| dc.description.abstract | In recent years, there has been increasing international attention on physiological
phenomena experienced by pilots in-flight. Currently, various wearables and sensors
are being developed to better monitor the pilot. Within the Defense Research
Program V2306 ‘Next Gen Aircrew Performance’, TNO is building knowledge on the in-
flight physiological- and mental state of the pilot. In this context, the current
exploratory study is conducted to investigate the effects of providing feedback on the
operator’s state, based on physiological measures, in the cockpit. This is referred to
as ‘biofeedback’.
In this study, we explored how biofeedback might help pilots manage stress and
improve performance in a cockpit environment. The goal was to investigate how
biofeedback, which involves giving someone real-time information about their body’s
responses, can be used effectively while flying. Biofeedback could be useful for
keeping the pilots calm, focused, and at their best during flights, particularly in
stressful situations.
The research was done in two parts. First, we interviewed experts, who have
extensive knowledge of flying and aviation systems, to find out what kind of
biofeedback would be most useful in a cockpit. These subject matter experts
answered that they found alarming biofeedback very helpful, such that the pilots
attention can be grabbed in a potential dangerous situation. They preferred using
sounds or physical cues like vibration for these alerts, while visual signals were better
for sharing non-urgent, ongoing, information. The experts liked a biofeedback system
that uses two pointers to give an indication of the pilot’s arousal level, which was used
in the second part of the study.
In the second part of the study, an experiment using the Desdemona flight simulator
was conducted. Eighteen participants, with barely any (simulator) flight experience,
were asked to fly a simulated Pilatus PC-7 aircraft. Their task was to fly an approach
towards a runway and to fly low over it without landing. The experiment had four
different conditions, where simulator motion (moving or not) and biofeedback (on or
off) were varied. We measured the participants’ performance in flying the plane as
low as they felt comfortable and their arousal levels, using heart rate and skin
conductance. When the biofeedback was activated, a pointer was moving up or down,
based on their heart rate and skin conductance responses.
The results showed us that when the simulator was physically moving, the
participants’ arousal levels went up significantly, as shown by increased skin
conductance. The participants also flew higher over the runway, when their task was
to fly as low as comfortable, when the simulator was moving. However, the presence
of the biofeedback, in real-time showing their arousal levels, did not seem to have a
significant effect on the arousal level or how well they performed their flight task.
There are a few reasons why biofeedback did not seem to make a significant effect in
this study. One possibility is that the biofeedback was not used at critical moments
during the flight, when it might have had more impact. Another reason could be that
the task itself was not suited for biofeedback to be useful. The study also only used
visual biofeedback, which might not have been the most effective method. Plus, the
participants did not have any real flight experience, so they might not have known
how to use the biofeedback information to their advantage.
We conclude that more research is needed to investigate how to best use
biofeedback in the cockpit. It is recommended that future experiments should involve
experienced pilots and a different task where the biofeedback directly relates to
managing stress or improving performance. | |
