Purpose: Investigate the strategies pilots use to make cardinal direction judgments

1. Using verbal protocol analysis and cognitive modeling to understand strategies used for cardinal direction judgments William Rodes, Johnell Brooks, & Leo Gugerty Clemson University, SC Step 3b The cardinal direction task: • Introduction: • We previously identified strategies novice navigators use to make cardinal direction judgments when doing the cardinal direction task, including a new analytic strategy, heading referencing.1 • The purpose of this study is to: • Identify the types of strategies pilots use when making cardinal directions judgments. • Train the heading referencing strategy to new participants. • Build an ACT-R model of the heading referencing strategy and verify the model with data from Experiment 2. Step 1 ACT-R model steps of heading referencing: Step 2 SE The line from the aircraft shows the heading (SE) of a camera. The circle shows where the camera is pointing Picture from the aircraft’s camera of 4 parking lots surrounding a building, with cars in the lower right (West) P Step 3a SE X X X T (Map display) (3D display) X SE SE a. Align plane heading from map (SE) with ahead in 3D view. b. Find lot with cars, “X” and remember location a. Second mental compass position shown above a. Find and look at plane, “P”, & target, “T” b. Determine plane heading as a cardinal direction (here, SE) a. Find bearings from center building to upper lots b. This step involves rotation of a mental compass - initial mental compass position shown above • Method: • Training: • Heading referencing • North strategy (use if heading is North) • Apply canonical North-up reference frame to the 3D display • South reversal (use if heading is South) • Identify the parking lots as if the plane were headed N, then respond with the opposite parking lot • Procedure: • Session 1: Training, practice while talking aloud for 24 scenarios (feedback if necessary) & 1 block of 48 trials • Session 2: 3 blocks of 48 trials • Session 3: 3 blocks of 48 trials • Quiz at the beginning of sessions 2 & 3 to verify knowledge of strategies Step 4 Step 3c Step 3d SE SE S 3D display Map display E Step 5 Respond X X X X N W • Strategies (cont.): • Heading referencing • Identify the aircraft’s heading (SE) on the map display • Align the heading with the top of of the 3D display • Identify the bearings to the top parking lots • Identify the bearings of the bottom parking lots • Strategies: • Map-first mental rotation (MR) • Rotate the plane counter-clockwise until it faces the top of the map. • Rotate the 3D display the same amount in the opposite direction (clockwise) • Apply the canonical (N up) reference frame to the 3D display • 3D-first mental rotation (MR) • Describe the bearing of the cars on the 3D display • Apply this bearing to the reference frame of the map display • Apply cardinal directions to the map display N a. Final mental compass position shown above b. Retrieve bearings to upper lots a. Find bearings from center building to bottom lots b. By retrieving cardinal directions opposite of top lots E W S a. Third mental compass position shown above SE SE ACT-R model fit of heading referencing: Experiment 1 SE E S • Purpose: • Investigate the strategies pilots use to make cardinal direction judgments E S N N E W W • Method: • Participants: 10 male licensed pilots • Age: M = 31.7, range 20–44 • Flight hours: M = 1055, range 80–3300 • Years flying: M = 7.7, range 2–24 • Materials: • The task was presented on a laptop • A keypad was used to enter responses • Procedure: • This study was part of a 3 day study • Day 1: 3 blocks of 48 trials • Day 2: 6 blocks separated by 1 hour • Day 3: 2 blocks with verbal protocols on the 2nd block S • Primary Strategy Use: • PilotsNovices • Map-first MR 1 1 • 3D-first MR 2 0 • Heading 6 2 referencing • Heading referencing & 1 3 map-first MR • i.e., use heading referencing when facing cardinal directions otherwise use map-first mental rotation • Novice data (N = 6) from Gugerty & Brooks, JEP:A, 2001 Cars are close to me & to the right far close Left close far Right N E W S Right • Verbal Protocol Analysis: • Developed definitions for strategies based on protocols • Inter-rater agreement of 95.8% • Exp. 1 Summary: • Pilots frequently use the analytic heading referencing strategy, which seems to involve little mental rotation Experiment 2 • Purpose: • Train 7 new participants to use the primary strategy of heading referencing • The model is compared to the 7 participants from Experiment 2 • The model facilitates understanding of the cognitive processes that underlie the primary strategy of heading referencing • The model is a good fit to participants’ reaction times • Results: • All results are averaged across the 3 blocks from Session 3 • Accuracy: 97% correct (SE 0.72%) • Reaction time: 3.7 seconds (SE 0.4 s) • Participants report using the strategies taught for 98% of the problems. • Future model • refinements: • Utilization of the sub-symbolic components of ACT-R will allow the model to better fit the pattern of errors typically seen in the cardinal direction task ACT-R Model of Heading Referencing • The model is based on verbal protocols from Exp. 1 & reaction times from Exp. 2 • The model uses the Perceptual-Motor modules of ACT-R 5.12 & an imaginal memory buffer that simulates a mental-imagery workspace3 • Assumes expert operation (no errors) References: 1Gugerty, L., & Brooks, J. (2004). Reference-Frame Misalignment and Cardinal Direction Judgments: Group Differences and Strategies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10(2), 75-88. 2Anderson, J.R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M.D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An Integrated Theory of the Mind. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1036-1060. 3Gunzelmann, G., & Anderson, J. R. (2002). Strategic differences in the coordination of different views of space. In W. D. Gray and C. D. Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 387-392). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.