Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T12:33:04.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors Affecting Radar Operator Efficiency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 January 2010

C. H. Baker
C. H. Baker
Affiliation:
(Defence Research Medical Laboratories, Toronto)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper briefly reviews some of the research findings with respect to factors which affect the efficiency of radar operation. One of the most important factors in determining whether or not a radar target will be visually detected is the brightness of the radar scope. A simple method is described for setting optimum scope brightness. Visual search habits are discussed and the implications of such habits for the design of radar displays are pointed out. Reference is made to some of the design factors which determine the accuracy with which target range and bearing are reported. It is shown that human monitors perform less efficiently as a watch progresses and factors which impair or aid their vigilance are described. Finally, a brief account is given of illusions on radar displays.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , April 1960 , pp. 148 - 163
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 1960

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.)

References

REFERENCES

1Williams, S. B. (1949). Visibility on radar scopes, Human Factors in Undersea Warfare, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 101–130. See also Gebhard, J. W. Visual display of complex information, Supplement to A Survey Report on Human Factors in Undersea Warfare, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1949, 39–66.Google Scholar
2Blackwell, H. R. (1946). Contrast thresholds of the human eye, J. opt. Soc. Amer., 36, 624.Google Scholar
3Williams, S. B. and Bartlett, N. R. (1948). Visibility on cathode-ray tube screens: problems and methods, J. Psychol., 25, 401.Google Scholar
4Williams, S. B., Bartlett, N. R., and King, E. (1948). Visibility on cathode-ray tube screens: screen brightness, J. Psychol., 25, 455.Google Scholar
5Thornton, G. B. (1956). Radar range performance as a function of CRT operating conditions, Defence Research Board of Canada, D.R.M.L. Report No. 163–3.Google Scholar
6Bessey, E. G. and Machen, G. S. (1957). An operational test of laboratory determined optima of screen brightness and ambient illumination for radar reporting rooms. J. Appl. Psychol., 41, 51. (Also Defence Research Board of Canada, D.R.M.L. Report No. 163–5, Confidential.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Smith, A. A. and Boyes, G. E. (1956). Radar target detectability as a function of search area and range, Defence Research Board of Canada, D.R.M.L. Report No. 163–8.Google Scholar
8Baker, C. H. (1958). Attention to visual displays during a vigilance task. I. Biasing attention, Brit. J. Tsychol. 49, Pt. 4, 278.Google Scholar
9Hickson, R. H. and Scott, D. M. (1958). Radar target detectability as a function of three types of display with background noise in the NRC ‘Triune’ indicator, Defence Research Board of Canada, D.R.M.L. Report No. 163–15.Google Scholar
10Buckley, B. B., Hanes, R. M., and Deese, J. (1953). Search area and target detectability on a PPI cathode-ray tube, U.S.A.F., Wright Air Development Center, Tech. Report No. 52–303.Google Scholar
11Whiteside, T. C. D. (1957). Target detection and number of observers, R.A.F., F.P.R.C. Report No. 1022.Google Scholar
12Scott, D. M. and Hickson, R. H. (1959). Detectability on cathode-ray tube screens: one vs. two operators under noise and noise-free conditions, Defence Research Board of Canada, D.R.M.L. Report No. 163–16.Google Scholar
13Baker, C. H. and Boyes, G. E. (1959). Increasing probability of target detection with a mirror-image display, J. Apply. Psychol, 43, 195.Google Scholar
14Smith, G. F. M. and Scott, D. M. (1957). Some physical parameters of PPI displays useful in predicting relative detectability thresholds of targets, Defence Research Board of Canada, D.R.M.L. Report No. 163–14.Google Scholar
15Scott, D. M. and Hickson, R. H. (1959). Radar target detectability at outer ranges as a function of display size using gated and expanded scopes, Defence Research Board of Canada, D.R.M.L. Report No. 163–18.Google Scholar
16Scott, D. M. (1955). Visibility on radar screens: Centred versus off-centred scopes. Defence Research Board of Canada, D.R.M.L. Report No. 163–7 (Restricted).Google Scholar
17Craik, K. J. W. and Macpherson, S. J. (1945). The effect of certain operating conditions on the visibility of PPI radar echoes, Med. Res. Council (U.K.), APU 16/45.Google Scholar
18Lindsley, D. B. (1944). The effect of extraneous illumination upon detection of signals on an A-scan oscilloscope, N.D.R.C. Appl. Psychol. Panel, Project SC-70, NS–146, Research Report No. 13.Google Scholar
19Williams, S. B. and Hanes, R. M. (1949). Visibility on cathode-ray tube screens: Intensity and color of ambient illumination, J. Psychol., 27, 231.Google Scholar
20Smith, A. A. and Boyes, G. E. (1957). Visibility on radar screens: The effect of CRT bias and ambient illumination, J. Appl. Psychol. 41, 15.Google Scholar
21Smith, A. A. and Boyes, G. E. (1956). Optimal operating conditions for radar displays employing magnesium fluoride phosphors, Cdn. J. Psychol., 10, 248.Google Scholar
22Smith, A. A. and Boyes, G. E. (1957). Ambient illumination and persistence of targets on radar displays employing magnesium fluoride phosphors, Defence Research Board of Canada, D.R.M.L. Report No. 163–13.Google Scholar
23White, C. T. (1956). Polarized-light illumination of radar and sonar spaces and comparison with limited spectrum methods, U.S.N., Naval Electronics Laboratory, Report No. 669.Google Scholar
24Lund, M. W. (1952). Selective spectrum lighting for CIC areas, U.S.N., Naval Electronics Laboratory, Report No. 337.Google Scholar
25Kraft, C. L. and Fitts, P. M. (1954). A broad-band blue lighting system for radar air traffic control center. U.S.A.F., Wright Air Development Center, Tech. Report No. 53–416.Google Scholar
26Yule, G. U. (1927). On reading a scale. Jour. Roy. Stat. Soc., 90, 570.Google Scholar
27Baker, C. H. (1952). Distribution of plot coordinates reported by radar screen tellers and relayed by movement tellers, Defence Research Board of Canada, D.R.M.L. Report No. 64.Google Scholar
28Chapanis, A., and Leyzorek, M. (1950). Accuracy of visual interpolation between scale markers as a function of the number assigned to the scale interval. J. exp. Psychol., 40, 655.Google Scholar
29Scott, D. M., Machen, G. S., and Baker, C. H. (1955). Perceptual problems in estimating range and bearing from PPI overlays, Defence Research Board of Canada, D.R.M.L. Report No. 163–1.Google Scholar
30Garner, W. R. (1946). Some perceptual problems in the use of the VG remote PPI, Systems Research, ONR, SDC Report No. 166–1–2.Google Scholar
31Gebhard, J. W., Barker, J. L. and Halsey, R. M. (1949). Simulated display of bearing and range in rectangular coordinates, Systems Research, ONR, SDC Report No. 166–1–81.Google Scholar
32Horten, G. P. (1949). Target shape and accuracy on a schematic PPI display, U.S.A.F. Technical Report No. 5962.Google Scholar
33Chapanis, A. (1947). The relative efficiency of a bearing counter and bearing dial for use with PPI presentations. Systems Research, ONR, SDC Report No. 166–1–26.Google Scholar
34Thornton, G. B. (1954). Comparison of an experimental rolling-ball control and a conventional joystick in speed of tracking on a radar display, Defence Research Board of Canada, D.R.M.L. Report No. 1O7–1.Google Scholar
35Baker, C. H., Bessey, E. G., Boyes, G. E. and Scott, D. M. (1954). Studies with the free-moving stylus: Operator performance during high speed tracking of radar pips for a thirty-minute period, Defence Research Board of Canada, D.R.M.L. Report No. 61–2. (See also 61–3 and 61–4.)Google Scholar
36Sweet, A. L., and Morgan, C. T. (1947). Comparison of the center-versus-leading edge of the target pip in range determination by the VF remote radar indicator, Systems Research, ONR, SDC Report No. 166–1–25.Google Scholar
37Humphries, M. (1959). Precision of marking targets in the AN/MPQ–501 countermortar radar. Defence Research Board of Canada, D.R.M.L. Report No. 1O7–8.Google Scholar
38Humphries, M. (1959). Errors in marking the centre of lines circles and ellipses as a function of size, Defence Research Board of Canada, D.R.M.L. Report No. 107–7.Google Scholar
39Mackworth, N. H. (1950). Researches on the measurement of human performance. Med. Res. Council Special Report Series No. 268, H. M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
40Anderson, I. H. (1944). Radar operator fatigue: The effect of length and repetition of operating periods on efficiency of performance, O.S.R.D. Report No. 3334, Research Report No. 6.Google Scholar
41Solandt, D. Y. and Partridge, R. C. (1946). Research on auditory problems presented by naval operations, Jour. Cdn. Med. Services, 3, 323.Google Scholar
42Adams, J. A. (1956). Vigilance in the detection of low-intensity visual stimuli, J. exp. Psychol., 52, 204.Google Scholar
43Broadbent, D. E. (1951). The twenty dials test under noise conditions, Med. Res. Council, A.P.U. 160/51.Google Scholar
44Pepler, R. D. (1958). The effect of climatic factors on the performance of skilled tasks by young European men living in the tropics. IV. A task of prolonged visual vigilance. Med. Res. Council, A.P.U., RNP 53/751. See also Pepler, R. D. Warmth and performance, Ergonomlcs, 1958, 2, 63–88.Google Scholar
45Baker, C. H. (1959). Attention to visual displays during a vigilance task. II. Maintaining the level of vigilance, Brit. J. Psychol., 50, 30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46Adams, J. A. (1955). A source of decrement in psychomotor performance, J. exp. Psychol., 49, 390.Google Scholar
47Baker, C. H. (1959). Three minor studies of vigilance, Defence Research Board of Canada, D.R.M.L. Report No. 234–2.Google Scholar
48Deese, J. and Onnond, E. (1953). Studies of detectability during continuous visual search, U.S.A.F., Wright Air Development Center Tech. Report No. 53–8.Google Scholar
49Baker, C. H. (1959). Towards a theory of vigilance, Cdn. J. Psychol., 13, 35.Google Scholar
50Fraser, D. C. (1953). The relation of an environmental variable to performance in a prolonged visual task, Quart. J. exp. Psychol., 31–32.Google Scholar
51Merk, R. V. R. (1954). A field method for monitoring radar operator performance, Propagation Laboratory, Electronics Research Directorate, A. F. Cambridge Res. Center, Cambridge, Mass. A.F.C.R.C. Tech. Report No. 54–106.Google Scholar
52Ford, A. (1949). Types of errors in location judgements on scaled surfaces, I. Errors of configuration, J. appl. Psychol., 33, 373.Google Scholar
53Sweet, A. L. and Bartlett, N. R. (1948). An illusory rotating sweep, Amer. J. Psychol., 3, 400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
54McCandless, B. (1958). The battle of the pips. U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, 84, 49.Google Scholar