飞机驾驶舱顶部板触控技术工效学研究  

Study on Ergonomics of Touch Control Technology for Aircraft Cockpit roof Panel

作　　者：张燕雯 张泉清 ZHANG Yan-wen;ZHANG Quan-qing(AVIC Shanghai Aircraft Aviation Electric Co.,Ltd,Key Laboratory of Aviation Lighting Technology,Shanghai 201101,China)

机构地区：[1]上海航空电器有限公司航空照明综合技术重点实验室,上海201101

出　　处：《人类工效学》2022年第4期45-48,共4页Chinese Journal of Ergonomics

摘　　要：目的为飞机驾驶舱顶部板触控屏的集成设计提供工效学参考。方法选取20名被试,采用触控和实体控制两种方式测试电源、发动机、外部照明和环控四种典型控制任务下的绩效表现、脑力负荷、操作品质。结果两种控制方式任务正确率没有显著差异,但是实体控制在任务完成时间低于触控方式。被试对实体方式在可达性、易用性、舒适性、易辨性、防误性维度上的评价均优于触控方式。两种方式的工作负荷没有明显差异,但被试对实体的挫折程度评价显著低于触控方式,绩效满意度高于触控方式。结论单一触控交互并没有发挥更好的工效优势,实际应用中建议和语音、手势等交互方式进行冗余设计。Objective This study explored the ergonomic data for the integrated design of the touch control technology on aircraft cockpit roof panel.Methods Twenty subjects were selected to test the performance,,mental load and operational quality of touch control and physical control under four specific tasks:power supply,engine,lighting and environmental control.Results The results showed that there was no significant difference in task accuracy between the two control methods,but task completion time of entity control was lower than that of touch control.In terms of accessibility,ease of use,comfort,discriminability and error-proof,the evaluation of physical mode was better than that of touch mode.There was no significantly difference in task load between the two methods,but the frustration degree of the subjects of the touch method was significantly lower than that of the touch mode,but self-evaluation of performance was higher than that of the touch mode.Conclusion Single touch interaction does not give full play to the ergonomic advantages,so it is suggested to carry out redundant design with voice,gesture and other interaction modes in the application.

关 键 词：产品设计 航空工程 飞行员 飞机驾驶舱 顶部板 触控交互 交互效率 

分 类 号：TB472[一般工业技术—工业设计]