↓ Skip to main content

Control Order and Visuomotor Strategy Development for Joystick-Steered Underground Shuttle Cars

Overview of attention for article published in Human Factors, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Control Order and Visuomotor Strategy Development for Joystick-Steered Underground Shuttle Cars
Published in
Human Factors, February 2014
DOI 10.1177/0018720814522295
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven Cloete, Christine Zupanc, Robin Burgess-Limerick, Guy Wallis

Abstract

In this simulator-based study, we aimed to quantify performance differences between joystick steering systems using first-order and second-order control, which are used in underground coal mining shuttle cars. In addition, we conducted an exploratory analysis of how users of the more difficult, second-order system changed their behavior over time. Evidence from the visuomotor control literature suggests that higher-order control devices are not intuitive, which could pose a significant risk to underground mine personnel, equipment, and infrastructure. Thirty-six naive participants were randomly assigned to first- and second-order conditions and completed three experimental trials comprising sequences of 90 degrees turns in a virtual underground mine environment, with velocity held constant at 9 km/h(-1). Performance measures were lateral deviation, steering angle variability, high-frequency steering content, joystick activity, and cumulative time in collision with the virtual mine wall. The second-order control group exhibited significantly poorer performance for all outcome measures. In addition, a series of correlation analyses revealed that changes in strategy were evident in the second-order group but not the first-order group. Results were consistent with previous literature indicating poorer performance with higher-order control devices and caution against the adoption of the second-order joystick system for underground shuttle cars. Low-cost, portable simulation platforms may provide an effective basis for operator training and recruitment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 18%
Student > Master 5 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 15%
Psychology 5 15%
Sports and Recreations 4 12%
Design 2 6%
Engineering 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 9 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 August 2014.
All research outputs
#16,579,551
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Human Factors
#1,084
of 1,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,372
of 330,507 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Human Factors
#16
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,422 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,507 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.