination on display perception within the flight deck context. In this
context, we would expect to see a monotonic yet nonlinear relationship between reading accuracy and
the departure from unity-gain negative-feedback compensation for the head-neck system. Relatedly, we
would expect to observe a two-dimensional "tolerance region" (Riccio and Stoffregen, 1988, 1991) with
respect to unity gain and 180 phase relations for the head-neck system, within which there will be no
effect of imperfect compensation on performance. Such tolerance should be provided by oculomotor
compensation and by attentional mechanisms that facilitate visual perception during expected changes in
retinal projection of the display. Outside of this tolerance region, we would expect to observe sharp
decrements in performance due to excessive blurring of the retinal image (Boff and Lincoln, 1988).
Retinal blur and decrements in display perception have been observed with whole-body accelerations
below 1 g (see Section 3.1). Retinal blur and the effects on visual perception would be exacerbated by
any aftereffects of weightlessness on oculomotor compensation (see Section 3.2). Postural perturbations
due to vehicular vibration and aftereffects of weightlessness each pose challenges to oculomotor
compensation. A better understanding of these challenges can lead to the design of more robust displays
and to training methods or other prophylactic measures that enhance visual perception and performance
in the cockpit.
Measurement of perceptual performance in these operationally relevant conditions provides a unique
opportunity to obtain a quantitative and meaningful evaluation of departures from unity gain and 180
phase relations in the head-neck system. More generally, it provides a meaningful evaluation of the task
constraints that is commensurate with the evaluation of mechanical constraints. As indicated in Section
4.0, posture may be controlled with respect to the support surfaces and visible surroundings inside the
cockpit to facilitate interaction with the cockpit environment, but posture must also be controlled with
respect to the inertial environment to avoid or limit imbalance. In dynamical models of purposeful
movement systems, evaluative functions that include such effects of movement and performance are as
important as the classical functions associated with energy management (Riccio 1993, 1995; Riccio et
al., 1993; Riccio et al., 1997). Such understanding of postural dynamics and the skills involved in
human-systems interaction provides a firm foundation for recommendations about interface design and
about training that fosters the development of the associated whole-body skills. It increases the range of
scientific knowledge that is recognized as operationally relevant and, thus, that can be applied to
advanced cockpit design.
27
5. Cockpit Design Implications
5.1 Robustness of Cockpit Displays and Controls
Impaired visual performance may arise from the vibration of the eye induced by whole-body vibration or
by vibration of the object or displays being viewed. The effects of vibration on vision depends on many
factors including viewing distance, the translation and rotation components of ocular disturbances, and
luminance adaptation (Casagrande, et al., 1986; Irvin, Norton & Casagrande, 1986; Irvin & Verrillo,
1979; Verrillo & Irvin, 1979). The state of luminance adaptation of the visual system determines the
temporal integration constant of the visual system and, hence, the spatio-temporal frequency effects of
vibration on retinal blur (Kuyk, et al., 1983; Irvin, et al., 1983). Consequently quantification of the
spatial characteristics of cockpit displays is critical for any accurate determination of human perform-
ance limits. These spatial characteristics include spatial frequency analysis and characterization of
information-relevant aspects of display elements such as length of bar indicators, orientation of pointers,
visual subtense and spacing of alphanumeric, luminance contrast, and line width. It is our position that
relevant display elements should be spatially characterized according to their critical features for
visibility and in a manner which facilitates the quantification of vibration effects on visibility. As a
result the effects of vibration on the display characteristics can be represented as perturbations in spatio-
temporal frequency and variations in contrast.
The spatio-temporal contrast sensitivity characteristics of the human visual system and, hence, vibration-
induced degradation of visibility depend critically on the state of visual adaptation due to mean
illumination. Mean illumination of the cockpit displays under operational conditions provides the
appropriate spatio-temporal characterization of visual display features over specified perturbations of the
head. The quantification of the relevant spatial characteristics of cockpit displays and the effects of
vibration on the appropriate space, time, and intensity properties of the critical display features will
enable appropriate metrics of display visibility to be applied under representative vibration and
illumination conditions in the cockpit. Our approach provides a relevant and common representation for
display features and vibration effects. This in turn facilitates a quantitative assessment of the visibility of
extant display elements and display systems with respect to representative vibration conditions (Doyal,
Irvin, Donohue, & Dowler, 1992; Doyal, Irvin & Ramer, 1995; Irvin, Gaska, & Jacobson, 1995; Stengle
et al, 1994).
5.2 Robust Cockpit Design
As indicated in Section 3.1, loss in visual resolution can be modeled as a decrease in the signal-to-noise
ratio for particular features in a visual display, and the visual effects of vibration also can be modeled as
a reduction in the signal-to-noise ratio for task dependent parameters that are visually displayed
(Levison, Elkin, & Ward, 1971; Zacharias & Levison, 1979). Section 3.1 also indicated that whole-body
perturbations can be described as an illumination-dependent reduction in modulation contrast due to the
superposition of a "noise" distribution on the retinal projection of a display. Knowledge about visual
acuity and display characteristics can be applied to identify the domain of gaze instabilities over which
there is sufficient acuity for timely and accurate decisions and responses in the cockpit. Challenges to
gaze stability and visual acuity, then, can be derived from this information together with data on the
whole-body perturbations that would be experienced during abort, entry and landing maneuvers of space
vehicles. One should then be able to indicate the extent to which oculomotor compensation is required
28
for adequate performance in the cockpit. This would subsequently allow one to make inferences about
the likelihood of vibration-related acuity problems in the cockpit based upon the scientific literature on
oculomotor control (see Section 3.2). Analysis of this form will reveal the relative robustness of various
extant and planned display elements and display systems with respect to gaze stabilization under
challenging conditions in the space vehicles.
29
6. Literature Cited
Allen, RW, Clement, WF, & Jex, HR (1970). Research on display scanning, sampling, and
reconstruction using separate main and secondary tracking tasks (NASA CR-1569). Washington, DC:
NASA.
Bagian, J P., Greenisen, MC. Schafer, LE Probe, JD Krutz, R W., Jr. (1993). Reach performance while
wearing the Space Shuttle launch and entry suit during exposure to launch accelerations. Crew Interface
Analysis: Selected Articles on Space Human Factors Research, 1987 - 1991. pp 122-125.
Berry, DT, Powers, BG, Szalai, KJ, & Wilson, RJ (1982). In-flight investigation of control system pure
time delays. J. Aircraft, 19, 318-323.
Bles, W, & de Graaf, B (1992). Postural consequences of long duration centrifugation with 3Gz.
Postural and Gait Control Mechanisms (pp. 276-279).
Bloomberg, J.J., Peters, B.T., Smith, S.L., Huebner, W.P., and Reschke, M.F. (1997). Locomotor head-
trunk coordination strategies following space flight. Journal of Vestibular Research, 7, 161-177.
Bock, O. (1996). Grasping of virtual objects in changed gravity. Aviation, Space, and Environmental
Medicine, 67, 1185-9.
Boff, K. R., & Lincoln, J. E. (1988). Engineering Data Compendium: Human Perception and
Performance. Wright-Patterson A.F.B., Ohio: Harry G. Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research
Laboratory.
Brown, Y. J, Cardullo, F. M., McMillan, G. R., Riccio, G. E., Sinacori, J.B. (1991). New approaches to
motion cuing in flight simulators. (AL-TR-1991-0139). Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: Armstrong
Laboratory.
Casagrande, V.A. Irvin, G.E., Norton, T.T., Sesma, M.A. & Petry, H.M. Difference of Gaussian Model
of Contrast Sensitivity Functions from W-, X- and Y-like Cells in Primate LGN. Investigative
Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 27, 1986.
Doyal, J.A., Irvin, G.E., Donohue, T.R., Dowler, M.G. Flight Simulation of Infrared Smoke Obscuration
Using Equivalent Contrast Reduction. Proceedings of the Smoke/Obscurants Symposium XVI: Smoke:
The Margin of Victory. U.S. Army Chemical and Biological Defense Agency, Chemical Research,
Development and Engineering Center, Research and Technology Directorate, Vol. 1, pp. 229-240, 1992.
Doyal, J.A., Irvin, G.E. & Ramer, D.P. Operator Cursor Positioning Performance on Navigational
Update and Target Positioning Tasks: Evaluation of Gain Functions for the B-2 Radar-Embedded Cursor
System(U). Armstrong Laboratory, Crew Systems Directorate, Human Engineering Division, Crew
Systems Integration Branch, AL/CFHI, AL/CF-TR-1995-0106, April, 1995.
Flach, J., Riccio, G., McMillan, G., & Warren, R. (1986). Psychophysical methods for equating
performance between alternative motion simulators. Ergonomics, 29, 1423-1438.
Furness TA (1981). The effects of whole-body vibration on the perception of the helmet-mounted
display. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southampton, England.
30
Griffin, M. J. (1975). Vertical vibration of seated subjects: Effects of posture, vibration level and
frequency. Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine, 46, 269-276.
Griffin, M. J., & Lewis, C. H. (1978). A review of the effects of vibration on visual acuity and
continuous manual control, Part I: Visual acuity. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 56(3), 383-413.
Hamilton, KM, Kantor, L, & Magee, LE (1989). Limitations of postural equilibrium tests for examining
simulator sickness. Aviation, Space, & Environmental Medicine, 60, 246-251.
Hillman, E., Bloomberg, J.J., McDonald, P.V., Cohen, H.S. (In Press). Dynamic visual acuity while
walking: a measure of oscillopsia. Journal of Vestibular Research.
Irvin, G.E., Norton, T.T. & Casagrande, V.A. Receptive-field Properties Derived from Spatial Contrast
Sensitivity Measurements of Primate LGN Cells. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 27,
1986.
Irvin, G.E. & Verrillo, R.T. Absolute Magnitude Estimation of Line Length as a Function of Contrast,
Line Orientation, and Viewing Distance. Sensory Processes, 3, 275-285, 1979.
Verrillo, R.T. & Irvin, G.E. Absolute Magnitude Estimation of Line Length as a Function of Orientation
and Contrast Polarity. Sensory Processes, 3, 261-274, 1979.
Irvin, G.E., Sesma, M.A., Kuyk, T.K., Norton, T.T. & Casagrande, V.A. Visual Response Latencies and
Contrast Sensitivity Functions in Primate Lateral Geniculate Nucleus after Monocular Deprivation.
Society for Neuroscience, 9, 25, 1983.
Irvin, G.E., Gaska, J.P. & Jacobson, L.D. Human Performance Model (HPM): A General Model of
Human Visual Discrimination Developed to Predict Human-System Performance for use in Tactical
Decision Aids and Mission Performance Aids. Phillips Laboratory, Directorate of Geophysics, Air Force
Material Command, Hanscom AFB, MA, PL-TR-95-2092, December, 1995
Kleinman DL, Baron S, and Levison WH (1970). An optimal control model of human response, part I:
theory and validation. Automatica, 6: 357-369.
Kornilova, LN, Goncharenko, A.M., Bodo, G., Elkan, K., Grigorova, V, Manev, A. (1991). Pathogensis
of sensory disorders in microgravity. Physiologist, 34:S36-39.
Kuyk, T.K., Irvin, G.E., Petry, H.M., Casagrande, V.A. & Norton, T.T. Latencies to Visual Stimulation
and Spatial Tuning in Primate X-Like and Y-Like LGN Cells. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual
Science, 3, 264, 1983.
Lafortune, M.A., McDonald, P.V., Layne, C.S., & Bloomberg J.J. Space flight modifications of the
human body shock wave transmission. Canadian Society for Biomechanics IXth Biennial Conference,
August 21-24, 1996 Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC
Levison, WH, Elkind, JI, & Ward, JL (1971). Studies of multi-variable manual control systems: a model
for task interference (NASA CR-1746). Washington, DC: NASA.
Levison, WH, & Harrah, CB (1977). Biomechanical and performance response of man in six different
directional axis vibration environments. AMRL-TR-75-94, WPAFB OH.
31
Lewis, C. H., & Griffin, M.J. (1978). A review of the effects of vibration on visual acuity and continuous
manual control, Part II: continuous manual control. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 56(3), 415-457.
Lewis CH and Griffin M.J .(1979). The effect of character size on the legibility of a numeric display
during vertical whole-body vibration. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 67, 562-565.
Martin, E. & Riccio, G. (1993). Postural instability and motion sickness after prolonged exposure to a 2G
environment. In S. S. Valenti (Ed.), VIIth International Conference on Event Perception and Action.
Vancouver, Canada: Erlbaum.
McDonald, P. V., Bloomberg, J. J., & Layne, C. S. (In Press). A review of adaptative change in
musculoskeletal impedance during space flight and associated implications for postflight head movement
control. Journal of Vestibular Research, 7, 239-250.
McDonald, P.V., Lafortune, M.A., Layne, C.S., & Bloomberg J.J. (1996). Challenges to head stability
after space flight. Society for Neuroscience Abstracts 22, Washington, D.C.
McRuer, DT Jex HR (1967). A review of quasi-linear pilot models. IEEE Transactions on Human
Factors in Electronics, 8, 231.
Meddick RD and Griffin MJ (1976). The effect of two-axis vibration on the legibility of reading
material. Ergonomics, 19, 22-23.
Moseley, M. J., & Griffin, M. J. (1986). Effects of display vibration and whole body vibration on visual
performance. Ergonomics, 29, 977-983.
Moss, SM (1964). Tracking with a differential brightness display: II. peripheral tracking. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 48, 249-254.
MSIS Program (1995). Man Systems Integration Standards: Volume 1 (Rev. B), (NASA-STD-3000).
NASA-JSC: MSIS Program
Nashner LM and McCollum G (1985) The organization of human postural movements: A formal basis
and experimental synthesis. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8: 135-1724
Reschke, M. F., Bloomberg, J. J., Paloski, W. H., Harm, D. L., & Parker, D. E. (1994). Neurophysiologic
aspects: Sensory and sensory-motor function. In A. E. Nicogossian, C. Leach Huntoon, & S. L. Pool
(Eds.), Space Physiology and Medicine, (3rd ed., pp. 261-285). Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger.
Riccio, G. (1993). Information in movement variability about the qualitative dynamics of posture and
orientation. In: K. Newell (Ed.) Variability and Motor Control (pp. 317-357), Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Riccio, G. E. (1995). Coordination of postural control and vehicular control: Implications for
multimodal perception and simulation. In Hancock, P., Flach, J. Caird, J. and Vicente, K. (Eds.) Local
applications of the ecological approach to human-machine systems (pp. 122 - 181). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
32
Riccio, G., Lee, D., & Martin, E. (1993). Task constraints on postural control. In S. S. Valenti (Ed.),
VIIth International Conference on Event Perception and Action, (pp. 306-310). Vancouver, Canada:
Erlbaum.
Riccio, G., & Cress, J. (1986). Frequency response of the visual system to simulated changes in altitude:
comparison of active and passive psychophysics. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference on Manual
Control. Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: Aeronautical Systems Division.
Riccio, G.E. & McDonald, P.V. (1998). Multimodal Perception and Multicriterion Control of Nested
Systems: I. Coordination of Postural Control and Vehicular Control. NASA Technical Paper 3703.
Johnson Space Center, Houston TX.
Riccio, G. E., & Stoffregen, T. A. (1988). Affordances as constraints on the control of stance. Human
Movement Science, 7, 265-300.
Riccio, G. E., & Stoffregen, T. A. (1990). Gravitoinertial force versus the direction of balance in the
perception and control of orientation. Psychological Review, 97, 135-137
Riccio, G. E., & Stoffregen, T. A. (1991). An ecological theory of motion sickness and postural
instability. Ecological Psychology, 3, 195-240.
Shuttle Flight Operations Manual Volume 12: Crew Systems; Basic, Revision A 1985. NASA Johnson
Space Center, Missions Operation Directorate: Training Division. JSC-12770.
Shuttle Crew Operations Manual (1996). . NASA Johnson Space Center, Missions Operation
Directorate: Training Division.
Sims, JT, Sterling, MR (1990). Ascent/abort training in the Shuttle mission simulator. AIAA Flight
simulation technologies conference and exhibit, Dayton OH. Technical Papers (A91-16676 04-09).
Smith, RE, & Bailey, RE (1982). Evaluating the flying qualities of todays fighter aircraft. In: Fuller &
Pitts (Eds) Design Criteria for the future of flight controls. (AFWAL-TR-82-3064; pp. 471-480). Wright-
Patterson AFB, OH: Flight Dynamics Lab.
Stengle, J.D., Heaton, H.H., Finch, S., Hopper, J., Irvin, G.E., Irvin, J.G., et. al. Systems Engineering
Design and Technical Analysis for Strategic Avionics Crew Station Design Evaluation Facility
(SACDEF). Armstrong Laboratory, Crew Systems Directorate, Human Engineering Division, Crew
Systems Integration Branch, AL/CFHI-TR-1994-0074, May, 1994.
Stoffregen, T. A., & Riccio, G. E. (1988). An ecological theory of orientation and the vestibular system.
Psychological Review, 95, 3-14.
Uri, J.J., Linder, B.J., Moore, T.P., Pool, S.L., Thornton, W.E. (1989). Saccadic eye movements during
spaceflight. NASA Technical Memorandum. 100(475):9.
van der Vaart JC (1992). Modelling of perception and action in compensatory control tasks. Delft, NL:
Delft University Press.
33
Van Patten, R. E., Repperger, D. W., Hudsen, K. E., & Frazier, J. W. (1983). Investigation of the effects
of Gy and Gz on AFTI/F-16 control inputs, restraints, and tracking performance. (AFAMRL-TR-83-
080). Wright- Patterson AFB, OH: Air Force Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory.
Watt, D. G. D., Money, K. E., & Tomi, L. M. (1986). M.I.T./Canadian vestibular experiments on the
Spacelab-1 mission: 3. Effects of prolonged weightlessness on a human otolith-spinal reflex.
Experimental Brain Research, 64, 308-315.
Weingarten, NC (1978). In-flight simulation of the Space Shuttle Orbiter during landing approach and
touchdown in the Total In-Flight Simulator (CALSPAN Report No. 6339-F-1). Buffalo, NY:
CALSPAN.
Weingarten, NC (1979). In-flight simulation of the Space Shuttle (STS-1) during landing approach with
Pilot-Induced Oscillation suppressor (CALSPAN Report No. 6339-F-2). Buffalo, NY: CALSPAN.
Wickens, C. D. (1986). The effects of control dynamics on performance. In R. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J.
P. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance, (Vol. 2, pp. 39-1 - 39-60). New
York: Wiley.
Wilson RV (1974). Display collimation under whole-body vibration. Human Factors, 16: 186-195.
Young, L. R., Oman, C. M., Merfeld, D., Watt, D. G. D., Roy, S., Deluca, C., Balkwill, D., Christie, J.,
Groleau, N., Jackson, D. K., Law, G., Modestino, S., and Mayer, W., "Spatial Orientation and Posture
During and Following Weightlessness: Human Experiments on SpacelabLifeSciences1," Journal of
Vestibular Research, Vol. 3, 1993, pp. 231240.
Zacharias G and Young L (1981). Influence of combined visual and vestibular cues on human
perception and control of horizontal rotation. Experimental Brain Research, 41: 141-171.
Zacharias, G., Warren, R., & Riccio, G. (1986). Modeling the pilots use of flight simulator visual cues
in a terrain following task. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Conference on Manual Control. Wright-
Patterson AFB, OH: Aeronautical Systems Division.
Zacharkow, D. (1988). Posture: Sitting, standing, chair design and exercise. Springfield, IL: Charles C.
Thomas.