曝光台 注意防骗 网曝天猫店富美金盛家居专营店坑蒙拐骗欺诈消费者
These models represent the latest research findings in the field of motion sensing, but they are incomplete and have limitations. Zacharias points out that there have to be studies to develop an integrated cueing model (ref. 31). To summarize, substantial work in human sensory modeling has provided useful, but incomplete, informa-tion for predicting motion platform effects on pilot-vehicle performance and workload. Rather than use these detailed sensory models, appendix B illustrates that some useful trends can be predicted by using a higher-level structural model of the pilot. Yet, as will be shown, this model fails to predict a pilot’s sensitivity to some key motion parameters. All of this points to the need for additional empirical data. Effective Gravito-inertial force vector in earth-fixed frame Head roll inertia specific torque (disturbance)
Desired head roll Muscle Head Head angle + roll angle1
s2+10s+7.812
In particular, what is not known is how the pilot uses the motion and visual cues to estimate vehicle state. Although the motion system has only acceleration as its input, and the visual system has only position as its input, what are each of these system’s effective outputs? It is reasonable to assume that the motion system provides a salient acceleration cue and that the visual system provides a strong position cue. It is often assumed that the visual system also supplies the velocity cue via the time-rate-of-change of the displayed positions. And certainly at a steady-state velocity, the motion system provides no cue. |