The International Journal of Aerospace Psychology

ISSN: 2472-1840 (Print) 2472-1832 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hiap21

Selective Attention and Working Memory Under

Spatial Disorientation in a Flight Simulator

Paweł Stróżak, Piotr Francuz, Rafał Lewkowicz, Paweł Augustynowicz,

Agnieszka Fudali-Czyż, Bibianna Bałaj & Olaf Truszczyński

To cite this article: Paweł Stróżak, Piotr Francuz, Rafał Lewkowicz, Paweł Augustynowicz,
Agnieszka Fudali-Czyż, Bibianna Bałaj & Olaf Truszczyński (2018) Selective Attention and Working
Memory Under Spatial Disorientation in a Flight Simulator, The International Journal of Aerospace
Psychology, 28:1-2, 31-45, DOI: 10.1080/24721840.2018.1486195

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/24721840.2018.1486195

Published online: 13 Jul 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 20

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hiap21
THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE PSYCHOLOGY
2018, VOL. 28, NOS. 1–2, 31–45
https://doi.org/10.1080/24721840.2018.1486195

Selective Attention and Working Memory Under Spatial Disorientation

in a Flight Simulator
Paweł Stróżaka, Piotr Francuza, Rafał Lewkowiczb, Paweł Augustynowicza,
Agnieszka Fudali-Czyż a, Bibianna Bałajc, and Olaf Truszczyńskid
a
Department of Experimental Psychology, The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland; bSimulator
Study and Aeromedical Training Division, Military Institute of Aviation Medicine, Warsaw, Poland; cDepartment of
Psychology, Faculty of Humanities, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń, Poland; dInstitute of Psychology, Cardinal
Stefan Wyszyński University, Warsaw, Poland

ABSTRACT
Objective: The aim of this study was to test the effects of visual and
vestibular spatial disorientation on the cognitive performance of military
aviators while they were piloting a flight simulator.
Background: Spatial disorientation (SD), the inability to correctly determine
the position and orientation of the aircraft in relation to the ground, poses a
serious threat in aviation and can impair the cognitive performance of pilots
while flying. More evidence is needed on the effects of visual and vestibular
SD on cognition in flight simulators.
Method: Pilots performed an auditory selective attention (duration discri-
mination) task (Experiment 1, N = 16) or an auditory working memory (N-
back) task (Experiment 2, N = 16) while completing 6 different flight profiles
in the disorientation and control conditions in the GYRO-IPT flight simula-
tor. The flight scenarios included 3 visual illusions (false horizon, shape
constancy, size constancy) and 3 vestibular illusions (somatogyral illusion,
Coriolis effect, the leans).
Results: In both experiments the cognitive performance (task accuracy)
decreased for flight profiles with the leans illusion. Also, the flight performance
(measured as the number of control reversal errors) was worse for the false
horizon illusion and for the somatogyral illusion in both experiments.
Conclusion: The results suggest that SD, particularly the vestibular illusion
of the leans, can impair selective attention and working memory processes.

Human spatial orientation mechanisms are fundamental to maintaining balance and optimal motion in
the environment. They mainly rely on signals from visual and vestibular sensory systems that are well
suited to operate on the surface of the Earth. However, when exposed to a new environment, such as
during flight, orientation demands change and are different from those to which we are accustomed. The
mismatch between the new orientation demands of the air and our natural ability to orient is not without
consequences and can manifest as spatial disorientation (SD; Parmet & Ercoline, 2008).
In aviation, SD is characterized by incidents in which the pilot fails to sense correctly the position,
motion, or attitude of the aircraft or of himself or herself with respect to the surface of the Earth
(Rollin Stott & Benson, 2016). Those incidents emerge on the basis of false percepts, or illusions, that
can occur during flying. The illusions underlying SD can be categorized into visual illusions, the
origins of which are linked to the misperceptions of the visual system, and vestibular illusions, which
result from the incapacity of the vestibular system to adequately sense angular and linear motion
through the semicircular ducts and the otolith organs. Both visual and vestibular illusions pose a

CONTACT Paweł Stróżak p.strozak@gmail.com Department of Experimental Psychology, The John Paul II Catholic
University of Lublin, Al. Racławickie 14, 20-950 Lublin, Poland.
© 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
32 P. STRÓŻAK ET AL.

serious threat to flying safety, and SD is a major factor in mishaps, financial costs, and lives lost in
aviation (Gibb, Ercoline, & Scharff, 2011). Parmet and Ercoline (2008) distinguished three types of
SD in flight, depending on whether the pilot consciously detects any indications of disorientation. In
unrecognized SD (Type I) pilots are not aware that they are disoriented and control the aircraft in
accordance with false percepts. Relatively safe is recognized SD (Type II), in which the pilot has
conscious awareness of the loss of balance or orientation, but he or she can still control the aircraft.
Incapacitating SD (Type III) is the type of disorientation in which pilots are most likely aware that
they are disoriented but, nonetheless, they are so confused about it that they make incorrect
responses (Parmet & Ercoline, 2008).
SD might have a direct effect on controlling the aircraft or an indirect effect by impairing the
pilot’s cognitive performance (Gresty, Golding, Le, & Nightingale, 2008; Webb, Estrada, & Kelley,
2012), which in turn hinders flying efficacy. The effects of SD on cognition can be understood in the
light of the “posture first” principle. This is the term that describes a specific priority-setting
mechanism that redirects available resources to regain stability when balance and orientation are
lost (Barra, Bray, Sahni, Golding, & Gresty, 2006; Maylor, Allison, & Wing, 2001; Shumway-Cook,
Woollacott, Kerns, & Baldwin, 1997). Because regaining balance and orientation in the case of SD is
a priority for the human cognitive system, all mental resources that are available are directed for this
purpose and withdrawn from any other concurrent tasks. This is in line with classic (Kahneman,
1973) and more recent (Lavie, 2005) theories of attention developed in the field of cognitive
psychology. According to these theories, the human attentional system is limited in its capacity
and the more demanding a primary task, the fewer resources are left to perform a secondary task.
Thus, when disoriented, the pilot’s attention should be focused on the sensory aspects of the
situation to regain stability, and his or her interpretation of instruments or radio communications,
as well as the accuracy of judgments and precision of flying maneuvers, should be impaired.
Some researchers tried to verify the aforementioned assumptions experimentally, either in the
laboratory or in an applied environment (e.g., flight simulators), although there is a relative scarcity
of such studies. Sen, Yilmaz, and Tore (2002) were among the first who demonstrated that SD
impairs cognitive performance. They showed that pilots who were spatially disoriented obtained
lower scores in the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) and Letter Cancelation Test (LCT) than
pilots who were not exposed to SD. Both DSST and LCT are paper-and-pencil subtests from the
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS), the corpus of intelligence tests authored by David
Wechsler (Wechsler, 1997), that are primarily used to assess visual-motor processing speed.
However, the exposure to SD preceded the cognitive assessment by 2 days in that study, which
makes it impossible to reliably evaluate the effects of SD on cognition. Fortunately, follow-up studies
managed to overcome this flaw and examined cognitive performance during SD, not after that.
These studies are discussed in the next paragraph.
Gresty, Waters, Bray, Bunday, and Golding (2003) instructed participants (nonpilots) to perform
spatial and verbal versions of the Brooks Matrix Task in a flight simulator while viewing the external
scene on a monitor. The spatial Brooks Matrix Task (Brooks, 1967) involves mental imagery and
measures visual short-term memory, whereas the verbal version does not require creating a mental
image and therefore measures verbal short-term memory. Gresty et al. (2003) found an increase in
the variance of spatial errors as compared to the variance of verbal errors, but only when the
simulator and video image were oscillating in inverse phase (i.e., when participants tilted their head
back they saw the ground, and when they tilted their head forward they saw the sky). Thus, it was
demonstrated that SD interferes more with spatial than verbal tasks in the domain of short-term
memory. In another study, the effects of different types of SD (head rotation, vection, and Coriolis
stimulation) on cognitive performance measured by the Manikin Test (MAN) and the Choice
Reaction Time (CRT) test were examined (Gresty et al., 2008). The participants were nonpilots,
and they were tested in a laboratory, not in a flight simulator. The MAN measures spatial
transformation of mental images (Carter & Woldstad, 1985), whereas the CRT is a simple measure
of latency responses. The results of this study indicated that SD adversely affected performance on
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE PSYCHOLOGY 33

the MAN during the first couple of experiences of disorientation in all three scenarios. SD did not
affect CRT latency measures in either of the experiments.
The main advantage of the studies of Gresty et al. (2003; Gresty et al., 2008) is that they provided
evidence of impairment of spatial abilities in different disorientation conditions. However, these studies
were conducted with participants from the general population who were tested in a flight simulator, but
did not actively pilot it (Gresty et al., 2003), or were tested in a laboratory (Gresty et al., 2008). A more
recent study of Webb et al. (2012) made progress in that domain and demonstrated that visual SD
adversely affected pilots’ working memory during completing an actual flight in a simulator. In this
study, participants (UH-60 aviators) performed a flight profile that consisted of oriented and disoriented
conditions and simultaneously performed cognitive tests that were presented aurally. The disoriented
condition involved the restriction of visual information by flying in degraded visual environment and
without the use of flight instruments. Digit span accuracy (adapted from the WAIS; Wechsler, 1997) and
addition task accuracy (adapted from the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Task [PASAT]; Gronwall,
1977) were both impaired in the disoriented condition. Also, addition task reaction times were slowed
down in the disorientation condition. The results of this study indicated that cognitive functions other
than spatial processing can be impaired by visual SD in an applied aviation environment.
The main limitation in the study of Webb et al. (2012) was the lack of vestibular stimulation during
the disoriented condition (this was even noted by the authors themselves). In fact, there are no studies
in which the effects of SD on cognitive functions caused by vestibular stimulation were tested during
piloting a flight simulator. Thus, this study was aimed at addressing this gap by (a) invoking both
common visual and vestibular illusions, and (b) using a flight simulator being operated by the pilots.
We conducted two separate experiments in which our participants performed cognitive tests during
flying in the simulator. We selected the duration discrimination task (Grondin, 1993; Henry, 1948;
Rammsayer, 2012) for Experiment 1 and the N-back task (Jaeggi, Buschkuehl, Perrig, & Meier, 2010;
Kane, Conway, Miura, & Coelflesh, 2007; Owen, McMillan, Laird, & Bullmore, 2005) for Experiment
2. These tasks are well-established measures of selective attention and working memory, respectively,
which are fundamental cognitive processes that are engaged during complex human behaviors,
including piloting the aircraft. We hypothesized that the performance of these tasks would be impaired
in disoriented flight profiles as compared to oriented (control) flight profiles, with regard both to
response accuracy and reaction times. We also hypothesized that flight performance would decline in
disorientation conditions as compared to control conditions.

Experiment 1
Method
Participants
Twenty healthy male aviators volunteered to participate in the study. Due to technical issues and
malfunctions of the apparatus, data from 4 participants were discarded from analyses. Thus, data
from 16 participants are reported, with an average age of M = 32.31 years (SD = 6.6, range = 26–46)
and mean flight experience of M = 970.75 total flight hours (SD = 832.11, range = 380–2,900,
median = 530). All participants were military aviators, had normal visual acuity, and were screened
to rule out any auditory or vestibular disorders. They signed an informed consent prior to the
experiment and were paid for their participation. This study was carried out in accordance with the
recommendations of the Ethics Committee (Institute of Psychology at the John Paul II Catholic
University of Lublin, Poland) with written consent from all participants.

Equipment
The flight simulator was a GYRO-IPT (Environmental Tectonics Corporation, Southampton, PA), at a
research facility at the Military Institute of Aviation Medicine (Warsaw, Poland). The simulator is designed
to demonstrate SD with visual and vestibular illusions. It consists of a 3 df motion cabin that is capable of
34 P. STRÓŻAK ET AL.

producing angular accelerations along pitch, roll, and yaw axes, and an operator’s console with control
monitors. The GYRO-IPT is equipped with flight controls and instruments displayed on the cabin monitor,
and an audio system enabling radio communication. A computer records and stores flight parameters.
Experimental stimuli were delivered by headphones and an additional computer that also recorded
responses to these stimuli governed their presentation. Responses were made by pressing two additional
buttons placed next to each other on the top of the control stick in the cabin of the flight simulator.

Flight Profiles
The manufacturer of the GYRO-IPT simulator had predefined several disorientation profiles within the
software. The strength of disorienting stimulus in the selected profiles was evaluated on the basis of
conclusions from previous studies (Cheung & Wong, 1988; Kowalczuk, 2003). These SD conflicts
simulated three well-known visual-origin illusions and three well-known vestibular-origin illusions
(Cheung & Wong, 1988; Previc & Ercoline, 2004). These illusions were implemented in the six flight
profiles (P1–P6). Visual illusions included P1, the false horizon illusion (created by a sloping cloud deck;
a profile that demonstrates the predominance of peripheral vision in vision-based spatial orientation);
P2, the shape constancy illusion (created by an up-sloping runway; an illusion associated with the
constancy of shape being expected by the pilot); and P3, the size constancy illusion (created by a narrower
runway; an illusion associated with the constancy of size being expected by the pilot). Vestibular illusions
included P4, the somatogyral illusion (a profile that demonstrates a false sensation of rotational motion,
or lack of rotational motion, resulting from erroneous perception of the strength and direction of actual
rotation); P5, the Coriolis illusion (demonstration of the effect of cross-stimulation of semicircular canals
occurring when the head is moved during fixed rotational motion); and P6, the leans illusion (disturbed
perception of leaning position due to the limited sensitivity of vestibular organs).
Each flight profile was presented in two conditions: the disorientation condition, in which visual or
vestibular disorientation cues were present, and the control condition, in which these specialized
disorientation cues were absent. The remaining parts of the flight profiles were entirely the same for
the control and disorientation conditions. Thus, it enabled us to directly compare flight performance
parameters and cognitive task performance measures between the control and disorientation conditions

Table 1. The general description of six flight profiles (P1–P6) in Experiments 1 and 2.
Duration of Control Flight Instrument
Profile Profile Disorientation Condition Condition Manipulation
P1: The false horizon 190 s Slope of cloud deck tilted 10° rightward from No tilt of the From 130 s to
illusion 19,000 ft to 21,000 ft cloud deck 160 s blackout of
attitude director
indicator
P2: The shape constancy 166 s or Nighttime runway up-sloped 10° No up-sloped None
illusion runway level runway
achieved
P3: The size constancy 90 s or Nighttime runway narrowed in width from Runway None
illusion runway level 300 ft to 150 ft 300 ft wide
achieved
P4: The somatogyral 290 s 76°·s−1 of sustained yaw (at +0.4°·s−2) No programmed None
illusion stop yaw rotation in 217 s of flight (at acceleration
−15°·s−2) stimulus
P5: The Coriolis illusion 210 s 70°·s−1 of sustained yaw (at +0.5°·s−2) No programmed None
stop yaw rotation in 173 s of flight (at −2°·s−2) acceleration
stimulus
P6: The leans illusion 150 s 68°·s−1 of sustained yaw (at +1°·s−2) No programmed From 92 s to
stop yaw rotation in 84 s of flight (at −4°·s−2) acceleration 105 s blackout of
stimulus attitude director
indicator
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE PSYCHOLOGY 35

for each flight profile. The general description of the flight profiles, including the specification of
disorientation cues, is given in Table 1. Detailed descriptions of each flight profile, including the
parameters of flight maneuvers, are presented in Lewkowicz, Francuz, Bałaj, and Augustynowicz (2015).

Stimuli and Procedure

Participants performed a duration discrimination task while completing flight profiles. Sound stimuli
(tones) were presented by headphones. Half of them were 1,000 Hz sine wave tones of short duration
(50 ms), and the other half were 1,000 Hz sine wave tones of long duration (80 ms). The duration of
both tones included 5 ms rise and fall times. Stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) was selected
randomly from a range between 1,600 ms and 2,600 ms. Sound pressure level was set to 88.0
decibels (A-weighted; db(A)). Participants had to discriminate between short and long tones by
pressing one of the two buttons placed on the control stick in the cabin. The correspondence of the
buttons to the short and long tones was counterbalanced, such that half of the participants had to
press the left button for short tones and the right button for long tones, and for the other half of the
participants this order was reversed. The stimuli were presented continuously in each flight profile,
with the restriction that none of the tones could be presented along with audio instructions. The
distribution of short and long tones was pseudorandom, such that no more than four identical
stimuli could be presented in a row.
The total number of sound stimuli presented differed across flight profiles and across participants
due to different time required by each participant to actually complete each profile. The 50–50
proportion between short and long tones was held constant for each flight profile and each
participant. For all the flight profiles in the disorientation condition, only responses to sound stimuli
presented after the onset of disorientation cues were analyzed (M = 31.00, SD = 5.98 for Profile 1;
M = 32.13, SD = 5.51 for Profile 2; M = 22.71, SD = 4.34 for Profile 3; M = 27.07, SD = 2.11 for
Profile 4; M = 21.31, SD = 3.00 for Profile 5; M = 22.56, SD = 4.59 for Profile 6). For all the flight
profiles in the control conditions, only responses to sound stimuli from the corresponding parts of
these flight profiles were analyzed (M = 29.67, SD = 5.26 for Profile 1; M = 37.13, SD = 7.08 for
Profile 2; M = 22.50, SD = 3.43 for Profile 3; M = 28.06, SD = 1.73 for Profile 4; M = 23.25, SD = 3.70
for Profile 5; M = 24.38, SD = 3.54 for Profile 6).
Participants were instructed that their primary task was to complete all the flight profiles
according to the flying instructions given, but that simultaneously they were required to dis-
criminate between short and long tones, as quickly and accurately as possible. Before the
administration of the first flight profile, participants performed a training session to become
acquainted with operational characteristics of the simulator and with the research procedure.
They were given 5 to 10 min of “free flight” including the basic elements of pilotage with the
approach-to-landing maneuver during which practice sound stimuli were presented to familiarize
participants with the task. A pilot participated in the main experiment if he had accurately
detected at least 70% of sound stimuli during a training session. The order of the six flight
profiles in the control and disorientation conditions (a total of 12 profiles) was assigned
randomly for each participant. Short breaks were given between the profiles, during which the
cabin of the simulator remained closed.
The main experiment lasted for approximately 60 min. After that, participants completed a Polish
version of the Simulator Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ; Biernacki, Kennedy, & Dziuda, 2016;
Kennedy, Lane, Berbaum, & Lilienthal, 1993). The SSQ consists of 16 symptoms regarding motion
sickness that can be caused in a flight simulator, which are rated in terms of severity (0 = none, 1 =
slight, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe) and then are summed to yield three subscale scores (a nausea score,
an oculomotor score, a disorientation score), and a total score. The SSQ is widely used in studies on
SD to rule out the influence of simulator sickness on flight and cognitive performance. After
completing the SSQ, participants were paid and debriefed.
36 P. STRÓŻAK ET AL.

Data Analysis Strategy

For each flight profile, we analyzed a number of dependent variables that measured flight and
cognitive performance in control and disorientation conditions. To assess flight performance, the
number and mean magnitude of control reversal errors (CREs) were calculated for each flight profile
in each condition. The technique of CREs is used in studies on SD as a measure that can help to
verify whether participants are disoriented (Liggett & Gallimore, 2002; Previc & Ercoline, 1999;
Webb et al., 2012). CREs occur when a pilot performs a maneuver that increases the undesirable
situation that was induced by SD cues. In this study, CREs with regard to an aircraft roll (roll angle
in degrees, B(deg)) were calculated for profiles P1 (the false horizon illusion), P4 (the somatogyral
illusion), P5 (the Coriolis illusion), and P6 (the leans), whereas CREs specific to an aircraft’s vertical
speed (rate of descent in feet per minute, U(ft/min)) were calculated for profiles P2 (the shape
constancy illusion) and P3 (the size constancy illusion). To assess cognitive performance, mean
proportion of correct responses in the duration discrimination task and mean reaction times of
correct responses in this task were calculated for each flight profile in each condition.
Flight and cognitive performance data were analyzed separately for each flight profile by the means
of t tests for dependent samples, with condition (control/disorientation) as a within-subjects factor. An
alternative approach would be to conduct two-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA)
for each dependent variable, with flight profiles as levels of another within-subject factor. However, we
refrained from that because the flight profiles represent various scenarios that differ in duration, flying
conditions, and flight parameters that must be maintained. Because the flight profiles are highly
different from each other in many domains, there was no rationale for treating them as levels of the
independent variable. Thus, we aimed at analyzing the results separately for each flight profile.
Bonferroni correction was applied to control the experiment-wise error rate resulting from multiple
t test comparisons. For each dependent variable, a desired alpha level (α = .05) was divided by the
number of flight profiles (n = 6), for which a family of hypotheses was tested simultaneously. The
family of hypotheses was defined as six hypotheses that were formulated for each flight profile (there
were four families of hypotheses corresponding to four dependent variables: number of CREs,
magnitude of CREs, correct response rate, reaction times). Thus, the significance level was adjusted
to α = .05/6 = 0.0083. This adjusted α value was used in the power calculations. Mean scores of SSQ
that were obtained after completing all flight profiles were referred to the scoring criteria of SSQ that
reflect the severity of simulator sickness symptoms (Stanney, Kennedy, & Drexler, 1997).

Results
Flight Performance
For the number of CREs, t tests for dependent samples were conducted separately for each flight
profile, with condition (control/disorientation) as a within-subjects factor. The p values for one-
tailed tests are reported, as the one-tailed hypothesis was tested that the number of CREs would
increase in the disorientation condition. A significant effect of condition was observed for Profile 1
(false horizon), t(15) = 2.81, p = .006, Cohen’s d = .70, power = .55; and for Profile 4 (somatogyral
illusion), t(15) = 2.98, p = .004, Cohen’s d = .74, power = .60. In line with our hypothesis, mean
numbers of CREs for these profiles were larger in the disorientation conditions (M = 4.25, SE = 0.91
for Profile 1; M = 3.56, SE = 0.51 for Profile 4) than in the control conditions (M = 1.62, SE = 0.46
for Profile 1; M = 2.00, SE = 0.65 for Profile 4). For the rest of the profiles, the effect of condition was
nonsignificant, t = 1.14, p = .14 for Profile 2; t = 1.37, p = .09 for Profile 3; t = 1.4, p = .09 for Profile
5; t = .78, p = .22 for Profile 6. Mean numbers of CREs for all flight profiles in the disorientation and
control conditions are depicted in Figure 1A.
For mean magnitude of CREs, the same one-tailed t tests for dependent samples as earlier were
conducted. We hypothesized that the mean magnitude of CREs would be larger in the disorientation
condition. A significant effect of condition was observed for Profile 4 (somatogyral illusion), t
(15) = 3.18, p = .003, Cohen’s d = .79, power = .67. Confirming our hypothesis, the mean magnitude
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE PSYCHOLOGY 37

Figure 1. (A) Mean number of control reversal errors (CREs) and (B) mean magnitude of CREs in Experiment 1. Bars represent
standard error of the mean. *p < .0083 (Bonferroni corrected).

of CREs for this profile was larger in the disorientation condition (M = 2.71, SE = 0.31) than in the
control condition (M = 1.59, SE = 0.37). For the rest of the profiles, the effect of condition was
nonsignificant, t = 1.87, p = .04 for Profile 1; t = 1.49, p = .08 for Profile 2; t = .94, p = .18 for Profile
3; t = .84, p = .21 for Profile 5; t = .64, p = .27 for Profile 6. Mean magnitudes of CREs for all flight
profiles in the disorientation and control conditions are depicted in Figure 1B.

Cognitive Performance
For mean proportion of correct responses in the duration discrimination task, t tests for dependent
samples were conducted, separately for each flight profile, with condition (control/disorientation) as a
within-subjects factor. The p values for one-tailed tests are reported, as the one-tailed hypothesis was
tested that correct response rate would be reduced in the disorientation condition. A significant effect of
condition was observed for Profile 6 (the leans illusion), t(15) = 2.85, p = .006, Cohen’s d = .71, power = .56.
Confirming our hypothesis, the mean proportion of correct responses in the duration discrimination task
for this profile was larger in the control condition (M = .76, SE = .03) than in the disorientation condition
(M = .68, SE = .04). For the rest of the profiles, the effect of condition was nonsignificant, t = 1.59, p = .07
for Profile 1; t = .21, p = .42 for Profile 2; t = 1.78, p = .05 for Profile 3; t = 1.39, p = .09 for Profile 4; t = .73,
38 P. STRÓŻAK ET AL.

Figure 2. (A) Mean accuracy performance (correct response rate) in the duration discrimination task and (B) mean reaction times
for correct responses in this task in Experiment 1. Bars represent standard error of the mean. *p < .0083 (Bonferroni corrected).

p = .24 for Profile 5. Mean proportions of correct responses in the duration discrimination task for all
flight profiles in disorientation and control conditions are depicted in Figure 2A.
To investigate further the cause of the lower correct response rate in the disorientation condition
than in the control condition for Profile 6, we conducted an additional t test for this profile (α = .05),
taking the mean proportion of omissions as a dependent variable. This was motivated by the possibility
that the lower proportion of correct responses in the disorientation condition than in the control
condition for Profile 6 might be the result of response absence, rather than incorrect responses. Indeed,
there was a significant effect of condition for Profile 6, t(15) = 2.99, p = .004, one-tailed, Cohen’s
d = .75, power = .89, such that the mean proportion of omissions for this profile was larger in the
disorientation condition (M = .17, SE = .04) than in the control condition (M = .11, SE = .03).
For mean reaction times of correct responses in the duration discrimination task, one-tailed t
tests for dependent samples were conducted. The significant main effect of condition was not found
in either of the profiles, t = 2.58, p = .01 for Profile 1; t = .74, p = .24 for Profile 2; t = 2.34, p = .02 for
Profile 3; t = 1.09, p = .15 for Profile 4; t = .34, p = .37 for Profile 5; t = 1.65, p = .06 for Profile 6.
Mean reaction times for correct responses in the duration discrimination task for all flight profiles in
disorientation and control conditions are depicted in Figure 2B.
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE PSYCHOLOGY 39

Simulator Sickness Questionnaire Data

Mean scores of SSQ symptoms after completing all flight profiles were M = 1.88 (SD = 2.72) for the
nausea subscale, M = 3.63 (SD = 2.42) for the oculomotor subscale, M = 1.81 (SD = 1.52) for the
disorientation subscale, and M = 2.44 (SD = 1.55) for the total score. According to the scoring
criteria of SSQ, these are negligible symptoms of simulator sickness (Stanney et al., 1997).

Discussion
Flight performance measures in Experiment 1 indicated that participants made more CREs in the
disorientation conditions than in the control conditions, but only in Profile 1 (false horizon) and in
Profile 4 (somatogryral illusion) were the differences statistically significant. Also, mean magnitude
of CREs was larger in the disorientation conditions than in the control conditions for Profile 4. Thus,
it seems that participants suffered from unrecognized or incapacitating disorientation in these two
particular profiles, whereas in other flight scenarios either they were not disoriented at all, or the
disorientation was recognized and participants had the ability to control the aircraft properly.
For the disorientation conditions in Profiles 1 and 4, a decrease in accuracy for the duration
discrimination task was not found. It seems that the effects of SD in these profiles were restricted to
errors while piloting the simulator, but SD did not influence the accuracy of duration discrimination task
performance. This is consistent with the notion that the disorientation in these flight profiles was
unrecognized or incapacitating. If SD is recognized, it increases a pilot’s workload during a flight and
demands the allocation of more resources to completing the main task of piloting the aircraft. As a result,
the performance of any other concurrent task would decline (Hendy, East, & Farrell, 2001). Here, for
Profiles 1 and 4, the decline in cognitive performance was not observed, probably because participants
were oblivious to disorientation and devoted their attention to the duration discrimination task.
However, the disorientation conditions in one flight profile adversely affected cognitive performance.
For Profile 6 (the leans illusion), the correct response rate in the duration discrimination task was reduced
when this profile was disoriented. This was, at least in part, because participants ignored or overlooked the
sound stimuli, as we found an increase in response absence for this profile when it was disoriented.
Why did SD selectively affect Profile 6 with regard to low accuracy in the duration discrimination
task? One possible explanation is that disorientation in this flight profile was recognized, which
increased the cognitive load exerted on pilots and forced them to divide attentional resources
between coping with SD and performing a cognitive task. In Profile 6 the disorientation was
produced by the leans illusion. The leans is the most common vestibular illusion, can last for several
dozen seconds, and engages many actions to cope with it (Parmet & Ercoline, 2008). It requires
perceiving the unwanted bank, correcting it by rolling the aircraft, and eventually suppressing false
sensations and checking the instrument indicators as a countermeasure. This was a highly demand-
ing task for the limited-capacity human attentional system (Kahneman, 1973; Lavie, 2005), and we
assume that participants had very few attentional resources left for the execution of the additional
sound discrimination task. This is consistent with the “posture first principle,” according to which all
mental resources are directed to regain orientation when it is lost (Barra et al., 2006; Maylor et al.,
2001; Shumway-Cook et al., 1997). In fact, during education in the Air Force Academy, our
participants were trained not to respond to external stimuli until they recover spatial orientation.
This can also explain the increase in the response absence for the disorientation condition of Profile
6. Moreover, the leans illusion is often associated with a vestibulospinal reflex that forces a pilot to
lean in the direction of the falsely perceived vertical (Parmet & Ercoline, 2008). This additional
motor activity might have further diminished performance of the duration discrimination task.
It is unclear, however, why SD cues did not affect cognitive performance in other flight profiles. The
cognitive load exerted by the SD on the attention in Profiles 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 should also be larger in the
disorientation conditions than in the control conditions. The lack of these effects for Profiles 1 and 4
can partly be explained by the fact that SD was unrecognized or incapacitating and increased the
number of CREs for these profiles. However, this pattern of results was not observed for Profiles 2, 3,
40 P. STRÓŻAK ET AL.

and 5. An alternative explanation of the fact that only Profile 6 exhibited the effects of SD on cognitive
performance is the specificity of the duration discrimination task that we used in Experiment 1. This
task is a measure of selective attention, a cognitive process that is relatively fast and automatic and
might be insusceptible to SD in some of the flight scenarios. Thus, we were interested in determining
whether the influence of SD on cognition can be observed when a more complex cognitive process of
working memory is engaged, and this led us to the design of Experiment 2.

Experiment 2
Method
Participants
Nineteen healthy male aviators volunteered to participate in the study. Due to technical issues and
malfunctions of the apparatus, data from 3 participants were discarded from the analyses. Thus, data
from 16 participants are reported, with an average age of M = 26.31 years (SD = 8.78, range = 21–52)
and mean flight experience of M = 855.13 total flight hours (SD = 1817.25, range = 60–7,200, median =
127.5). Subject pool, screening, and informed consent were all conducted the same as in Experiment 1.

Stimuli and Procedure

In Experiment 2, we used the N-back task, a sequential letter memory task in which participants had
to decide whether each letter in a sequence matches the one that appeared N items ago (the 2-back
version of this paradigm was used). Stimuli were Polish consonants (C, K, N, R, S, T, W) that were
presented aurally. Stimuli were presented in blocks and there were 36 letters per block. The order of
the stimuli in each block was pseudo-random, such that 12 consonants were targets (letters that were
also presented 2 items ago) and 24 consonants were control stimuli (letters that were not presented 2
items ago). Control stimuli always included 6 consonants that were presented 1 item ago (lures).
Mean presentation duration of each stimulus was M = 452.28 ms (SD = 79.64). SOA was held
constant at 1,400 ms. Mean sound level for all consonants was M = 71.14 decibels (db(A), SD =
4.15). Sound stimuli were generated using the IVONA text-to-speech engine (IVONA Software,
Gdańsk, Poland). A male voice was selected to match the gender of participants.
The total number of blocks was the same for each participant but differed across flight profiles due to the
different duration of each profile (P1, two blocks; P2 and P3, one block; P4 and P5, three blocks; P6, two
blocks). For all the flight profiles in the disorientation condition, only responses from one block presented
after the onset of disorientation cues were analyzed. For all the flight profiles in the control conditions, only
responses from one corresponding block were analyzed. Thus, the total number of responses that were
analyzed in each flight profile was equal to the number of letters in this one block (N = 36). Equipment,
flight profiles, procedure, and data analysis strategy were all the same as in Experiment 1.

Results
Flight Performance
The number and mean magnitude of CREs were compared, separately for each flight profile,
between control and disorientation conditions with one-tailed t tests for dependent samples. For
the number of CREs, the effects from Experiment 1 were replicated, such that a significant effect of
condition was observed for Profile 1 (false horizon), t(15) = 3.38, p = .002, Cohen’s d = .84,
power = .73; and for Profile 4 (somatogyral illusion), t(15) = 3.16, p = .003, Cohen’s d = .79,
power = .67. As predicted, participants committed more CREs in the disorientation conditions for
these profiles (M = 6.12, SE = 1.02 for Profile 1; M = 2.12, SE = 0.38 for Profile 4) than in the control
conditions (M = 2.25, SE = 0.41 for Profile 1; M = 1.12, SE = 0.24 for Profile 4). For the rest of the
profiles, the effect of condition was nonsignificant, t = 1.51, p = .08 for Profile 2; t = .79, p = .22 for
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE PSYCHOLOGY 41

Figure 3. (A) Mean number of control reversal errors (CREs) and (B) mean magnitude of CREs in Experiment 2. Bars represent
standard error of the mean. *p < .0083 (Bonferroni corrected).

Profile 3; t = 1.19, p = .13 for Profile 5; and t = .40, p = .35 for Profile 6]. Mean numbers of CREs for
all flight profiles in disorientation and control conditions are depicted in Figure 3A.
For mean magnitude of CREs, the same one-tailed t tests for dependent samples as earlier were
conducted. A significant effect of condition was observed for Profile 6 (the leans illusion), t
(15) = 2.61, p = .008, Cohen’s d = .67, power = .50, such that, as expected, the mean magnitude
of CREs for this profile was larger in the disorientation condition (M = 13.76, SE = 3.91) than in the
control condition (M = 3.71, SE = 0.69). For the rest of the profiles, the effect of condition was
nonsignificant, t = .12, p = .45 for Profile 1; t = .84, p = .21 for Profile 2; t = .51, p = .31 for Profile 3;
t = 1.33, p = .10 for Profile 4; and t = 1.08, p = .15 for Profile 5. Mean magnitudes of CREs for all
flight profiles in the disorientation and control conditions are depicted in Figure 3B.

Cognitive Performance
For mean proportion of correct responses in the N-back task, one-tailed t tests for dependent samples were
conducted, separately for each flight profile, with condition (control/disorientation) as a within-subjects
factor. A significant effect of condition was observed for Profile 6 (the leans illusion), t(15) = 3.14, p = .003,
42 P. STRÓŻAK ET AL.

Cohen’s d = .79, power = .67. In line with our hypothesis, mean proportion of correct responses for this
profile was larger in the control condition (M = .74, SE = .03) than in the disorientation condition (M = .64,
SE = .04). For the rest of the profiles, the effect of condition was nonsignificant, t = 1.16, p = .13 for Profile 1;
t = .37, p = .36 for Profile 2; t = .27, p = .40 for Profile 3; t = 2.43, p = .01 for Profile 4; and t = .15, p = .44 for
Profile 5. The mean proportions of correct responses in the N-back task for all flight profiles in disorienta-
tion and control conditions are depicted in Figure 4A.
As in Experiment 1, to investigate further the cause of the lower correct response rate in the
disorientation condition than in the control condition for Profile 6, we conducted an additional t test
for this profile (α = .05), taking the mean proportion of omissions in the N-back task as a dependent
variable. There was a significant effect of condition for Profile 6, t(15) = 1.99, p = .03 one-tailed,
Cohen’s d = .50, power = .60. As expected, mean proportion of omissions for this profile was larger
in the disorientation condition (M = .19, SE = .03) than in the control condition (M = .11, SE = .03).
For mean reaction times of correct responses in the N-back task, one-tailed t tests for dependent
samples were conducted. The significant main effect of condition was not found in either of the
profiles, t = .86, p = .20 for Profile 1; t = .29, p = .39 for Profile 2; t = .27, p = .39 for Profile 3; t = .04,
p = .48 for Profile 4; t = 1.54, p = .07 for Profile 5; and t = .44, p = .33 for Profile 6. Mean reaction
times for correct responses in the N-back task for all flight profiles in the disorientation and control
conditions are depicted in Figure 4B.

Figure 4. Mean accuracy performance (correct response rate) in the N-back task (A) and mean reaction times for correct
responses in this task (B) in Experiment 2. Bars represent standard error of the mean. *p < .0083 (Bonferroni corrected).
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE PSYCHOLOGY 43

Simulator Sickness Questionnaire Data

Mean scores of SSQ symptoms after completing all flight profiles were M = 1.38 (SD = 1.41) for the
nausea subscale, M = 2.88 (SD = 2.31) for the oculomotor subscale, M = 1.81 (SD = 1.72) for the
disorientation subscale, and M = 2.02 (SD = 1.59) for the total score. These are negligible symptoms
of simulator sickness (Stanney et al., 1997), which replicated the SSQ measures from Experiment 1.

Discussion
The mean number of CREs in Experiment 2 was larger in the disorientation conditions than in the
control conditions for Profile 1 (false horizon) and Profile 4 (somatogyral illusion), exactly the same
as in Experiment 1. However, the mean magnitude of CREs was larger in the disorientation
condition than in the control condition for Profile 6 (the leans illusion). This might indicate that
in Experiment 2 participants were affected by unrecognized or incapacitating SD not only in Profiles
1 and 4, as in Experiment 1, but also in Profile 6. This can be explained by the fact that the more
complex N-back task that measured working memory in Experiment 2 had more potential to distract
our participants and make them susceptible to SD cues than the duration discrimination task that
measured selective attention in Experiment 1.
With regard to Profile 6, it seems that the leans illusion implemented in this flight scenario was the most
difficult illusion in terms of its capability to affect cognitive performance. Thus, in Experiment 2 we replicated
our effects from Experiment 1, where disorientation cues reduced accuracy performance in the duration
discrimination task for profile 6. Here, we found the same pattern of results for the N-back task, such that the
mean proportion of correct responses in this task was larger in the control condition than in the disorienta-
tion condition for profile 6. We assume that experiencing the leans illusion resulted in withdrawing
attentional resources from the on-going cognitive task in order to cope with this vestibular illusion. This
was reflected not only in lower performance accuracy on the N-back task in the disorientation condition than
in the control condition for profile 6, but also in increased response absence for this profile when
disorientation cues were implemented. Again, this mirrored the pattern of results that was obtained for
profile 6 in Experiment 1. Despite our predictions, we did not find the effects of SD on the cognitive
performance of the N-back task in other flight profiles.

General Discussion
Results of our two experiments point to the fact that SD can impair cognitive performance while
participants (military aviators) are actively piloting a flight simulator. Performance was impaired
both when a duration discrimination task that measures selective attention was applied (Experiment
1) and when participants performed a more complex N-back task that measures working memory
(Experiment 2). This pattern of results is consistent with previous studies on the relationship
between SD and cognition (Gresty et al., 2008; Gresty et al., 2003; Sen et al., 2002; Webb et al.,
2012). However, we used a wide range of possible disorientation conditions that can be encountered
in aviation, especially vestibular illusions, which were not systematically tested so far. Thus, our
study is the first to demonstrate that SD adversely affects cognitive performance when pilots are
exposed to unusual stimulation of their vestibular system while completing flight profiles.
A consistent pattern of results that is emerging from our two experiments is that cognitive
performance was impaired in Profile 6 (the leans). This was the case when both selective attention
and working memory were tested, even when flight performance, as measured by CREs was not
affected by the disorientation cues implemented in this profile (Experiment 1). This might indicate
that, even when SD is not induced by the leans illusion or is recognized, the conditions that produce
this vestibular illusion can adversely affect cognitive performance. The leans illusion is the most
common vestibular illusion in flight that can seriously degrade pilot’s effectiveness (Parmet &
Ercoline, 2008), and we were able to demonstrate this with regard to cognitive performance across
two different experiments. We did not observe a decline in cognitive performance in other
44 P. STRÓŻAK ET AL.

disoriented flight profiles, however, the number of CREs increased in the false horizon illusion
(Profile 1) and in the somatogyral illusion (Profile 4) in both experiments. This indicates that other
visual and vestibular illusions are also capable of inducing SD and impairing flight performance.
In addition to the previously mentioned advantages of this study, its limitations should also be
considered. First, for the shape constancy illusion (Profile 2), the size constancy illusion (Profile 3), and
the Coriolis illusion (Profile 5), we did not find any effects of SD on flight or cognitive performance in
either of the two experiments conducted. The reason for that is not obvious, but it should be noted that
specific characteristics of the predefined flight profiles that were available in the GYRO-IPT simulator
might be responsible for that (i.e., a possibility that the shape and size constancy illusions, as well as the
Coriolis illusion, were less demanding to overcome than other illusions).
Other important factors that impose some limitations on the results of our experiments include
individual differences between pilots in their susceptibility to SD, as well as various strategies in
performing concurrent cognitive tasks that might have been applied by participants in different flight
profiles. Although the flight profiles that we used were examined in terms of their effectiveness in
inducing SD beforehand (Cheung & Wong, 1988; Kowalczuk, 2003), it is probable that pilots were
disoriented to a different extent in different flight profiles, and that some pilots were not disoriented
at all in some of the profiles. This is especially problematic in the context of variability of age and
flight experience of our participants, which can be considered the main causes of individual
differences in their vulnerability to SD (Previc et al., 2007).
Moreover, different flight profiles exert different requirements on the primary task of piloting the aircraft
and on the concurrent cognitive tasks. For some of the flight profiles, when flying efficacy is extremely
important (e.g., landing in Profiles 2 and 3), it seems necessary to withdraw attention from performing any
concurrent task. For some other flight profiles (e.g., high-altitude flight), pilots can allocate more resources to
other tasks because deviations from flying parameters that were given are relatively harmless. Future studies
should account for these factors that possibly interfere with the influence of SD on cognitive performance.
Overall, despite some limitations that were mentioned, this study constitutes forward progress in
understanding the effects of SD on cognition. In particular, this was achieved by examining cognitive
performance under conditions of SD induced by visual and vestibular illusions while piloting a flight
simulator. Future studies are needed to confirm and, presumably, extend these effects to other flight
scenarios, while better controlling for confounding variables.

Funding
This work was supported by the National Science Centre (Poland) under Grant NCN UMO-2013/09/B/HS6/03266.

ORCID
Agnieszka Fudali-Czyż http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6769-2975

References
Barra, J., Bray, A., Sahni, V., Golding, J. F., & Gresty, M. A. (2006). Increasing cognitive load with increasing balance
challenge: Recipe for catastrophe. Experimental Brain Research, 174, 734–745. doi:10.1007/s00221-006-0519-2
Biernacki, M. P., Kennedy, R. S., & Dziuda, Ł. (2016). Simulator sickness and its measurement with Simulator Sickness
Questionnaire (SSQ). Medycyna Pracy, 67, 545–555. doi:10.13075/mp.5893.00512
Brooks, L. R. (1967). The suppression of visualization by reading. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
19, 289–299. doi:10.1080/14640746708400105
Carter, R., & Woldstad, J. (1985). Repeated measurements of spatial ability with the manikin test. Human Factors, 27,
209–219. doi:10.1177/001872088502700208
Cheung, B., & Wong, W. T. (1988). Recommendation to implement Gyro-IPT for disorientation training at CFSAT.
Report Number: DCIEM-98-TM-59. Toronto, Ontario.
Gibb, R., Ercoline, B., & Scharff, L. (2011). Spatial disorientation: Decades of pilot fatalities. Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine, 82, 717–724. doi:10.3357/ASEM.3048.2011
 THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE PSYCHOLOGY 45

Gresty, M. A., Golding, J. F., Le, H., & Nightingale, K. (2008). Cognitive impairment by spatial disorientation.
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 79, 105–111. doi:10.3357/ASEM.2143.2008
Gresty, M. A., Waters, S., Bray, A., Bunday, K., & Golding, J. F. (2003). Impairment of spatial cognitive function with
preservation of verbal performance during spatial disorientation. Current Biology, 13, R829–R830. doi:10.1016/j.
cub.2003.10.013
Grondin, S. (1993). Duration discrimination of empty and filled intervals marked by auditory and visual signals.
Perception, & Psychophysics, 54, 383–394. doi:10.3758/BF03205274
Gronwall, D. M. A. (1977). Paced auditory serial-addition task: A measure of recovery from concussion. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 44, 367–373. doi:10.2466/pms.1977.44.2.367
Hendy, K. C., East, K. P., & Farrell, P. S. E. (2001). An information processing model of operator stress and
performance. In P. A. Hancock & P. A. Desmond (Eds.), Stress, Workload and Fatigue (pp. 34–80). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Henry, F. M. (1948). Discrimination of the duration of a sound. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 734–743.
doi:10.1037/h0058552
Jaeggi, S. M., Buschkuehl, M., Perrig, W. J., & Meier, B. (2010). The concurrent validity of the N-back task as a
working memory measure. Memory, 18, 394–412. doi:10.1080/09658211003702171
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R., Miura, T. K., & Colflesh, G. J. (2007). Working memory, attention control, and the N-back
task: A question of construct validity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33,
615–622. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.615
Kennedy, R. S., Lane, N. E., Berbaum, K. S., & Lilienthal, M. G. (1993). Simulator sickness questionnaire: An enhanced
method for quantifying simulator sickness. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 203–220.
doi:10.1207/s15327108ijap0303_3
Kowalczuk, K. (2003). Diagnostic value of physiological parameters during evoked spatial disorientation. Polski
Przegląd Medycyny Lotniczej, 10, 7–22.
Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused? Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 75–82.
doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.004
Lewkowicz, R., Francuz, P., Bałaj, B., & Augustynowicz, P. (2015). Flights with the Risk of Spatial Disorientation in the
Measurements of Oculomotor Activity of Pilots. The Polish Journal of Aviation Medicine and Psychology, 21, 22–28.
doi:10.13174/pjamp.21.03.2015.03
Liggett, K. K., & Gallimore, J. J. (2002). An analysis of control reversal errors during unusual attitude recoveries using
helmet-mounted display symbology. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 73, 102–111.
Maylor, E. A., Allison, S., & Wing, A. M. (2001). Effects of spatial and nonspatial cognitive activity on postural
stability. British Journal of Psychology, 92, 319–338. doi:10.1348/000712601162211
Owen, A. M., McMillan, K. M., Laird, A. R., & Bullmore, E. (2005). N-back working memory paradigm: A meta-analysis
of normative functional neuroimaging studies. Human Brain Mapping, 25, 46–59. doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20131
Parmet, A. J., & Ercoline, W. R. (2008). Spatial orientation in flight. In J. R. Davis, R. Johnson, J. Stepanek, & J. A.
Fogarty (Eds.), Fundamentals of Aerospace Medicine (pp. 142–205). Philadelpia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Previc, F. H., & Ercoline, W. R. (1999). The “Outside-In” Attitude Display Concept Revisited. The International
Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9, 377–401. doi:10.1207/s15327108ijap0904_5
Previc, F. H., & Ercoline, W. R. (2004). Spatial disorientation in aviation. In P. Zarchan (Ed.), Progress in Astronautics
and Aeronautics Vol. 203. Reston, Virginia: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Previc, F. H., Ercoline, W. R., Evans, R. H., Dillon, N., Lopez, N., Daluz, C. M., & Workman, A. (2007). Simulator-
induced spatial disorientation: Effects of age, sleep deprivation, and type of conflict. Aviation Space and
Environmental Medicine, 78, 470–477.
Rammsayer, T. H. (2012). Developing a psychophysical measure to assess duration discrimination in the millisecond
range. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 28, 172–180. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000124
Rollin Stott, J. R., & Benson, A. J. (2016). Spatial orientation and disorientation in flight. In D. P. Gradwell & D. J.
Rainford (Eds.), Ernsting’s Aviation and Space Medicine (pp. 281–319). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Sen, A., Yilmaz, K., & Tore, H. F. (2002). Effects of spatial disorientation on cognitive functions. In NATO RTO
Human Factors and Medicine Panel RTO-MP-086, Spatial disorientation in military vehicles: Causes, consequences
and cures (pp. 11.1–11.3). Neuilly-Sur-Seine, France: NATO Research and Technology Organization.
Shumway-Cook, A., Woollacott, M., Kerns, K. A., & Baldwin, M. (1997). The effects of two types of cognitive tasks on
postural stability in older adults with and without a history of falls. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological
Sciences and Medical Sciences, 52(4), M232–M240. doi:10.1093/gerona/52A.4.M232
Stanney, K. M., Kennedy, R. S., & Drexler, J. M. (1997). Cybersickness is not simulator sickness. Proceedings of the
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 41st Annual Meeting, 2, 1138–1142. doi:10.1177/107118139704100292
Webb, C. M., Estrada III, A., & Kelley, A. M. (2012). The effects of spatial disorientation on cognitive processing. The
International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 22, 224–241. doi:10.1080/10508414.2012.689211
Wechsler, D. (1997). WAIS–III administration and scoring manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.