Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tpknm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-28T13:26:03.174Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Visual cognition-based optimised design of primary flight displays in cockpits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2024

Z. Zeng Open the ORCID record for Z. Zeng [Opens in a new window] ,
Y. Sun Open the ORCID record for Y. Sun [Opens in a new window] ,
X. Liu ,
Y. Jie  and
Y. Zeng
Z. Zeng
Affiliation:
College of Civil Aviation, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China State Key Laboratory of Airliner Integration Technology and Flight Simulation, Shanghai, China
Y. Sun*
Affiliation:
College of Civil Aviation, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China State Key Laboratory of Airliner Integration Technology and Flight Simulation, Shanghai, China
X. Liu
Affiliation:
College of Civil Aviation, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China Flight Performance Division, Shanghai Aircraft Airworthiness Certification Center, Shanghai, China
Y. Jie
Affiliation:
College of Civil Aviation, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China Flight Performance Division, Shanghai Aircraft Airworthiness Certification Center, Shanghai, China
Y. Zeng
Affiliation:
College of Civil Aviation, Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Nanjing, China State Key Laboratory of Airliner Integration Technology and Flight Simulation, Shanghai, China
*
Corresponding author: Y. Sun; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate the effects of different cockpit primary flight display (PFD) interface designs on pilot cognitive efficiency and cognitive load. This study designed five optimised PFD interfaces and conducted interface cognition experiments to assess cognitive responses across six different PFD interface designs, including the original design. It compared various subjective and objective metrics across different interface designs and evaluated the impact of each design factor on cognitive task performance. The experimental results show that the PFD interface in the original interface design performs better under different flight symbol designs, and the interface with 50% increase in font size performs better among interface designs with different font sizes with relatively lower cognitive load. This study provides experimental support and optimization suggestions for the optimal design of cockpit PFD interface, which can help improve pilots’ perception and operational capabilities, and thus enhance task performance efficiency and flight safety. Future research can investigate the effects of various design factors on the cognitive effects of the interface to enhance the ongoing improvement and optimisation of interface design.

Keywords

cockpit primary flight display interfacedesign factorsinterface optimisationvisual cognition
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 129 , Issue 1333 , March 2025 , pp. 609 - 626
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Carroll, M. and Dahlstrom, N. Human computer interaction on the modern flight deck, Int. J. Human–Comput. Interact., 2021, 37, (7), pp 585–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Källström, J., Granlund, R. and Heintz, F. Design of simulation-based pilot training systems using machine learning agents, Aeronaut. J., 2022, 126, (1300), pp 907–931. https://doi.org/10.1017/aer.2022.8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, X., Guo, W., Zhong, Z., Zeng, R., Zhang, J. and Wang, L. The research of touch screen usability in civil aircraft cockpit, Plos One, 2024, 19, (2), p e0292849.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, W., Jin, D., Zhao, F. and Zhang, X. Towards pilot’s situation awareness enhancement: A framework of adaptive interaction system and its realization, ISA Trans., 2023, 132, pp 109–119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wei, H., Zhuang, D., Wanyan, X. and Wang, Q. An experimental analysis of situation awareness for cockpit display interface evaluation based on flight simulation, Chin. J. Aeronaut., 2013, 26, (4), pp 884–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, W.C., Zakarija, M., Yu, C.S. and McCarty, P. Interface design on cabin pressurization system affecting pilot’s situation awareness: The comparison between digital displays and pointed displays, Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind., 2020, 30, (2), pp 103–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaparro, A., Miranda, A. and Grubb, J. Aviation displays: Design for automation and new display formats, Human Fact. Aviat. Aerosp., 2023, pp 341–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanoix, C.A., Rawal, S. and Doyon-Poulin, P. Mechanical device or touchscreen widget: The effects of input device and task size on data entry on the primary flight display, Int. J. Human–Comput. Interact., 2023, pp 1–17.Google Scholar
Tan, W., Wang, W. and Sun, Y. The evaluation model of pilot visual search with onboard context-sensitive information system, In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 238–252). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023.Google Scholar
Wei, Z., Zhuang, D., Wanyan, X., Liu, C. and Zhuang, H. A model for discrimination and prediction of mental workload of aircraft cockpit display interface, Chin. J. Aeronaut., 2014, 27, (5), pp 1070–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taheri Gorji, H., Wilson, N., VanBree, J., Hoffmann, B., Petros, T. and Tavakolian, K. Using machine learning methods and EEG to discriminate aircraft pilot cognitive workload during flight, Sci. Rep., 2023, 13, (1), p 2507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haslbeck, A., Kirchner, P., Schubert, E. and Bengler, K. A flight simulator study to evaluate manual flying skills of airline pilots, In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 2014, 58, (1), pp 11–15). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Zhou, B., Ding, L., Chen, B., Shi, H., Ao, Y., Xu, R. and Li, Y. Physiological characteristics and operational performance of pilots in the high temperature and humidity fighter cockpit environments, Sensors, 2021, 21, (17), p 5798.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, W.C., Yu, C.S., Greaves, M. and Braithwaite, G. How cockpit design impacts pilots’ attention distribution and perceived workload during aiming a stationary target, Proc. Manuf., 2015, 3, pp 5663–5669.Google Scholar
Chen, H., Liu, S., Wanyan, X., Pang, L., Dang, Y., Zhu, K. and Yu, X. Influencing factors of novice pilot SA based on DEMATEL-AISM method: From pilots’ view, Heliyon, 2023, 9, (2), p. e13425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, J., Li, C. and Xue, C. How information access, information volume of head-up display and work experience affect pilots’ mental workload during flight: An EEG study, In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 154–167). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023.Google Scholar
Nagasawa, T. and Li, W.C. The application of a human-centred design integrated touchscreen display with automated electronic checklist in the flight deck, In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 135–149). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liang, C., Shuang, L.I.U., Wanyan, X., Chengping, L.I.U., Xu, X.I.A.O. and Yuchen, M.I.N. Effects of input method and display mode of situation map on early warning aircraft reconnaissance task performance with different information complexities, Chin. J. Aeronaut., 2023, 36, (1), pp 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, W.C., Zhang, J., Le Minh, T., Cao, J. and Wang, L. Visual scan patterns reflect to human-computer interactions on processing different types of messages in the flight deck, Int. J. Ind. Ergon., 2019, 72, pp 54–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, W.C., Horn, A., Sun, Z., Zhang, J. and Braithwaite, G. Augmented visualization cues on primary flight display facilitating pilot’s monitoring performance, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud., 2020, 135, p 102377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Şenol, M.B. A new optimization model for design of traditional cockpit interfaces. Aircr. Eng. Aerosp. Technol., 2020, 92, (3), pp 404–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, X., Cheng, J.A., Xue, H. and Chen, S. Interface design of head-worn display application on condition monitoring in aviation, Sensors, 2023, 23, (2), p 736.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valverde, R. Principles of Human Computer Interaction Design: HCI Design. LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, 2011.Google Scholar
Pandey, A., Panday, S.P. and Joshi, B. Design and development of applications using human-computer interaction, In Innovations in Artificial Intelligence and Human-Computer Interaction in the Digital Era (pp 255–293). Academic Press, 2023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prati, E., Villani, V., Grandi, F., Peruzzini, M. and Sabattini, L. Use of interaction design methodologies for human–robot collaboration in industrial scenarios, IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng., 2021, 19, (4), pp 3126–3138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pan, S. Design of intelligent robot control system based on human–computer interaction, Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag., 2023, 14, (2), pp 558–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen, Z., Zhang, L., Li, R., Hou, J., Liu, C. and Hu, W. The effects of color combinations, luminance contrast, and area ratio on icon visual search performance, Displays, 2021, 67, p 101999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rettenmaier, M., Schulze, J. and Bengler, K. How much space is required? Effect of distance, content, and color on external human–machine interface size, Information, 2020, 11, p 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, H., Zhang, J., Wang, Y. and Jia, R. Exploring relationships between design features and system usability of intelligent car human–machine interface, Rob. Auton. Syst., 2021, 143, p 103829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dou, J., Xu, C., Chen, S., Xue, C. and Li, X. AR HUD interface optimization model for balancing driver’s visual sensitivity and fatigue, Proc. Comput. Sci., 2022, 214, pp 1568–1580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chao, G. Human-computer interaction: process and principles of human-computer interface design, In 2009 International Conference on Computer and Automation Engineering (pp. 230–233). IEEE, 2009.Google Scholar
Tan, Z., Dai, N., Su, Y., Zhang, R., Li, Y., Wu, D. and Li, S. Human–machine interaction in intelligent and connected vehicles: A review of status quo, issues, and opportunities, IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., 2021, 23, (9), pp 13954–13975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, Y., Zheng, P., Li, C. and Wang, L. A state-of-the-art survey on augmented reality-assisted digital twin for futuristic human-centric industry transformation, Rob. Comput. Integr. Manuf., 2023, 81, p 102515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hao, L. and Chung, W.J. Human-machine interface visual communication design model of electronic equipment using machine vision technology, Wirel. Commun. Mobile Comput., 2022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jinjun, X., Miaomiao, F. and Yumeng, Z. Based on visual cognition characteristic of helmet-mounted displays a summary of the interface design. In 2021 26th International Conference on Automation and Computing (ICAC) (pp. 1–6). IEEE, 2021.Google Scholar
Collinson, R.P.G. Displays and man–machine interaction. In Introduction to Avionics Systems (pp. 15–72). Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qi, L., Yan, P., Wei, W. and Du, Y. Color matching method of HCI interface design driven by aesthetic perception. Affect. Pleasur. Des., 2022, 41, p 72.Google Scholar
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.G. and Buchner, A. G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences, Behavior Res. Methods, 2007, 39, (2), pp 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dattel, A.R., Babin, A.K. and Wang, H. Human factors of flight training and simulation. In Human Factors in Aviation and Aerospace (pp. 217–255). Academic Press, 2023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Puranik, T.G., Rodriguez, N. and Mavris, D.N. Towards online prediction of safety-critical landing metrics in aviation using supervised machine learning, Transport. Res. C: Emerg. Technol., 2020, 120, p 102819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedrich, M. and Vollrath, M. Human–machine interface design for monitoring safety risks associated with operating small unmanned aircraft systems in urban areas, Aerospace, 2021, 8, (3), p 71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melnicuk, V., Thompson, S., Jennings, P. and Birrell, S. Effect of cognitive load on drivers’ state and task performance during automated driving: Introducing a novel method for determining stabilisation time following take-over of control, Accid. Analy. Prevent., 2021, 151, p 105967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xiao, Y., Miao, K. and Huang, Y. The effects of graphical encodings on reading performance of the data chart displayed on the periphery of attention, Displays, 2023, 77, p 102378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, X., Qu, X., Xue, H., Zhao, H., Li, T. and Tao, D. Modeling pilot mental workload using information theory, Aeronaut. J., 2019, 123, (1264), pp 828–839. https://doi.org/10.1017/aer.2019.13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosch, T., Karolus, J., Zagermann, J., Reiterer, H., Schmidt, A. and Woźniak, P.W. A survey on measuring cognitive workload in human-computer interaction, ACM Comput. Surv., 2023, 55, (13s), pp 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luzzani, G., Buraioli, I., Demarchi, D. and Guglieri, G. A review of physiological measures for mental workload assessment in aviation: A state-of-the-art review of mental workload physiological assessment methods in human-machine interaction analysis, Aeronaut. J., 2024, 128, (1323), pp 928–949. https://doi.org/10.1017/aer.2023.101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prati, E., Villani, V., Grandi, F., Peruzzini, M. and Sabattini, L. Use of interaction design methodologies for human–robot collaboration in industrial scenarios, IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng., 2021, 19, (4), pp 3126–3138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooke, J. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale, Usab. Eval. Indus., 1996, 189, (194), pp 4–7.Google Scholar
Lewis, J.R. The system usability scale: past, present, and future, Int. J. Human–Comput. Interact., 2018, 34, (7), pp 577–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanneste, P., Raes, A., Morton, J., Bombeke, K., Van Acker, B.B., Larmuseau, C.,, Depaepe, F. and Van den Noortgate, W. Towards measuring cognitive load through multimodal physiological data, Cognit. Technol. Work, 2021, 23, pp 567–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, D., Donmez, B., Liu, C.C. and Plataniotis, K.N. High cognitive load assessment in drivers through wireless electroencephalography and the validation of a modified N-back task, IEEE Trans. Hum.-Mach. Syst., 2019, 49, (4), pp 362–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayoub, J., Avetisian, L., Yang, X.J. and Zhou, F. Real-time trust prediction in conditionally automated driving using physiological measures. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2023, 24 (12), 14642–14650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Y., Yu, Y., Ye, Z., Li, M., Zhang, Y., Zhou, Z., Hu, D. and Zeng, L.L. Fusion of spatial, temporal, and spectral EEG signatures improves multilevel cognitive load prediction, IEEE Trans. Hum.-Mach. Syst., 2023, 53, (2), pp 357–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khanam, F., Hossain, A.A. and Ahmad, M. Electroencephalogram-based cognitive load level classification using wavelet decomposition and support vector machine, Brain-Comput. Interf., 2023, 10, (1), pp 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonnell, A.S., Simmons, T.G., Erickson, G.G., Lohani, M., Cooper, J.M. and Strayer, D.L. This is your brain on autopilot: Neural indices of driver workload and engagement during partial vehicle automation, Hum. Factors, 2023, 65, (7), pp 1435–1450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haslbeck, A. and Zhang, B. I spy with my little eye: Analysis of airline pilots’ gaze patterns in a manual instrument flight scenario, Appl. Ergon., 2017, 63, pp 62–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guo, Y., Freer, D., Deligianni, F. and Yang, G.Z. Eye-tracking for performance evaluation and workload estimation in space telerobotic training, IEEE Trans. Hum.-Mach. Syst., 2021, 52, (1), pp 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sáiz-Manzanares, M.C., Marticorena-Sánchez, R., Martin Anton, L.J., González-Díez, I. and Carbonero Martín, M.Á. Using eye tracking technology to analyse cognitive load in multichannel activities in University Students. Int. J. Human–Comput. Interact., 2023, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biondi, F.N., Saberi, B., Graf, F., Cort, J., Pillai, P. and Balasingam, B. Distracted worker: Using pupil size and blink rate to detect cognitive load during manufacturing tasks, Appl. Ergon., 2023, 106, p 103867.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blundell, J., Collins, C., Sears, R., Plioutsias, T., Huddlestone, J., Harris, D., Harrison, J., Kershaw, A., Harrison, P. and Lamb, P. Multivariate analysis of gaze behavior and task performance within interface design evaluation, IEEE Trans. Human-Mach. Syst., 2023, 53, (5), 875–884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar