ArticleHuman factors2026
Eye Movement Patterns Under Exposure to Spatial Disorientation Illusions During Simulated Flight.
Article in Human factors, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveTo identify eye movement patterns that are correlated with spatial disorientation (SD) events during flights in a flight simulator that induces SD.BackgroundSpatial Disorientation is one of the main causes for aviation mishaps. It can result from illusions caused by misinterpreted vestibular or visual sensory cues, leading to an incorrect perception of an aircraft's position, attitude, or motion. SD prevention is of great importance, as there is currently no objective tool to identify its occurrence.MethodEye movements of 45 participants (30 aircrew members, 15 cadets) were recorded using Tobii Pro Glasses 2 in a Gyro-IPT SD flight simulator. Illusions were either vestibular or visual. Gaze metrics such as fixations, saccades (rapid gaze shift between two points), and visits were compared between subjects who experienced SD and those who did not. Statistical analyses were conducted to identify significant differences.ResultsAmong 284 flight profiles, 136 SD occurrences were recorded (48%). During visual illusions the participants who more frequently checked the instrument panel had a higher chance of avoiding SD. In contrast, during vestibular illusions, participants who examined the head-up display (HUD) more frequently had a lower probability of SD occurrence.ConclusionMitigating SD requires distinct eye-movement strategies tailored to the illusion type. Our results suggest that to mitigate visual illusions, there is a need for greater instrument panel focus, whereas to mitigate vestibular illusions, increased HUD engagement is needed, as opposed to the current instructions.ApplicationOur findings may inform training programs to enhance performance in high-risk SD flight profiles. Additionally, results support the potential development of a real-time SD alert system for aircraft, aiming to mitigate or prevent SD-related incidents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.