Suppression: sound and light interference with targeting

Kirsten M. VanMeenen; Kenneth R. Short; Robert M. DeMarco; Florence B. Chua; Malvin N. Janal; Richard J. Servatius

doi:10.1117/12.666107

26 May 2006 Suppression: sound and light interference with targeting

Kirsten M. VanMeenen, Kenneth R. Short, Robert M. DeMarco, Florence B. Chua, Malvin N. Janal, Richard J. Servatius

Proceedings Volume 6219, Enabling Technologies and Design of Nonlethal Weapons; 62190J (2006) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.666107
Event: Defense and Security Symposium, 2006, Orlando (Kissimmee), Florida, United States

Abstract

Civilian law enforcement and military operations on urban terrain (MOUT) regularly enter into unknown situations where some unidentified subset of the populace may possess armaments that may be used against them. Ultimately, the most relevant test of the effectiveness of non-lethal energies in these situations is their ability to interfere with the targeting of those weapons on the friendly forces. It is also the test that offers the most immediate and tangible reward in the prevention of personnel injuries. Perceptual interference (e.g., light-induced flash blindness) or distractions from loud noises may contribute to targeting interference. How much do various energies or perceptual interventions actually interfere with targeting? We have devised a program of experimentation that allows for the pure and precise measurement of interference with the targeting process by any of a broad range of energies and stimuli. Our primary focus has been on sound and light interference with targeting, and experiments toward that purpose are described here. As expected, targeting accuracy decreased and targeting latency increased as the distance from fixation point to the target increased. The light flash interfered more with shots at more distant targets. Furthermore, as the angle between the fixation point and the flash increased, targeting latency increased but targeting accuracy was unaffected. Thus, light interference is greatest when the flash is not at the point of fixation. These studies suggest that foveal flashes are less disruptive than peripheral flashes, and that disruption increases as targeting task demands increase.

Citation Download Citation

Kirsten M. VanMeenen, Kenneth R. Short, Robert M. DeMarco, Florence B. Chua, Malvin N. Janal, and Richard J. Servatius "Suppression: sound and light interference with targeting", Proc. SPIE 6219, Enabling Technologies and Design of Nonlethal Weapons, 62190J (26 May 2006); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.666107

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available