describe the various human factors issues related to head-mounted displays which need to be addressed through this effort. Formal pilot evaluations and human factors studies should be developed with assistance from the TPOC’s and NAVAIR’s Human Research Protection Official.

 

The headset should be designed so that at least two pilots can safely interact with each other and practice any mission on any aircraft simulator without adversely impacting their training. The headset should also provide uniform geometric distortions across the display, uniform photometric performance across the display, high resolution wherever the user looks, no color fringing, and a camera system that must provide stereo high-resolution imagery that supports perception of cockpit text, instrumentation, and controls at 90 frames per second [Ref 11]. The headset should address pilot needs including comfortable use of the headset for greater than 30 minutes, weight distribution, 2-D vs 3-D points of view, accommodation and vergence conflicts (e.g., light field displays), and smear reduction.

 

Other required performance criteria and capabilities are:

•  Full motion tracking of the headset

•   At least two pilots/users can safely interact with each other

•   Real time imagery and/or accurate virtual representations of the cockpit, pilot’s hands, and other pilots/users

•   All hand written text, test plans, NATOPS manuals, etc. can be read 18 inches away in an upright seated position

•  Instantaneous horizontal field of view – Threshold: 120 degrees, Objective: 200 degrees

•  Instantaneous vertical field of view – Threshold: 80 degrees, Objective: 120 degrees

•  Binocular overlap of – Threshold 100 degrees, Objective: 120 degrees

•   Average frame rate of 90 frames per second

•  Screen refresh rate of 90 Hz

•  Static spatial resolution no greater than 5 arc-minutes per optical line pair

•  Dynamic resolution may not degrade by more than 20% while in motion of 15 degrees per second

•   Compatibility with image generators used by Navy simulators such as Aechelon, FSI, L3, and Rockwell Collins

•  The headset hardware and software can be used in most aircraft cockpit trainers

 

Furthermore, the integration and registration of real and virtual world need to take physiological and psychological considerations that engineering alone would not achieve. In other words, the engineering and the integration of hardware and software component is not enough to generate a VR/AR/MR headset. Human factors need to be taken into consideration to address human vision perception, extended wearing comfort issues, and the reduction of simulation sickness. Integrating a VR/AR/MR headset with a flight simulator will greatly reduce the cost and footprint of flight simulators, and could lead to mobile flight simulators that can be mass produced and deployed aboard ships or to bases around the world.

 

Note: NAVAIR will provide Phase I performers with the appropriate guidance required for human research protocols so that they have the information to use while preparing their Phase II Initial Proposal. Institutional Review Board (IRB) determination as well as processing, submission, and review of all paperwork required for human subject use can be a lengthy process. As such, no human research will be allowed until Phase II and work will not be authorized until approval has been obtained, typically as an option to be exercised during Phase II.

 

PHASE I: Design a novel VR/AR/MR headset able to meet or exceed the requirements outlined in the Description. Determine technical feasibility through experiments that address extended wearing comfort and simulation sickness from a human factors point of view. The Phase I effort will include prototype plans to be developed under Phase II.

 

Note: Please refer to the statement included in the Description above regarding human research protocol for Phase II.

 

PHASE II: Develop and demonstrate a functional prototype of the novel headset. Perform pilot evaluations of the headset’s performance and capabilities. Compare the headset’s performance to current flight simulator display systems. Determine if the headset can be used as a replacement to current flight simulator display systems. Identify, address, and document deficiencies and areas for improvement.

 

Note: Please refer to the statement included in the Description above regarding human research protocol for Phase

II.

 

PHASE III DUAL USE APPLICATIONS: Use pilot evaluations, human factors studies, and/or lessons learned from Navy simulator integration (Phase II) to improve on the VR/AR/MR headset design and transition from prototype to producible solution. AR/VR/MR technology is a rapidly growing field, and this headset would match or exceed current consumer and professional-use head mounted displays in terms of display resolution and refresh rate.

Testing this device as a simulation tool, and addressing human factors such as extended wearing comfort, would allow this device to enter the market as a proven display system ready to be utilized in training systems. These training systems could extend beyond aircraft and military applications, into areas such as gaming, entertainment, and private sector training.

 

REFERENCES:

1.   Lincoln, P. et al. "From Motion to Photons in 80 Microseconds: Towards Minimal Latency for Virtual and Augmented Reality." IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, April 21 2016, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1367-1376. doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2016.2518038

 

2.   Billinghurst, Mark, Clark, Adrian, and Lee, Gun. "A Survey of Augmented Reality." Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction: Vol. 8: No. 2-3, pp 73-272. http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1100000049

 

3.  "Flight Simulation Training Device Initial and Continuing Qualification and Use." 14 CFR Part 60 (2006). https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/nsp/media/14CFR60_Searchable_Version.pdf

 

4.   Billinghurst, M., Clark, A., and Lee, G. “A Survey of Augmented Reality.” Publishers Inc.: Hanover, 2014. https://www.nowpublishers.com/article/DownloadSummary/HCI-049

 

5.   Gemperle, F., Kasabach, C., Stivoric, J., Bauer, M., and Martin, R. “Design for Wearability.” Second International Symposium on Wearable Computers, Pittsburgh, 1998, pp. 116-122. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/729537/

 

6.   Jokinen, K., and Nivala, W. “65-4: Novel Methods for Measuring VR/AR Performance Factors from OLED/LCD.” Society for Information Display, Volume 48, Issue 1, 2017, pp. 961-964. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/sdtp.11810

 

7.   Kennedy, R., Lane, N., Berbaum, K., and Lilienthal, M. “Simulator Sickness Questionnaire: An Enhanced Method for Quantifying Simulator Sickness.” The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1993, pp. 203-220. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327108ijap0303_3

 

8.   Kuze, J., and Ukai, K. “Subjective Evaluation of Visual Fatigue Caused by Motion Images.” Displays, Volume 29, Issue 2, March 2008, pp. 159-166. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141938207000984

 

9.   14 CFR Part 60 - Flight Simulation Training Device Initial and Continuing Qualification and Use. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/part-60

 

10.   Melzer, J., Brozoski, F., Letowski, T., Harding, T., and Rash, C. “Guidelines for HMD Design.” American Psychological Association, 2009, pp. 805-847. http://www.usaarl.army.mil/pages/publications/HMDs/files/Section%2026%20-

%20Chapter17%20Guidelines%20for%20HMD%20design.pdf

 

11.   Patterson, R., Winterbottom, M., and Pierce, B. “Perceptual Issues in the Use of Head-Mounted Visual Displays.” Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 2006, pp. 555-573. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1518/001872006778606877