Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:23:42.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of perception difference between first- and third-person perspectives on local and global situation recognition in ship handling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 May 2022

Yuki Kato Open the ORCID record for Yuki Kato [Opens in a new window]  and
Tomoya Horiguchi
Yuki Kato*
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Maritime Sciences, Kobe University, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan
Tomoya Horiguchi
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Maritime Sciences, Kobe University, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: katoyuki@maritime.kobe-u.ac.jp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Remote monitoring and control systems are being used with more frequency, but the characteristics of situational awareness and decision-making from remote locations are largely unknown. Remote operators’ sources of information differ from on-board sources greatly in terms of perspective, field of view, and available data type (qualitative or quantitative). This study focused on clarifying the cognitive effects of first- and third-person perspectives on ship handling. A working hypothesis was formulated based on the findings of visual information processing and previous studies and tested using a developed ship handling simulator. The results revealed that: (1) the cognitive characteristics of the first-person perspective make it more effective in safely guiding ship handling than does the third-person perspective, and (2) the deviation in cognitive characteristics is prominent where collision can be easily avoided. The findings will aid the development of on-board and remotely piloted vessels and ensure the safety of their crews.

Keywords

remote pilotagehuman computer interface (HCI)ship handlingdisplaycontrol
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 75 , Issue 3 , May 2022 , pp. 727 - 744
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Royal Institute of Navigation

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

Aretz, A. J. and Wickens, C. D. (1992). The mental rotation of map displays. Human Performance, 5(4), 303–328. doi:10.1207/s15327043hup0504_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burigat, S., Chittaro, L. and Sioni, R. (2017). Mobile three-dimensional maps for wayfinding in large and complex buildings: Empirical comparison of first-person versus third-person perspective. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 47(6), 1029–1039. doi:10.1109/THMS.2017.2693684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, W. U. L. (2001). What's lookout about at sea? The Journal of Navigation, 54, 151–154. doi:10.1017/S037346330000117XGoogle Scholar
Goodman, J., Brewster, S. A. and Gray, P. (2005). How can we best use landmarks to support older people in navigation? Behaviour & Information Technology, 24(1), 3–20. doi:10.1080/01449290512331319021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inoue, K., Usami, S. and Shibata, T. (1994). Modelling of mariners’ senses on Minimum passing distance between ships in harbour. The Journal of Japan Institute of Navigation, 90, 297–306. (In Japanese).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Maritime Organization. (2003). COLREG : Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972. London: International Maritime Organization.Google Scholar
International Maritime Organization. (2019). MSC101-24 report of the Maritime Safety Committee on Its 101st Session Secretariat. Available at: https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/488770/MSC_101-24_-_Report_Of_The_Maritime_Safety_CommitteeOn_Its_101St_Session__Secretariat_.pdf [Accessed 31 May 2018].Google Scholar
Kamal, M. A. S., Imura, J., Hayakawa, T., Ohata, A. and Aihara, K. (2015). A vehicle-intersection coordination scheme for smooth flows of traffic without using traffic lights. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 16(3), 1136–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karim, A. K. M. R. and Kojima, H. (2010). The what and why of perceptual asymmetries in the visual domain. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 6, 103–115. doi:10.2478/v10053-008-0080-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kato, Y., Fuchi, M., Kubono, M., Fujii, M., Konishi, T., Fujimoto, M. and Hirono, K. (2017a). Collision avoidance judgment at Sea based on different information. The Japanese Journal of Ergonomics, 53(6), 205–213. (In Japanese).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kato, Y., Fuchi, M., Fujii, M. and Kubono, M. (2017b). The influence of information sources on collision avoidance judgement at Sea. The Journal of Japan Institute of Navigation, 136, 50–56. (In Japanese).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kato, Y., Murai, K., Horiguchi, T., Morishita, N. and Fuchi, M. (2020a). Collision avoidance judgment at different experience levels using different information sources; landscape information vs. Radar information. Transactions of Navigation, 5(2), 47–53.Google Scholar
Kato, Y., Horiguchi, T., Murai, K. and Fuchi, M. (2020b). Navigation strategy in collision avoidance judgement at sea: Using landscape information vs. using radar information. Cognitive Studies: Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society, 27(4), 511–526. (In Japanese).Google Scholar
Kosslyn, S. M. (1994). Image and Brain, The Resolution of the Imagery Debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 336–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. N. (1974). Visual information during locomotion. In: MacLeod, R. B. and Pick, H. L. (eds.). Perception: Essays in Honor of James J. Gibson. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 250–267.Google Scholar
Lee, D. N. (1976). A theory of visual control of breaking based on information about time-to-collision. Perception, 5, 437–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. N. (1980). Visuo-motor coordination in space-time. In: Stelmach, G. E. and Reguin, J. (eds.). Tutorials in Motor Behavior. North-Holland, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Ltd, 281–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, R. (1989). Cognitive maps: Encoding and decoding information. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 79, 101–124. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.1989.tb00253.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKinnon, S. N., Man, Y. and Baldauf, M. (2015). D8.8: Final report: Shore control centre, dissemination level: Public, Maritime Unmanned Navigation through Intelligence in Network. Available at: http://www.unmanned-ship.org/munin/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/MUNIN-D8-8-Final-Report-Shore-Control-Centre-CTH-final.pdf. [Accessed 20 May 2019].Google Scholar
Nagahata, T. (1976). Queueing problem of crossing ship on intersection route. The Journal of Japan Institute of Navigation, 55, 133–142. (In Japanese).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oulasvirta, A., Nurminen, A. and Nivala, A. M. (2007). Interacting with 3D and 2D mobile maps: An exploratory study. Helsinki Institute for Information Technology, 11, 1–30.Google Scholar
Schiff, W. and Detwiler, M. L. (1977). Information used in judging impending collision. Perception, 8, 647–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wakabayashi, Y. (2008). The role of maps in the cognition of geographic space. Cognitive Studies: Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society, 15, 38–50. (In Japanese).Google Scholar
Wakabayashi, Y. and Suzuki, K. (2003). Theoretical and practical issues of the relationship between spatial cognition and maps. Journal of the Japan Cartographers Association, 41(4), 3–16. (In Japanese).Google Scholar
Wertheim, T. (1894). Über die indirekte Sehschärfe. Zeitschrift für Psychologie und Physiologie der Sinnesorgane, 7, 172–184.Google Scholar
Zhang, H., Hao, Y., Xu, C. and Qin, L. (2021). Model of working ship crossing channel. Brodogradnja, 72(1), 125–143. doi:10.21278/brod72107Google Scholar