Dr. Edward N. Bachelder Profile

Dr. Edward N. Bachelder

at Systems Technology Inc

SPIE Involvement:

Author

Publications (4)

Proceedings Article | 8 September 2003 Paper

An autorotation flight display/director for helicopter training

Edward Bachelder, Bimal Aponso

Proceedings Volume 5079, (2003) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.500187

KEYWORDS: Control systems, Visualization, Motion controllers, 3D modeling, Copper, Motion models, Information fusion, Pattern recognition, Algorithm development, Optimization (mathematics)

Read Abstract +

Proceedings Article | 5 August 2002 Paper

Perception-based synthetic cueing for night vision device rotorcraft hover operations

Edward Bachelder, Duane McRuer

Proceedings Volume 4711, (2002) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.478888

KEYWORDS: Visualization, Copper, Head, Near field, Night vision, Computer simulations, Ultrasonography, Head-mounted displays, Virtual reality, Optical resolution

Read Abstract +

Proceedings Article | 18 June 1997 Paper

Enhanced spatial-state feedback for night-vision goggle displays

Edward Bachelder, R. John Hansman

Proceedings Volume 3058, (1997) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.276648

KEYWORDS: Target detection, Visualization, LCDs, Head-mounted displays, 3D displays, 3D acquisition, Night vision goggles, Virtual reality, Head, Reticles

Read Abstract +

A preliminary study was conducted to investigate the use of visual flow cues as an aid to ground and vertical drift awareness during helicopter flight and targeting while using night vision goggles (NVGs). Three displays wee compared: (1) NVG display: simulated NVG image of cockpit and external environment. (2) Overlay display: NVG image with an overlay display but with symbology flow cue field and a surrounding wire-frame globe; (3) Cut-out display: same as the overlay display but with symbology removed from the central region. Three levels of contrast were also compared using each display type. The visual scenery was displayed to subjects using a helmet-mounted virtual reality device that had a 40 by 50 degree field-of-view liquid crystal display. The study involved six pilots. Three tasks were given: (1) Search task: designate enemy targets with a helmet-mounted sight; (2) Hover task: null out all transnational and yaw rates while in a hover; (3) Search/Hover task: perform both Search and Hover tasks simultaneously. These tasks were conducted in a fixed-based helicopter simulator which used the dynamics of a small-scale model helicopter. The following performance measures were collected: (1) Pilot ability to detect and recognize targets; (2) Pilots ability to null transnational and yaw rates; (3) Time scanning the instrument panel. Subjects also rated displays for efficacy in completing the three tasks. Target detection scores conducted during the Search and Search/Hover tasks were highest using the NVG display, followed by the cut-out display. Root-mean-square (RMS) drift rate error was comparable for all display types in the Hover and Hover/Search tasks, however RMS control input activity in all the translational axes was significantly higher in both rate-cueing displays than with the NVG display. From the control input and drift rate time histories it appears that the motion cues were more compelling in the overlay and cut- out displays than those perceived in the NVG display. A significant decrease in instrument-scanning time was observed for both the overlay and cut-out displays compared to the NVG display, with pilots flying essentially head-out- of-cockpit while using the rate-cueing displays. Contrast was not observed to have a significant effect on hover performance in any of the displays.

Proceedings Article | 31 May 1996 Paper

Issues in simultaneous HMD display of multireference frames for helicopter applications

Edward Bachelder, R. John Hansman

Proceedings Volume 2736, (1996) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.241035

KEYWORDS: Cockpit displays, Head-mounted displays, Visualization, Head, Target detection, LCDs, Nose, Clocks, Virtual reality, Switches

Read Abstract +

A preliminary study was conducted to investigate the use of reference markers found in the head-fixed frame as an aid to reference frame awareness during aircraft flight while using a helmet mounted display. Three reference-cueing displays were compared: (1) Sparse Reference display: all cockpit and airframe markers removed except for the instrument panel, (2) Cockpit Reference display: entire cockpit environment visible, and (3) Geo/Cockpit Reference display: cockpit environment visible with the addition of a surrounding wire-frame globe. The visual scenery was displayed to subjects using a helmet-mounted virtual reality device that had a 40 X 50 degree field of view liquid crystal display. The study involved six pilots. The task was to locate targets from aural alert information. The aural alerts were based in either the Aircraft reference frame (i.e. target clock position relative to the aircraft nose), or the World reference frame (i.e. target bearing). These tasks were conducted while the subject rode through abrupt maneuvering flight at low level in a fixed-based Cobra helicopter simulator. Performance measures of the pilot's ability to discriminate the intended target from secondary targets in the visual field were collected, as well as subjective ratings for each reference display. The Geo/Cockpit Reference display produced the highest target detection scores for both Aircraft and World-reference alerts. The highest overall detection scores were produced when World-referenced alerts were issued while using the Geo/Cockpit display. The Cockpit display scores were higher than the Sparse display's for both alert types. Subjective scores showed pilot preference for the Geo/Cockpit Reference display over the two displays for both Aircraft and World-reference alerts. A secondary exploratory experiment using the same tasking as the initial experiment was also conducted which observed the effect of peripheral cues. Target detection scores for both alert types decreased when peripheral cues were removed from the Cockpit display. Detection scores also decreased with the removal of peripheral cues from the Geo/Cockpit display during the Aircraft-referenced alerts.

View contact details

UPDATE YOUR PROFILE

Is this your profile? Update it now.

Sign into your SPIE.org account

Don’t have a profile and want one?

Create an account on SPIE.org

Keywords/Phrases

Search In:

Publication Years