Professional Documents
Culture Documents
()o
U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
Technical review by
Douglas K. Spiegel c o --
Robert H. Sulzen ,NTIS CRA&
DTIC TAB
Uniannouinced "
Justification
By
Distribution I
Availability. Codes
Avtil and/or
Dist Special
NOTICES
D TRIBUTION: Primary distribution o s report has been m I.Please address
corre ndence concerning distributio f reports to: U.S. Army Research te for the
Behavio ocial Sciences PERI-POX, 5001 Eisenhower Ave., Alex nia
22333-5600.
FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when it is no longer needed. Please do not
return it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
NOTE: The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army
position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.
UNCLASSIFIED
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE
Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. O704-188
la. REPORT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION lb. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS
Unclassified
2a. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF REPORT
Approved for public release;
2b. DECLASSIFICATION /DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE distribution is unlimited.
6a. NAME OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 6b. OFFICE SYMBOL 7a. NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION
U.S. Army Research Institute (if applicable)
Field Unit at Fort Leavenworth PERI-SL
6c. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 7b. ADDRESS (City, State, and ZIP Code)
Identification of Command Post Exercises (CPX) and Field Training Exercises (FTX) Messages
12. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)
Keene, S. Delane; Solick, Robert E.; and Lussier, James W. (ARI)
13a. TYPE OF REPORT F73b. TIME COVERED 14. DATE OF REPORT (YearMonth, Day) 15. PAGE COUNT
Final FROM 88/05 TO 89/05 1990, February I
16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION
Also see companion report: Construction of Realistic Messages from Computer-Generated Alert
Messages by James W. Lussier, Robert E. Solick, S. Delane Keene, and J. M. Linville.
17. COSATI CODES 18. SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)
FIELD GROUP SUB-GROUP Alert messages CPX training Battle simulation
Command group FTX training Controller,
training-, Computer simulation workload,
19.'ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number)
Command groups are increasingly turning to computer-driven command post exercises
(CPX) as an economical and convenient means of training. The overall realism of this method
of training relies heavily on the capabilities of the control staff, who must act as key
personnel in the units at echelons above, below, and adjacent to the training audience.
The controllers must generate a stream of realistic tactical messages, while attending to
a myriad of other duties that place demands on their time. Further, this task is not well
supported by the current generation of battle simulations. Automating the production of
realistic messages is one solution to the problem. This report examines whether experi-
enced Army officers can distinguish between messages produced in a CPX and FIX environment
and investigates the characteristics of the messages that contribute to successful identi-
fication. The research will identify requirements for a system to automate the translation
of simulation output into realistic messages.
February 1990
iii
FOREWORD
The U.S. Army Research Institute, Fort Leavenworth Field Unit, conducts a
systems and training research program that supports the Combined Arms Center
(CAC).
For several years the Fort Leavenworth Field Unit has been involved in
research to support the development and use of computer-driven battle simula-
tions for training battalion through division command groups. A pressing
problem with the current generation of battle simulations is the burden placed
on controllers, who must, in addition to many other duties, generate a stream
of realistic tactical messages. This research will contribute to identifica-
tion of requirements for an automated system to translate simulation output
into more realistic messages, thereby improving training realism and reducing
controller overload.
This research was an exploratory effort funded under Research Task 1301.
It compares the ability of experienced officers to identify messages tran-
scribed from command post exercises with their ability to identify similar
messages transcribed from field exercises. It also investigates which char-
acteristics of messages are most salient in identification.
EDGAR M. JOHNSON
Technical Director
v
IDENTIFICATION OF COMMAND POST EXERCISES (CPX) AND FIELD TRAINING EXERCISES
(FTX) MESSAGES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Requirement:
Procedure:
Findings:
The majority of the officers who participated in this study expressed the
belief that CPX and FTX messages could be distinguished based upon certain
characteristics. However, their actual performance in classifying messages
was better than chance but less accurate than anticipated.
The participants were also questioned concerning FTX and CPX message
characteristics. The message characteristics believed to be most salient were
as follows: CPX messages are longer than FTX; also CPX messages are less emo-
tional and contain more accurate information than FTX messages. On the seman-
tic differential scales, participants rated CPX messages as more succinct,
precise, and valuable than FTX messages. The major difference between the two
data sources was in message length. Participants expressed the belief that
CPX messages are longer than FTX messages but rated CPX messages as more suc-
cinct on the semantic differential scale.
vii
Utilization of Findings:
The information obtained in this study vill contribute to identification
of requirements for an automated system to translate simulation output into
more realistic messages.
viii
IDENTIFICATION OF COMMAND POST EXERCISES (CPX) AND FIELD TRAINING EXERCISES
(FTX) MESSAGES
CONTENTS
Page
REFERENCES .. ................................ 9
APPNIX A .. ................................ 10
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Message identification--number correct ... ........... 3
ix
IDENTIFICATION OF COMMAND POST EXERCISES (CPX) AND FIELD TRAINING
EXERCISES (FTX) MESSAGES
Introduction
AirLand Battle doctrine relies heavily on command and control (C2 ) Io ensure
battlefield success. Commanders and their staffs must perform their C func-
tions in a synchronized, coordinated manner in a highly dynamic environment.
Their successful battlefield performance depends upon how well they have been
trained; however, the opportunity for training is relatively infrequent.
Controllers must play the roles of key personnel in the units at echelons
above, below, and adjacent to the training audience. This role playing func-
tion provides the training audience with insulation from the computer and also
provides them with communication training (Solick and Lussier, 1988).
This report examines whether Army officers who have experienced both FTX and
CPX training at the battalion level can distinguish which training environment
produced a set of stimulus messages and investigates the characteristics of the
messages that contribute to successful identification. This information will
contribute to the identification of requirements for an automated system to
translate computer output into realistic messages.
m! !1!
Method
Participants: The participants in this study were 31 company grade combat arms
officers (6 2Lt.; 16 ILt.; 9 Cpt.) who volunteered their time during May, 1988.
Data Collection Software and Procedures: Data for this study were obtained
through the use of MSGJUDGE software developed by Vruels Research Corporation
under contract to the Army Research Institute (see Solick, Libehaber, Ober-
mayer, Linville, and Obermayer, 1989). MSGJUDGE is a measurement instrument
for the computer administration of a set of written messages from two or more
different environments to a panel of expert judges. Written messages were used
in this study rather than actual taped oral messages because of the difficulty
in obtaining taped messages which were uniform in quality from both training
environments. MSGJUDGE collects data in the form of responses to semantic
scales, forced-choice questions, and a summary questionnaire. The software was
pilot tested prior to use in this study. Information concerning the pilot data
collection is contained in Solick, et al, (1989).
-3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3
Wordy : : : : : Succinct
Pointer
The next screen showed the same message with another semantic scale, and
this was repeated until all four scales were administered. At that time, a new
message was presented and the scales were repeated.
When all messages had been presented for semantic measurement, the same
messages were again presented in a forced-choice format (CPX or FTX). The
screen configuration for this segment of the measurement is shown in the fol-
lowing example:
2
Message: We have detected 2 BMP at 256 947.
Finally, the participants were presented with questions which obtained demo-
graphic information and assessed beliefs concerning various characteristics of
FTX and CPX messages.
Results
Message Identification:
Table 1
3
These ratings were obtained in order to ascertain if these semantic character-
istics were useful in identifying their FTX or CPX origin and could be used to
develop rules for making CPX messages more like FTX messages. The participants
classified CPX messages as more succinct, precise, valuable and excited than
FTX messages. The mean rating for each scale is presented in Table 2. The 48
messages with their mean rating on each semantic differential scale are pre-
sented in Appendix A.
Table 2
4
Do you consider the following to be recognizable differences between CPX
and FTX messages?
4. Length of Transmission:
5. Vocabulary:
8. Completeness of Sentences:
9. Accuracy of Descriptions:
5
14. Will the speaker be more emotional in a CPX or FTX?
15. Will the speakers have a more varied vocabulary in an FTX or in a CPX?
16. Will the transmission contain more accurate information if from a CPX or
from a FTX?
17. Do you feel that the quality of training can be affected based on the
realism of radio transmissions that describe the battlefield to the Commander
and staff?
18. Have you ever participated at an opposing force exercise at the National
Training Center?
Response: Yes - 80.6%
No - 19.4%
20. Which environment, CPX or FTX, provides the best training for yourself?
21. Which environment, FTX or CPX, provides the best training for the battal-
ion staff?
6
22. The self-administered program you just completed is the initial phase of a
project to describe differences in communications between CPX and FTX. The
goal of the project is to provide more realistic training environments. Do you
think this self-administered message judgment program will show those differ-
ences?
23. I also wish to determine if there is a training difference between CPX and
FTX. I am going to use the differences in message traffic to describe that
difference. Do you think this program will help to identify the training dif-
ferences?
24. Is this type of research, determining differences between CPX and FTX
messages to improve training, beneficial to the Army?
The results of this study indicate that the participants could distinguish
CPX from FTX messages, but their accuracy was somewhat less than anticipated.
Although classification accuracy was significantly better for FTX messages than
for CPX messages, this could have been the result of a general FTX response
bias when in doubt about a message's true classification.
7
contain more accurate information than FTX messages. Additionally, they be-
lieve that CPX and FTX messages can be distinguished on the basis of vocabulary
and "tip-off" words.
In this example, the CPX simulation alert message was made more realistic by
adding uncertainty and vagueness. When the transformed version of this message
was presented to participants, 87% perceived it as a FTX message (Lussier, et
al 1989).
References
Solick, R. E., Liebhaber, M. J., Obermayer, R. V., Linville, J. M., and Ober-
mayer, A. H. (In preparation, 1989). Judging Samples of Command Post and
Field Training Exercise Messages (ARI Research Note 89-32). Alexandria,
VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
9
Appendix A
L 0
C14 C4 m0 0 -qu
co en -.
r.0 4 1
It 9% 0
0
C'4~~~ 01 M0~ 0
&4
-14 Ln Ln en co 0
en 10c
e%4 14'4 -4 0 0
W c
w0 0
U3 w 03w14 en~
W U3
-O W
V 14w
0A 0
cc w o - I
o 0 0~ l4 0
0) W~ -J0
0 10
0. Q)c 00
1w ~ ~~~~ 4 ad - .&
w~~~~- 0 o0 ) w
0 j =0 3t0
P0 . )A or "-44 U- 0 r. 0
&J)M4 a- 0 0 r. .jm
000 0- CL W Lj 04. M W .0
4j MO4 .0 14U
6) 0
0 0 ~0 ~*A. 0-a
b &A
9 000 W.0Hu 0H -4
0CL C' 0 -W w- a
wo
0 0 I- >. 0. 93 w- 4)
.c0 *1~ b0 0 0 r-L
0.0 v bo w0 (0OCl
0- c
. 1c , 0 -W- 4.) r. 0 4I 04. 44 0
I. a
0 0 0 00 &jo~0 I 0 d 6 00
CZ 4 jj
'00
0!0
cc 0~ uoC
01
0
M gal - c-io
is w 4J a
4) oU
ow
0t
-434 0
* * 0
0 4J4 U
m00
W
~C
-.
c
cc V
01)
0 L 0
0 ) L4AicJ In
0 %D 0U3 .0 0
co4 C 0
bo s 4T 0 'w
00
t4 0 a -404
be
4 ~~~ V-
cc 00 c:
00 0 1L A 0%
0 to 44 '4-' ca
1.-J V n
X4~ " 0 U0 14 .Co&f ..- Cc0
bo0. -r - U
>.0 a- ~ z -~.-4 & Li
to :1 4) > 4 0 00v0j.b
04 W 0 b .. 1sO0W I " bo "0.0
J- go W 4. 4 AJJLM'. 4 C 0.Z
0 X 4 r E0'.'0 Q.-( -) ..
410. Q#o a Lm o to~ " X
04 m~ 4.)0~iJ~ 0 CorJ
cc .04 0oO =O' "~. Li
0 LA ~ 4-1~
0 04 IA
0%
I
~0' A
NY* 0 A -
00
li 0
v4 IA C4
00 -tq
00
U~~~> '7a.C,
-T CIA. IAO.4 Go.
p..
0 0D 4)
o1 -4%
V z
7 - N 4) 4
r. U, u0b
44 0i m
£12
o 0 % . C oI
N u C:<u
A1 C;cot Nr
0 0 0 00
-4 Ln0
cc04 0 b a 00
) 6- 0
0
0r aJ I
-4 0
0 0. 4W0wr.v
bC0 Xa 0
Izi ;0% C). rL. Vi W
h
-H- to* -
jj=4 o0 0~ -J
ap0
4r Ar 41
0 j 1 = 0 ,, o Hb
. Hww I; V- O 0t
0
0 Ajt 0. .0a ,
w1 V.4 bo -j . O C -
". X I'-
w I0A *P 0 ; w oU
0 = $: 0z
0 0~.~ u 0A 4O r-
41
4). .v..U
V- 41 3L
4G),wa 0)
0
.* ;N
00
Q.001.4J 4.4 Z1 r4. wto b 410 w0
r v Uw A4
AU%4 ~0 A.) W 0
4tl aO Li -0 =0 .
0
41 >, -H
GO 00' 1 ag ZD- 0
(A
'
0
0 co
C4
-4
00-
0 ci
-4-
0 Go w
0
In 0
0_
0
U
00 0~
bO 0
0
w* w
0 ~
0 m 04
0I0
00n
1. 0 . L
r40 L
V4 "I4 b4 A 0 ' i v .9 0 0 C.)
4w r4 %
04 aa.w
0 to .0c
A4 c:V-
0~~~ as . C0
A- A* v) "- ) -a 0 4o
00 ", b W W P- 6j ti 1-400. .~ U
4,' 5st9- 4) ;0%
(a 04 P% CD 540
*o. "0A 3 w 0r 4,..4 0b
4) 4) 0. bo 0 to
aW U 4 a
44,~ 00 10q w.L:0"4'
00 0 4C-4I
w
4 04. w0 - (v o
-1 &A 0b4
04 0 U
c
M,,0
-
X: bd0- 00 -C 0.0
0
13 '
Appendix A
Cn r4 0 0%
4 cu Vcc
m 0
0~ .-
So t-.C'4 C4
00
0 n ox0
0!
CA
-t~( -4- I 4 d U
IV0
CA 02. 00
iJO '~, w
S 0
' ' 04 J
" 0 .c'
w00) 3.
0 4 . 4 .1
0 LM O
0 0
P. V.-4W-,
b 0
0
-4 n
a a 00 0o0g
U Uw I cc 1 wr 0
V4. C~~~~~ 4 N .. 0P2
-W W 4j A C
& ) 00..2e
Uj
LA W0 PO0
W f ='6 Cf o 0 0 -'w
4)0 .4-
W 2 8 W 0 N 8
0.
o0 %d 44" (2 -W0 lN
w o
0 (D w 0. 4 0
4W- o 0%0w u MU0
w" 00
0% * 0
en0(% 8
W2 CJ Wl
C4 C
*n
C4 C14mLM 0
%
0% 00 as
in
.0
.4 r44r eq w ~
ccJ m
w1 LfA 0-
0 4
C4 V
U37 w 00
C4 N 4
C.)a
41 00
0.c 04
0 . 0'N . - 0'-0-o
a0X
v 0~
V 0
0o41
0C
0 Ij C.
.4 (U cc %4t
0o .0 0 0
A 0 0
C) > -v
w X 0 u q W0
H Aj 'm 0 bD
C
co "a
a Hz 0 )w0
0 6 Ol% C V1 414z4 90
0 NI C4 - 4 L b1-
- =(. 0 c- w 01r_
X .~ ~ * j~ La >
t .)0
0eQ0 '0- * go0 -41J 4. 4
ad go
15 b~
Ujj
Appendix A
o -- 0% 7
0 Q
0 t 0
-4 - CIA C14 q ~
W 0 m,
Lr
-4~~~~ 7I % -
- C)I - 4 A~
C-
00. ~0
4) mU
916, U3.J
o 0 &4 C0 CJ
> -7i 0 CO
o '4 0
047 -7vs~i
1-
--
4 w 74 0
- wc co D t -H r '4 -H4
:X4,- :.0 - 00
W)4.) 4 i.. W
o 0 0 0 0 0
-4 L-A 00b
0j "o0w-r
VI :3 W 4 c wb
-.
DboX > .W
P4 LA V
W4o41,o>, l
0
Ad
0~~~~- >>v CO U
0 w0 04 X ) -n% 0
C cw0
a 4. . fA4
0
160%,
Appendix A
M% C14-
-f r! co
0 0
0%0
0I
0 cc
in 0C
0
10,70 co r-
CU 0 cc
0% 00 0 ~cO
00
"1d. 0 0
I Io
(UI
CO4
to 91 J -
0 0
to.0 )
> 0 (u
U C,4
A4 0 co 0 00
cc4 z'
.coc
0 to
00
m~.ou U)
.6 4) CL1-
c C 0 &J0
. '0 . 0) .,- 0
.00 V) 0
bo >a~ '4wt%*