2012ProgramGuide

Transcription

2012ProgramGuide

National Training and Simulation Association
THe world’s largest modeling & simulation event
I/ITSEC
Interservice/industry training,
simulation & education conference
The Power of Innovation, Enabling the Global Force
ch eck
o
t
e
r
Be su
fron t
e
h
t
in sid e
fo r
s
r
e
v
o
ck c
a n d ba
u id e
G
t
e
k
oc
you r P
D.
and C
December 3-6, 2012
program
Guide
u
w WW . II T SEC . ORG
u
Orlando, Florida
table of contents
Welcome & Introductions
Conference Welcome
2
Keynote Speakers
3
Conference Leadership
4
Interservice Executives
5
Principals & Advisor6
Agenda
Pre-Conference Agenda
Conference Agenda
Continuing Education Units
Orange County Convention Center Diagram
In Memoriam
7
8
13
14
16
Tutorials
Tutorial Grid
Tutorial Synopses & Schedule
17
18
Special Events
Special Events & Sessions
International Programs
Special Guests
31
44
45
Paper Sessions
Paper Session Grid
Papers/Authors Presentation Schedule
47
52
STEM STEM: National Security Workforce Initiative
Future Leaders • Students at I/ITSEC
America’s Teachers at I/ITSEC • Educators (techPATH)
Serious Games Showcase & Challenge
STEM Pavilion: Project Based Learning
I/ITSEC Scholarships
Post I/ITSEC Professional Development Workshops
Continuing Education Units
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
71
Exhibitors
Hall Happenings
2012 Exhibitors
73
76
Committees
Conference Committee • Council of Chairs
Program Subcommittees
Special Teams
81
82
84
Conference Information
Registration Information • Parking • Dress Code
85
Lodging86
Getting Around During I/ITSEC
87
Publications & Media
88
Association Sponsors
89
Safety & Security
90
Golf Tournament
91
See you next year!
I/ITSEC 2013 Save the Date
Call for Papers and Tutorials
Serious Games Showcase & Challenge
93
94
95
Abstract Book
97
T H e w o r l d ’ s l a r g e s t m o d e l i n g & s i m u l a t i o n e v e n t
1
Welcome
elcome Attendees of I/ITSEC 2012:
On behalf of the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps, this year’s Lead Services; our sponsoring organization,
the National Training and Simulation Association; the Service Executives and their Principals; and the 200+ volunteers
from the Navy, Marine Corps, Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Industry, and Academia, it
is my distinct honor and great pleasure to welcome you to the 2012 Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation & Education
Conference.
There can be no doubt that we “live in interesting times.” Widely believed to be of Chinese origin, the true intent of the
phrase, a blessing or a curse, is not as important as the enduring message it conveys – change makes life interesting. All can
agree that our recent history has been full of change and challenge. Our decade-long, globally deployed forces and all who
support them certainly understand the challenges. Recent I/ITSEC conferences reflected the importance of change in their
theme; change the way we train; change the way we fight; and change the way we think.
The I/ITSEC ‘12 theme, “The Power of Innovation, Enabling the Global Force” bridges the concepts of innovation and change.
This year’s theme recognizes the importance that innovation will play in sustaining current readiness while enabling future
capabilities that are critical to a geographically dispersed warfighting force while our nation continues to experience sustained
economic distress. The history of innovation is written by people who are willing to let go of the past and the familiar.
Innovation represents both opportunity and risk: innovation can allow us to do with less, an imperative in the current budget
environment, but can also emphasize technological solutions over other forms of innovation. Innovation requires thinking
about all that is new or can be improved; it requires a mindset that accepts change is not only unavoidable, but essential.
At this year’s Conference we showcase the best innovations our Industry, Academia, and Government partners have to
offer. The volunteer members of our six Subcommittees, the Tutorial Board and the Conference Committee have spent this
year finding the best papers (152), tutorials (23), special events (7), and special programs (such as Future Leaders Pavilion,
Serious Games Showcase, Warfighters’ Corner). Coupled with the over 500 exhibits featuring the latest technology, your visit
to I/ITSEC 2012 will enable you to see the needs of our warfighter and to learn just what innovation means to them.
Last, but certainly not least, I would like to express my thanks and appreciation to our dedicated volunteers and their
sponsors. Their commitment and support helped make I/ITSEC 2012 a reality and ensure this conference remains the premier
event in the world for sharing the latest innovations related to Training, Simulation and Education in support of our Global
Force. As you attend the events or walk the show floor over the next few days, please take a moment to thank the authors
and other volunteers who helped make this program a success.
The Power of
Innovation
Ronald Smits
I/ITSEC 2012 Program Chair
Enabling the
Global Force
2
2 0 1 2 i n t e r s e r v i c e / i n d u s t ry t r a i n i n g , s i m u l at i o n & e d u c at i o n c o n f e r e n c e
Keynote Speakers
O
Major General
Glenn M. Walters
Commanding
General, 2d Marine
Aircraft Wing
n May 24, 2012 Major General Glenn M. Walters assumed the duties as Commanding
General of the 2D Marine Aircraft Wing, MCAS Cherry Point, NC. A graduate of the
Citadel, General Walters has held command at all ranks from Lieutenant Colonel to Major
General.
General Walters’ command tours have included: HMT-303 from June 1997 to March 1999,
VMX-22 from August 2003 to August 2006, and 2d Marine Aircraft Wing (Forward) from
November 2010 to March of 2012. Additional operational tours have included HMA-169, 2
WETSPAC tours with HMM-265, Air Officer and Operations Officer with 1st Reconnaissance
Battalion, 1st Marine Division, and HMLA 169, 369. General Walters is a member of the
Society of Experimental Test Pilots.
General Walters’ staff assignments include tours with Aviation Plans and Programs
Division, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisition, Technology & Logistics,
Defense System, Land Warfare, where he was an Aviation Staff Specialist. In August 2006
Major General Walters was assigned as head of the Aviation Requirements Branch (APW)
in the Department of Aviation at HQMC. From January 2007 to April 2008, he served as
head of the Plans, Policy and Budget Branch (APP). In March 2008 he assumed the duties
of Assistant Deputy Commandant for Aviation. After his promotion to Brigadier General in
August 2008, he was assigned to the Joint Staff as Deputy Director J-8, DDRA.
M
Sharon Wolford
President & CEO
Carley Corporation
s. Sharon Wolford is President and CEO of Carley Corporation. She is responsible for
the high-level strategic direction of this training technology-based organization. She
is an expert in Instructional Systems Design, using virtually any media, with more than 25
years of experience applying adult learning theory to real world training needs.
Carley Corporation uses proven and emerging technologies to provide products within
the full spectrum of training system requirements. Carley’s training products include
motion simulators, web-based training, advanced electronic classrooms, and PC-based
virtual simulations for technical skills training and soft skills training. Customers include
all branches of the U.S. military, numerous Government agencies, and commercial clients.
In 2010, Ms. Wolford was recognized as one of the five top business owners within
Central Florida from over 300 candidates across a variety of fields. Carley Corporation
was also ranked number five among Central Florida modeling, simulation, and training
(MS&T) companies. Of those top 5 Central Florida MS&T companies, Carley was the only
small business.
In 2011, Ms. Wolford was nationally recognized by the National Defense Industrial
Association (NDIA) as the Kathleen P. Sridhar Small Business Executive of the Year. Ms.
Wolford was cited for her leadership and business acumen, as well as the fact that Carley
Corporation has been recognized by its peers for providing superior services to the Federal
Government. Ms. Wolford was also commended for her significant contributions to the
community.
Carley is headquartered in Orlando, Florida, and has grown substantially under Ms.
Wolford’s leadership: from three employees to more than two hundred. Prior to founding
Carley in 1991, Ms. Wolford began her career at a subsidiary of Northrop Grumman, as
a Training Analyst. Ms. Wolford has been an active member of NDIA for over 15 years
and has served on the NDIA Central FL Chapter Board of Directors since 2003. She has
a BA in Business Administration and Psychology and a Masters Degree in Industrial/
Organizational Psychology.
3
conference Leadership
Conference Chairs
Amy Motko
I/ITSEC 2012
Conference Chair
Amy Motko is the Vice President of Programs for Carley Corporation in Orlando, Florida. She is a
skilled Systems Engineer and Program Manager with over twenty-five years experience in a variety
of maintenance/operational training systems, and modeling and simulation systems for the Air
Force, Navy, Army, and Marine Corps. She has worked in the Defense Industry as a Payload Support Engineer, Systems/Software Engineer, Program Manager, Director of Advanced Programs for
Training Systems, and Assistant Vice President for Program Management. Amy has been an I/ITSEC
contributor and leader since 1989. She served as the I/ITSEC Program Chair in 2010, and was the
Chair of the Serious Games Showcase and Challenge from its inaugural year in 2006 through 2008.
Prior to that her service began on subcommittees, eventually serving as the Deputy and then Chair
of the Training Subcommittee. She is currently the President of the Central Florida Chapter of the
National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA) and is an active member of the National Training
and Simulation Association (NTSA) Executive and Small Business Committees, the Association of
the United States Army (AUSA), the Air Force Association (AFA), and the International Council on
Systems Engineering (INCOSE). Amy holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Engineering
from the University of Central Florida.
Ron Smits is currently the Director of the Readiness & Training Solutions Division for DRC. His
division is responsible for developing flexible, interactive training and support products that enhance
performance of mission essential operations. He has been working in the field of training and
readiness in both his civilian and military careers. A graduate of the Royal Military Academy (KMA)
of The Netherlands, Ron served as a Dutch Air Force Fighter Pilot, where he held positions such
as Chief, Wing Operations, F-16 Training Program Manager for Air Combat Command, and various
leadership positions at the Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training Program. He transitioned to the Training
Industry when he joined DRC and held assignments as Program Manager, Business Unit Manager,
and Division Director. Currently the Program Chair for I/ITSEC 2012, Ron has been active in I/ITSEC
since 1999, first as an author and exhibitor and subsequently as subcommittee member, chair, and
Special Events coordinator. He holds a BS from the KMA, an MA from Old Dominion University
and is a graduate of the Greater Boston Executive Program at MIT’s Sloan School of Management.
Ronald Smits
I/ITSEC 2012
Program Chair
Conference Sponsor
RADM James Robb,
USN (Ret.)
President,
National Training
and Simulation
Association
4
Following graduation from Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, designation as a
Naval Aviator and training in the F-14
Tomcat, Admiral Robb deployed nine
times across the globe accumulating over
5000 hours and 1000 carrier landings.
Following a tour flying Russian fighters
in the Nevada desert, he commanded
Fighter Squadron Fifty One, Carrier Air
Wing Nine, the Navy Fighter Weapons
School (TOPGUN), and Carrier Strike
Group Seven. As a Flag Officer he
managed all Naval Aviation Programs
(N980) and was the Director of Navy
Readiness (N43). Following 9/11, he
joined USCENTCOM as the Director
of Plans (J5) deploying to the Middle
East in support of combat operations.
Retiring in 2006, he built a successful
small consulting business before joining
the National Training and Simulation
Association as President in June 2012.
Lt Gen Lawrence
P. Farrell, Jr., USAF
(Ret.)
President,
National Defense
Industrial
Association
Prior to his retirement from the Air
Force in 1998, General Farrell served as
the Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and
Programs, Headquarters U.S. Air Force,
Washington, D.C. He was responsible for
planning, programming and manpower
activities within the corporate Air Force
and for integrating the Air Force’s future
plans and requirements to support
national security objectives and military
strategy. A command pilot with more than
3,000 flying hours, he flew 196 missions
in Southeast Asia, and commanded the
401st Tactical Fighter Wing, Torrejon Air
Base, Spain. He is a graduate of the Air
Force Academy with a BS in Engineering
and an MBA from Auburn University.
General Farrell became President of the
National Defense Industrial Association
in September of 2001.
executives
CAPT Steven D. Nakagawa, USN
Commanding Officer, Naval
Air Warfare Center, Training
Systems Division
Col Michael A. Coolican, USMC
Marine Corps Systems
Command PM Training
Systems
Service Executive (Lead Service)
CAPTain Steven D. Nakagawa, USN:
The Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division (NAWCTSD) is the Navy’s
principal center for modeling, simulation,
and training systems technologies. The
command provides training solutions and
research for a wide spectrum of military programs, including aviation, surface & undersea warfare, and other specialized requirements. Captain Nakagawa leads a workforce
of more than 1,000 scientists, evaluators,
engineers, technicians, logisticians, contracting specialists, and support personnel.
A Monterey, California native, and the son
of an A-6 Intruder Naval Aviator, he was
commissioned in 1986 through the Naval
Reserve Officer Training Corps program at
the University of Southern California (USC).
He was designated a Naval Flight Officer in
April 1988, and went on to fly in A-6 Intruders and EA-6B Prowlers. Additionally, Captain Nakagawa has more than 2,700 flight
hours in 23 different types of aircraft, with
652 carrier arrested landings. Captain Nakagawa served as the Executive Officer of
Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems
Division (NAWCTSD) for two years prior to
assuming command in June 2012. He has a
Master of Science Degree in Aviation Systems Management from the University of
Tennessee Space Institute and is a member
of the Defense Acquisition Corps.
Service Executive (Lead Service)
Colonel Michael A. Coolican,
USMC: As the Marine Corps Systems Command Program Manager for Training Systems, Colonel Coolican is responsible for
managing a workforce of over 150 personnel in the acquisition and sustainment of
training systems used throughout the Marine Corps. Colonel Coolican was commissioned in May 1988 through the NROTC
Program at Villanova University earning a
Bachelor of Science degree in mathematics. He holds a Masters in Military Studies
from the Marine Corps Command and Staff
College. He is Level III certified in Program
Management and a graduate of PMT-401.
Colonel Coolican served in three separate
Col Peter K. Eide, USAF
Chief, Simulators Division,
Air Force Materiel
Command
James T. Blake, Ph.D.
Program Executive Officer
for Simulation, Training
and Instrumentation
tours flying the AV-8B Harrier at MCAS
Cherry Point, NC from 1991 through 2005.
Colonel Coolican began his acquisition career in 1998 while assigned to the AV-8B
Harrier Program Office. He returned to the
acquisition community in 2005 at Marine
Corps Systems Command as the Product
Manager for the Combat Operations Center
program. After serving a year as a Professor
of Systems Acquisition at Defense Acquisition University teaching intermediate acquisition courses, he was reassigned to the
F-35 PEO where he served as the Program
Manager for Production. Prior to his current assignment he served as the Assistant
Deputy Commander, Systems Engineering,
Interoperability, Architectures and Technology at Marine Corps Systems Command.
Service Executive
Colonel Peter K. Eide, USAF: As Chief,
Simulators Division, Agile Combat Support
Directorate, Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Air Force Materiel Command,
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, Col
Pete Eide directs 300 employees in research,
acquisition and sustainment for more than
40 USAF and 10 foreign air force training
systems. Colonel Eide entered the Air Force
in 1989 as an AFROTC graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of
Engineering. As a career acquisition professional, Col Eide’s assignments have included Warner Robins Air Logistics Center, Air
Force Research Laboratory, Air Armament
Center, Office of the Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force for Acquisition, and the Aeronautical Systems Center. Before assuming
command of the Simulator Division, he
directed the C-130J and the MQ-9 aircraft
programs.
Service Executive
James T. Blake, Ph.D. is responsible for
simulation, training and test/instrumentation to support the U.S. Army. PEO STRI
manages $3 billion in programs with a
workforce of 1,200 employees. In addition
to his responsibilities as the PEO, Dr. Blake
is dual-hatted as the Head of Contracting
Activity authority. He oversees PEO STRI’s
Frank C. DiGiovanni
Director, Training
Readiness and Strategy
ODASD (Readiness)
Acquisition Center that manages approximately 1600 contracts valued at $22 billion. During his military career, Dr. Blake
conducted aviation operations in Vietnam.
He is a dual-rated Master Army Aviator. Dr.
Blake retired as an Army colonel serving as
the Senior Uniformed Army Scientist. Following his military career, Dr. Blake joined
the Simulation, Training and Instrumentation Command as the Program Manager for
the Institute for Creative Technologies. In
March 2003, Dr. Blake became a member
of the Senior Executive Service. Dr. Blake
holds level-three certifications in six acquisition career fields. In 2008, he received
the Presidential Rank Award for Meritorious Service. Dr. Blake is a graduate of the
U.S. Army War College and holds a Ph.D.
in Computer Science from Duke University.
Senior Advisor for Readiness and Training
Frank C. DiGiovanni serves as the Director, Training Readiness and Strategy, Office
of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Readiness). His responsibilities include
policy and oversight of military training
readiness and capability modernization. He
leads the Department’s $4.3B Combatant
Commander Exercise and Engagement and
Training Transformation, the sustainment
of military training ranges, the development
of Live, Virtual and Constructive Training
Standards and Architectures, the Advanced
Distributed Learning Initiative, the creation
of a “virtual world” training capability, and
ensures training is properly incorporated into
major acquisition programs. He also serves
as a senior DoD training member on the
Modeling and Simulation Steering Committee and collaborates with interagency partners to develop training strategy and policy
to ensure Government civilians and Service
members are better prepared to conduct
reconstruction and stabilization operations.
He oversees efforts and policies associated
with sustaining access to DoD’s land, air and
sea training space and for developing policy,
strategic communication and the research
agenda associated with energy infrastructure
and its impact on the ability of the Department to conduct readiness training activities.
5
Principals & Advisor
Service Principals
Gary Fraas
Navy
Director, Advanced Simulation,
Visual & Software Systems
Division, Naval Air Warfare Center
Training Systems Division
Martin Bushika
Marine Corps
Assistant Program Manager for
Program Management, Marine
Corps Systems Command, PM
Training Systems
Mark Adducchio
Air Force
Chief Engineer, Simulators
Division, Air Force Materiel
Command
Traci Jones
Army
PEO STRI Assistant Program
Executive Officer for Project
Support
OSD Principal
Education and Training Advisor
J. J. “Skip” Vibert
Associate Director,
Acquisition System Training Policy,
ODASD (Readiness)
6
VADM Al Harms, USN (Ret.)
Vice President for Strategy,
Marketing, Communications and
Admissions, and Special Assistant
to the President, University of
Central Florida
Agenda
The Power of
Innovation
Enabling the
Global Force
Pre-Conference Agenda
Wed n esd ay, 2 8 N ov e m b e r a n d T h u rd a y, 29 N ov e m b e r 2012
TIME
LOCATION
0730
Exhibitor Registration Open
1700
Exhibitor Registration Close
West Concourse &
Westwood Lobby Entrance
F ri d ay, 3 0 N ovem b e r a n d S a t u rd a y, 1 De c e m b e r 2012
TIME
LOCATION
0730
1800
Exhibitor Registration Close
West Concourse &
S u n d a y, 2 De c e m b e r 2012
TIME
LOCATION
0730
West Concourse &
1200
Conference Registration Open
West Concourse &
1200
All Satellite Registrations Open
Multiple Hotels
1800
All Registrations Close
Dress Code
Branch
Army
Marine Corps
Navy
Air Force
Coast Guard
Civilian
Conference and General Sessions
ACUs or Duty Uniform
Service “C”
Service Khaki , Summer White
or Navy Service Uniform
Short or Long Service Blues
Tropical Blue Long
Business attire
Banquet
Army Blue (Army Evening Mess optional)
Evening Dress (Dress Blue “B” or Service “A” optional)
Dinner Dress White (Service Dress White optional)
Service Dress Blue with tie and jacket (Mess Dress optional)
Black tie (optional)
Legend (the following may appear on this page). The number in parentheses following Paper Title is the ID tracking number.
 Nominated for Best Paper/Tutorial Award  Honorable Mention for Best Paper Award
 International Author h Healthcare-related Subject Matter
 Standards-related Subject Matter
 Game-related Subject Matter
 Continuing Education Units (see pg. 13)
$
Acquisition-related Subject Matter
7
Agenda
M ond a y, 3 De c e m b e r 2012
TIME
LOCATION
0700
Conference and Exhibit Registration Open
West Concourse &
0700
Multiple Hotels
0830 - 1000
Tutorials (Synopses begin on page 18) 
Conducting Quality Research in Operational Settings (1228)
Room W304A
Cognitive Neuroscience for Military Education and Training (1202) h
Room W304B
TENA/JMETC: Testing and Training Interoperability for the Global Force (1249)
Room W304E
Modeling and Simulation 101 (1212)
Room W307AB
Fundamentals of Modeling and Simulation (1239)
Room W307CD
Model Verification and Validation Methods (1209) 
Room W304F
Introduction to Cognitive Systems for Modeling and Simulation (1217)
Room W304G
Global Force Serious Gaming: History, Theory, Pedagogy, and Military Application (1242) 
Room W304H
1030 - 1200
Special Event: Modeling and Simulation Caucus (page 31)
Room W208ABC
1245 - 1415
Mobile and 3D/AR for Blended Simulation (1230) 
Room W304A
Simulated Biology in Virtual Reality Medical Education (1251) h
Room W304B
HLA 101: Introduction to High Level Architecture (HLA) (1208)
Room W304E
Export Controls 2012 – The Changing Landscape of International Simulation Business (1207) $
Room W307AB
Distributed Simulation Fundamentals (1246) 
Room W307CD
Simulation Concept Modeling – Theory and Application (1236)
Room W304F
Intelligent Tutoring Systems: Advanced Learning Technology for Enhancing Warfighter
Performance (1220)
Room W304G
Serious Communications for Serious Games (1259) 
Room W304H
8
$
Agenda
M ond a y, 3 De c e m b e r 2012
TIME
LOCATION
1300 - 1600
Special Session: European Training and Simulation Association (page 32)
Room W304C
1400
Exhibits Open
West Halls A1-B2
1430 - 1600
An Overview of HTML5 and Deciding When to Use It (1206)
Room W304A
Virtual Patients as Cognitive Task Trainers (1258) h
Room W304B
Distributed Interactive Simulation: The Basics (1244)
Room W304E
The New Certified Modeling and Simulation Professional Examination (1261)
Room W307AB
Process for Establishing Live, Virtual and Constructive Environments (1254) $
Room W307CD
HLA 201: What’s New in “HLA Evolved” (1215) 
Room W304F
Speech-based Interaction (1229) 
Room W304G
1800
Exhibits Close
1800
All Registration Stations Close
$
9
Agenda
Tu es d a y, 4 De c e m b e r 2012
TIME
LOCATION
0700
West Concourse &
0700
Multiple Hotels
0745
Pre-Ceremony Music
Central Florida VFW Musical Ensemble
The Peabody Hotel,
Windermere Ballroom
0830 - 1000
Opening Ceremonies
Peabody/Windermere
Call to Order
Presentation of Colors
National Anthem
Invocation
Opening Remarks
Amy Motko, Vice President of Programs, Carley Corporation
Keynote Addresses
Major General Glenn M. Walters, Commanding General, 2d Marine Aircraft Wing
Ms. Sharon Wolford, President & CEO, Carley Corporation
1000 - 1015
Break
1015 - 1200
Special Event: General/Flag Officer Panel (page 33)
Peabody/Windermere
1200 - 1330
Lunch (Opening of Exhibits and Lunch will occur at 1200 or upon adjournment of the General/
Flag Officer Panel)
West Hall B3 (Entry through
Main Exhibit Halls A1-B2)
1400 - 1530
Paper Sessions
(Title/Author List begins on page 52. Session schedules for this timeframe are on page 47.)
Rooms W304A-H
1400 - 1600
Special Event: B
etter Buying Power: Department of Defense Acquisition Executive
Perspectives (page 35)
Room W307ABCD
1530 - 1700
Special Event: Warfighters’ Corner (page 34)
Booth 3181
1530 - 1600
Break
1600 - 1730
Paper Sessions
Rooms W304A-H
1600 - 1730
Special Event: Ignite! (page 36)
Room W304C
1700 - 1830
Exhibitor Networking Event
West Halls A1-B2
1800
1830
Exhibits Close
10
$
Agenda
Wed n e s d a y, 5 De c e m b e r 2012
TIME
LOCATION
0700
West Concourse &
0830 - 1000
Paper Sessions
Rooms W304A-H
0830 - 1000
Special Event: Optimizing M&S for Law Enforcement Training: The Next Challenge (page 37)
Room W307AB
0930
Exhibits Open
West Halls A1-B2
1000 - 1030
Break
1030 - 1200
Paper Sessions
Rooms W304A-H
1030 - 1200
Special Event: Human Systems: An RDT&E Priority (page 38)
Room W307AB
1030 - 1200
Booth 3181
1030 - 1200
Special Paper Session: Best Papers – Policy, Standards, Management & Acquisition,
Emerging Concepts & Innovative Technologies, Training (page 41)
Room W304A
1200 - 1330
Lunch West Hall B3
1400 - 1530
Paper Sessions
Rooms W304A-H
1400 - 1530
Special Event: Cyber Security Training (page 39)
Room W307AB
1400 - 1530
Special Paper Session: B
est Papers – Human Performance, Education, Simulation (page 41)
Room W304A
1530 - 1600
Break
1600 - 1730
Paper Sessions
Rooms W304A-H
1600 - 1730
Special Event: Simulation for Real: Innovation in Healthcare Training and Education
(page 40)
Room W307AB
1600 - 1730
Special Event: Best Papers From Around the Globe (page 42) 
Room W304A
1800
Exhibits Close
1800
$
11
Agenda
Th u r s d a y, 6 De c e m b e r 2012
TIME
LOCATION
0700
West Concourse &
0830 - 1000
Paper Sessions
Rooms W304A-H
0930
Exhibits Open
West Halls A1-B2
1000 - 1030
Break
1030 - 1200
Paper Sessions
Rooms W304A-H
1030 - 1200
Booth 3181
1030 - 1200
Special Event: Supporting the Veteran of Tomorrow Through Medical M&S (page 43)
Room 307CD
1030 - 1200
Special session: Presentations from Future Leaders Pavilion (page 64)
Room W309A
1200 - 1330
Lunch West Hall B3
1300
Awards Ceremony: Serious Games Showcase & Challenge (page 66)
Warfighters’ Corner Stage
Booth 3181
1330 - 1500
Paper Sessions
Rooms 304A-H
1500
Exhibit Hall and Registration Close
1800
Hosted Reception sponsored by Lockheed Martin
1900
&
Reception
Awards
Peabody Orlando Hotel
Windermere Foyer
Conference Awards Banquet
Peabody Orlando Hotel
Windermere Ballroom
Dinner Music provided by Bob Dehne on the Vibraphones
Best Paper Award Presentation
Inv ite d
the Nav y Ban d
RADM Fred Lewis Postgraduate I/ITSEC Scholarship
Sou the ast Cer em onia l
b a n q u e t Ceremonial Music provided by The Navy Band Southeast (see page 51)
Ban d
Passing of the Flag for I/ITSEC 2013
F ri d a y, 7 De c e m b e r 2012
0800 - 1200
Post-I/ITSEC Professional Development Workshops (Synopses can be found on pages 67-68)
0800 - 1200
Live-Virtual-Constructive (LVC) Interoperability Techniques 
Room 202 A
0800 - 1200
Modeling & Simulation for Acquisition 
Room 202 B
0800 - 1200
Certified Modeling & Simulation Professional (CMSP) Exam Preparation 
Room 202 C
0800 - 1200
Serious Game Design Tutorial 
Room 203 B
0800 - 1200
Immersive Experience in Healthcare Simulation: Crisis Recognition and Response 
Room 203 C
12
$
continuing education units
Continuing Education Units: An I/ITSEC Opportunity
“CEUs are a convenient and efficient way
to keep track of my participation in
Who may attend the Sessions and who may receive
CEUs at I/ITSEC?
• Tutorials: Open to ALL ATTENDEES; only paid CONFERENCE
attendees may receive the CEU credits.
professional development activities.”
• Papers: paid CONFERENCE attendees may attend all
Paper Sessions and may receive the CEU credits for doing
so at no additional charge.
Continuing Education Units (CEU) were established in 1970
to create a unit of measurement to quantify continuing
education and training activities. CEUs apply to technical and
educational settings such as I/ITSEC. The primary focus of
I/ITSEC is to highlight innovative implementation of simulation
and education technologies as tools to achieve cost efficient
training and increased military readiness. Therefore CEUs are
offered for all Tutorials, selected Paper Sessions, and the Postconference Professional Development Workshops. CEUs are being
sponsored and maintained by the University of Central Florida,
Division of Continuing Education.
• Post-I/ITSEC Professional Development Workshops: Open to ALL.
Must register to attend and paid CONFERENCE attendees
may receive CEUs for doing so at no additional charge.
Why should I earn CEUs at I/ITSEC?
• Participation in the tutorials, papers and/or Post-conference
Workshops for CEU credit reinforces your commitment
to remain current in the evolving technologies relating to
training and simulation.
• The CEU transcript indicates your active participation in
the technical program of the conference to your employer.
• Previous attendees have indicated that CEUs have assisted
them in securing approval to attend the conference.
How do I receive CEUs at I/ITSEC?
1. Register as a paid Conference Attendee. This automatically triggers your eligibility for CEU.
2. Attend any Tutorial (all are CEU eligible) or any Paper
presentation marked by a book symbol ().
3. Attend the Post-I/ITSEC Professional Developmental
Workshops on Friday. These are half-day sessions on
various subjects. There is no additional fee to attend, but
participants need to register in advance. All workshops are
CEU eligible.
4. Within ten days of I/ITSEC, complete an on-line exam (four
questions for each Paper, ten for each Tutorial). A score
70% or better qualifies for CEU credit. There are no exams
for the Workshops.
5. Your CEU transcript will come to you via the University
of Central Florida, Division of Continuing Education. Ten
contact hours equate to one CEU credit.
Contact Maria Cherjovsky at (407) 882-0247 or [email protected] for additional information
Earning the CMSP designation will:
• Demonstrate expertise in the field of M&S to your
employer and the larger M&S community
• Provide opportunities for professional advancement
Requirements include 3-8 years of work experience
(depending on level of highest collegiate degree),
3 professional letters of reference, and successful
completion of an online examination.
The completion of CEUs has long been used to demonstrate
dedication and career interest to supervisors, employers or
rating officers. CEU credit is among the qualifiers accepted for
demonstrating professional growth for the Certified Modeling
and Simulation Professional renewal.
New in 2012: Select between CMSP-Technical
and CMSP-Management certification tracks!
To learn more about the requirements and to apply,
please visit www.simprofessional.org or contact
Patrick Rowe at [email protected].
13
Convention center
West Concourse
Orange County Convention Center, Orl ando, Florida
Note that the maps on these two pages show only the portion of the West Concourse used by I/ITSEC 2012 (Halls A1 through
B3). The full building contains Halls A through F.
Parking Information
West Concourse Parking Lot (available, but limited):
Regular Vehicles $13 per day • $8 after 5 PM
Oversized Vehicles (Box Trucks, RV’s and such) $25 per day • $16 after 5 PM
• Exhibitors are granted unlimited re-entry after purchasing a parking pass each day. Attendees must pay each and every
time they arrive on property.
• Overflow parking to the Rosen Centre and Rosen Plaza Hotel parking areas follow the same parking price structure per
an agreement with the OCCC.
• North and South Concourse Parking Lots are the same price structure.
Level 1
First Aid
Onsite Registration
Property Check
Lost & Found
14
I/ITSEC Shuttle Bus
Pick-up/Drop-off
Entrance/Exit
Self-Registration
Rosen Centre
Rosen Plaza
Hilton
Peabody
International & Media
Check-In
(Sunday - Tuesday)
Convention center
West Concourse
Orange County Convention Center, Orl ando, Florida
Note that the maps on these two pages show only the portion of the West Concourse used by I/ITSEC 2012 (Halls A1 through
B3). The full building contains Halls A through F.
Level 2
W202 W203 W204
A B CA B C A B C
W208
W209
W206
W205
W207
Exhibit Hall Entrances
Friday
Workshops
Internet Café
Internet Café
International
Pavilion
Media Rooms
Presentation Rooms
W304 A, B, E, F, G, H
Special Event
Rooms
W307AB
W307CD
A
B
C
D
W312
A
B
C
D
W311
A
B
C
D
W309 W310
A
B
C
D
W308
W307
E
F
G
H
W306
A
B
C
D
W304
W303
Level 3
Speaker Practice Rooms
15
In Memoriam
Col Walt Augustin, USMC (Ret), passed
away on April 16 at his home in Altamonte Springs, Florida. He was a
lifelong public servant who served in
the Senior Executive Service as the
Technical Director of Naval Air Warfare
Center Training Systems Division from
2007 until his death in April. Augustin
retired from military service in August
2007 at the rank of Colonel from his role
as the Marine Corps Program Manager
for Training Systems (PM TRASYS). As
the ranking officer at PMTRASYS, Col
Augustin also served as the I/ITSEC Executive for the Marine Corps. In 2006,
he received the Governor’s Award for
Modeling and Simulation, presented in
conjunction with the I/ITSEC Executive
Dinner, for his work with the Combined
Arms Command and Control Training
Upgrade System (CACCTUS).
A graduate of the Illinois Institute of
Technology, he earned three Master’s
Degrees (Naval Postgraduate School,
the Marine Corps War College, and
the National Defense University) and
a graduate certificate (San Diego State
University). He attended and taught
courses at the University of Central
Florida.
Walter H. Augustin was buried at Arlington National Cemetery with full
military honors.
16
CAPT Stanley Frank Bloyer, USN (Ret), died
in a small plane accident on March
15. His interest in experimental and
historical aircraft was as well known
and admired as his dedication to the
training community. Stan began flying
a Cessna 180 as a teenager, graduated
from the Culver Military Academy,
entered flight training upon graduation
from University of Tennessee, and
received his wings at NAS, Pensacola.
Stan amassed more than 5,000 civil
and military flight hours and 1,100
carrier arrested landings. His military
decorations include the Legion of
Merit, the Distinguished Flying Cross,
and the Air Medal (three individual and
18 strike/flight awards for his heroic
actions in combat).
Following his retirement in 1994,
he offered flight instruction in vintage
aircraft and flew a variety of former
military aircraft for government and
defense customers for test and training
purposes.
Louis “Ron” Johnson passed away March
1, 2012. A 24 year U.S. Army and
Vietnam Veteran was a Retired Chief
Warrant Officer. Ron was also a veteran
of the U.S. Air Force. He was honored
and proud of his service to his country.
Ron was one of the initial cadre of
personnel assigned to the U.S. Army
Project Manager for Training Devices
(PM TRADE) in Orlando where he
was the logistics engineer for most of
the Army flight simulators developed
during the 1970s and 1980s. He was
an active member of the training and
simulation community contributing to
the growth in Central Florida, and was
the Chair of the Interservice/Industry
Training Simulation and Education
Conference (I/ITSEC) in 2000. Ron
had a fantastic sense of humor, loved
to laugh and be in the company of his
family and friends.
Tutorials
The Power of
Innovation
Enabling the
Global Force
Tutorials
M on d a y, 3 De c e m b e r 2012
 All Tutorials are eligible for CEU credits. (See page 13) 
Open to all attendees.
I/ITSEC Tutorials are designed to serve three purposes:
• Provide foundational educational material, including material essential to prepare for Certification as a Modeling
and Simulation Professional (CMSP).
• Serve as a refresher and more advanced learning opportunity for those seeking to maintain their certification.
• Bring topics of special interest in Training, Simulation and Education to I/ITSEC attendees.
Tutori al s S c he du l e
Room
Track/Chair
0830 - 1000
1245 - 1415
1430 - 1600
w
304
a
Track 1
Dr. Mike Freeman
Conducting Quality Research in
Operational Settings (1228)
Mobile and 3D/AR for Blended
Simulation (1230) 
An Overview of HTML5 and
Deciding When to Use It (1206)
w
304
b
Track 2
David Milewski
Cognitive Neuroscience for
Military Education and Training
(1202) h
Simulated Biology in Virtual
Reality Medical Education
(1251) h
Virtual Patients as Cognitive Task
Trainers (1258) h
w
304
E
Track 3
Dr. Miguel Encarnacao
TENA/JMETC: Testing and
Training Interoperability for the
Global Force (1249)
HLA 101: Introduction to High
Level Architecture (HLA) (1208)
w
307
AB
Track 4
Dr. Tom Mastaglio
Modeling and Simulation 101
(1212)
Export Controls 2012 – The
Changing Landscape of
International Simulation Business
(1207) $
The New Certified Modeling
and Simulation Professional
Examination (1261)
W
307
cd
Track 5
Larry Skapin
Fundamentals of Modeling and
Simulation (1239)
Distributed Simulation
Fundamentals (1246) 
Process for Establishing Live,
Virtual and Constructive
Environments (1254) $
w
304
f
Track 6
Robert Lutz
Model Verification and Validation
Methods (1209) 
Simulation Concept Modeling –
Theory and Application (1236)
HLA 201 – What’s New in “HLA
Evolved” (1215) 
W
304
g
Track 7
Dr. Charles Cohen
Introduction to Cognitive
Systems for Modeling and
Simulation (1217)
Intelligent Tutoring Systems:
Advanced Learning Technology
for Enhancing Warfighter
Performance (1220)
Speech-based Interaction
(1229) 
W
304
h
Track 8
Dr. Katrina Ricci
Global Force Serious Gaming:
History, Theory, Pedagogy, and
Military Application (1242) 
Serious Communications for
Serious Games (1259) 
Distributed Interactive
Simulation: The Basics
(1244)
Legend (one or more of the following may appear on this page). The number in parentheses following Tutorial Title is the ID tracking number.
 Nominated for Best Tutorial Award  International Author h Healthcare-related Subject Matter
$ Acquisition-related Subject Matter
17
Tutorials
Quality research is critically important to military
training and can have a significant impact on decisions
about training resources and
Conducting
objectives. Quality research
Quality Research
can result in important advances that improve trainin Operational
ing and education, thus
Settings
improving the knowledge,
(1228)
skills and proficiency of our
warfighters. Although carefully controlled studies can
provide strong conclusions, they are often not feasible to
conduct in operational settings. Studies conducted in operational settings are subject to realistic constraints that limit
the amount of control. Rigorous research can be conducted
with careful consideration of constraints so that useful results can be obtained. This tutorial will review important
concepts related to the design and conduct of research with
a specific focus on operational constraints. Topics include
defining a research question and associated variables, measurement of variables, consideration of confounds, identifying and recruiting participants, and data analysis and interpretation. This tutorial is intended for anyone interested in
using research techniques to gather quality information in an
operational setting to inform decisions and affect change. No
research background or experience is required.
Trac k : 1
08 3 0 -1000
Roo m W304A
Presenters:
Lisa Scott Holt, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist with Lumir Research
Institute. Her research interests include the design of technology tools to
support learning and the design of interfaces based on an informationprocessing model of human cognition. She is also interested in assessment
methods and performance measurement to reveal what learners actually
know and are able to do with their knowledge. Recent projects include
an evaluation of the impact of a motion device on pilot performance in
a simulator, a study of F-16 pilot skill retention, and various capabilities
assessments of training simulators to define fidelity requirements. Dr.
Holt received her B.S. in Physics and Mathematics from Allegheny
College in 1991, and her Ph.D. in Cognitive Studies in Education from the
University of Pittsburgh in 2001.
While there has been major progress in understanding the brain, and its functions, these advances have
had a marginal impact on
Cognitive
education and training. The
Neuroscience for
objective of this tutorial is
to provide those working in
Military Education
military education and trainand Training
ing with a synopsis of key
(1202) h
findings and theoretical advances from cognitive neuroscience that have direct
bearing upon their profession. In some cases, this will entail
new insights into factors explaining human performance,
and in other cases, elucidate the mechanisms that underlie
accepted principles. Particular emphasis will be placed on
presenting materials in a manner that may be readily understood and applied by individuals with no formal training in
neuroscience.
Through this tutorial, participants will learn mechanisms
to achieve better student engagement, roles of implicit and
explicit learning, use of sensory experiences to enhance
learning, individual differences in cognitive function, factors
underlying effective collaboration and teamwork and emerging technologies using neuroscience measurement in training.
The tutorial should be of broad interest to those concerned
with education and training, ranging from developing training
programs and materials, providing instruction and assessment,
and creating enabling and supporting technologies.
Track: 2
0830- 1000
Roo m W304B
Presenter:
Chris Forsythe holds advanced degrees in cognitive psychology and
biopsychology, and is a Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff at
Sandia National Laboratories with over 20 years experience conducting
and managing human-systems engineering research in applied settings.
He has initiated and led a variety of projects developing and testing
concepts in operational neurosciences. Activities have also focused
on research to understand individual differences in cognitive function
and development of innovative training technologies. He has over 40
publications and 2 edited books in the fields of human factors, applied
neuroscience and human-machine systems.
Mark Schroeder, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist with Lumir Research
Institute and an Assistant Professor at the University of Wisconsin–
Whitewater in the Department of Educational Foundations. Dr.
Schroeder received his B.A. and M.A. in Philosophy from the University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee in 1996 and 2000 respectively, and his Ph.D.
in Urban Education/Educational Psychology from the University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee in 2007.
18
Tutorials
The Test and Training Enabling Architecture (TENA)
provides an advanced set of
Roo m W304E
interoperability software and
interfaces for use in joint disTENA/JMETC:
tributed testing and training.
Testing and
The TENA software includes
the TENA Middleware, a
Training
real-time,
Interoperability for high-performance,
low-latency
communicathe Global Force
tion infrastructure used by
training range instrumenta(1249)
tion software and tools during execution of a range training event. The standard TENA
Object Model provides data definitions for common range
entities and thus enables semantic interoperability among
training range applications. The TENA tools, utilities, and
gateways assist in creating and managing an integration of
range resources. The current version of the TENA Middleware, Release 6.0.3, is being used by the range community
for testing, training, evaluation, and feedback and is being
used in major exercises in the present.
The Joint Mission Environment Test Capability (JMETC)
program is chartered to create a persistent test and evaluation
capability throughout the US DOD. JMETC consists of a persistent network; a set of TENA-compliant software middleware,
interfaces, tools, and databases; and a process for creating
large distributed test events. The combination of TENA and
JMETC gives testers and trainers unprecedented power to craft
a joint distributed mission environment that meets testing and
training requirements to enable the global force.
This tutorial presents an overview of the fundamental parts
of the TENA architecture, how they function and how they
can be employed to create an effective, simulation-enabled
test environment. No prior knowledge is required; however,
familiarity with distributed simulation is helpful.
Trac k : 3
08 3 0 -1000
Presenter:
Edward T. Powell, Ph.D., is the lead architect for the Test and Training
Enabling Architecture. After receiving his Ph.D. in Astrophysics from
Princeton University, he worked for the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory performing simulation-based analysis. He moved to SAIC in
1994, and participated as lead architect in some of the most complex
distributed simulation programs in DoD, including the Joint Precision
Strike Demonstration (JPSD), the Synthetic Theater of War (STOW),
and the Joint Simulation System (JSIMS). He has been the lead architect
for TENA for eight years now, and is currently working on expanding
the applicability of TENA, and integrating multiple interoperability
architecture approaches using ontology-based systems.
Modeling and Simulation
Fundamentals: Identify key
M&S terms and concepts,
Roo m W307A B
and the budgetary considerations that govern M&S
Modeling and
development and applicaSimulation 101
tion, including requirements
clarification, and distinguish
(1212)
the defining characteristics
and associated challenges
of M&S applications within
the Communities enabled by
M&S. Understand the DoD
vision for the future of M&S. Gain a top-level awareness of
the various M&S programs in support of DoD mission requirements. Interoperability: Recognize the nature of HLA, TENA,
DIS and its relationship to general purpose architecture for
simulation reuse and interoperability. Representation: Recognize how the Natural Environment, Systems, and Human
and Organizational Behaviors are represented in M&S, and
the issues associated with each of these components of representation as they are employed in support of M&S requirements. Verification, Validation and Accreditation: Recognize
the critical role of VV&A in ensuring that M&S activities are
most effectively organized in support of all functional area
requirements. Modeling and Simulation Information Analysis Center (MSIAC): Recognize how the MSIAC operates and
supports access to a wide variety of M&S resources. Discuss
MSIAC role in support of the DoD M&S community in terms
of its functions, structure, and related processes.
This tutorial is an overview of the basics of M&S and how
they are implemented in DoD. It is ideally suited to new
members of the DoD M&S community.
Track: 4
0830- 1000
Presenter:
Larry R. Harris is the M.S. 101/MSSOC Program Manager/ Course
Director with his office in Alexandria, VA. He joined Alion Science and
Technology in January 2002 after a 20 year career in the Marines and
Army. He served in a variety of troop and staff assignments in the U.S.,
Philippines, Germany, Panama, and Korea. Larry has been involved in a
variety of projects since coming to work for Alion, and provides program
management for MSIAC’s M&S Education program where he updates M&S
education products and coordinates presentations with host organizations.
Larry is a lead instructor for the Acquisition M&S Workshop; M&S in Support
of the Research, Development, and Acquisition Process; M&S in Support of
Test and Evaluation; M&S Verification, Validation, and Accreditation; and
the Simulation Support Plan. Larry received a Bachelor of Arts degree in
Music and Mass Communication from Norfolk State University, Norfolk,
VA in 1984.
19
Tutorials
This tutorial has been designed by a team of subject
matter experts to prepare
attendees to understand the
scope of I/ITSEC presentaFundamentals
tions and demonstrations.
of Modeling and
It provides definitions of
widely-used technical terms,
Simulation
while explaining the range
(1239)
and types of models and
simulations that are commonly applied in the M&S
domain. The tutorial reviews
major simulation architectures (HLA, TENA, DIS), the basics
of instructional design, a description of the major standards
and best practices available for use across the M&S problem
space, and a brief presentation of resources that can provide
further information. The tutorial introduces topics that are
examined more extensively in other tutorials.
The tutorial is designed to be more technically focused than
DoD M&S 101 and is not as focused on DoD management and
implementation of M&S.
Trac k : 5
08 3 0 -1000
Roo m W307c d
Presenters:
James E. Coolahan, Ph.D., is a Program Manager for Modeling and
Simulation (M&S), and a National Security Studies Fellow, in the National
Security Analysis Department at the Johns Hopkins University Applied
Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL). He currently chairs the M&S Committee
of the Systems Engineering Division of the National Defense Industrial
Association, and teaches courses in M&S for Systems Engineering in the
JHU Engineering for Professionals M.S. program. He holds B.S. and M.S.
degrees in aerospace engineering from the University of Notre Dame and
the Catholic University of America, respectively, and M.S. and Ph.D.
degrees in computer science from JHU and the University of Maryland,
respectively.
S. K. Numrich, Ph.D., CMSP, holds an AB, M.A. and Ph.D. in physics
and worked as a research physicist at the Naval Research Laboratory
plying her trade in a variety of fields including underwater sound in the
Arctic (yes, aboard ship), fluid-structure interactions, parallel processing,
modeling and simulation and virtual reality. Upon leaving government
service, Dr. Numrich has joined IDA.
Robert Richbourg, Ph.D., is a member of the Research Staff in
the Joint Advanced Warfighting Division at the Institute for Defense
Analyses. He is a retired Army officer who earned his Ph.D. in Computer
Science in 1987. In his last active duty assignment, he was an Academy
Professor and Director of the Artificial Intelligence Center at the United
States Military Academy, West Point.
Verification and validation
are important essential prerequisites to the credible and
reliable use of a model. But
what are they exactly? What
Model Verification
are the differences between
and Validation
them? And most importantly, what methods and proMethods
cedures should be used to
(1209) 
perform them?
The tutorial’s first part motivates the need for V&V, provides definitions necessary
to their understanding by exaplaining why all V&V methods
can be understood as comparisons and how this informs their
application. The second part introduces a taxonomy of V&V
methods, defines categories of methods, and details two or
more methods from each category. Example applications of
each method are given. The third part examines longer case
studies of V&V in practice, showing how V&V methods have
been applied (or misapplied).
While there are technical details involved in case studies
and validation methodologies, the tutorial is suited to both
managers and technical experts responsible for the development and deployment of effective simulations.
Track: 6
0830- 1000
Roo m W304f
Presenter:
Mikel D. Petty, Ph.D., is Director of the University of Alabama in
Huntsville’s Center for Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis, Associate
Professor of Computer Science, and Research Professor of Industrial and
Systems Engineering and Engineering Management. Prior to joining UAH,
he was Chief Scientist at Old Dominion University’s Virginia Modeling,
Analysis, and Simulation Center and Assistant Director at the University
of Central Florida’s Institute for Simulation and Training. He received
a Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of Central Florida in
1997. Dr. Petty has worked in modeling and simulation research and
education since 1990 in areas that include simulation interoperability and
composability, human behavior modeling, verification and validation
methods, and applications of theory to simulation. He has published
over 165 research papers and has been awarded over $14 million in
research funding. He served on a National Research Council committee
on modeling and simulation, is a Certified Modeling and Simulation
Professional, and is an editor of the journals SIMULATION and Journal
of Defense Modeling and Simulation. At Old Dominion University he was
the dissertation advisor to the first and third students in the world to
receive Ph.D.s in Modeling and Simulation and is currently coordinator
of UAHuntsville’s M&S degree program.
20
Tutorials
We are seeing increasing requirements for autonomous
reasoning abilities across the
broad spectrum of modeling and simulation, as well
Introduction to
as in battlefield information
Cognitive Systems and control systems. Additionally, the knowledgefor Modeling and
based capabilities that have
Simulation
been developed and tested
(1217)
in simulation are migrating
to real-world entities. Cognitive and agent systems represent maturing computational approaches to intelligence
that can provide robust, scalable, and realistic intelligence.
This tutorial will provide an introduction to this approach,
concentrating on production system computation and highlevel design of human-like reasoning systems. We will draw
examples and comparisons from existing cognitive systems,
focusing on the tradeoffs inherent in different approaches
(including non-cognitive approaches).
The tutorial content does not require any specialized
knowledge, but some experience with software engineering or
behavior modeling might be helpful. Attendees will learn to
recognize problems that suggest cognitively-based solutions,
and they will be better able to assess risks, costs, and benefits
of different approaches. This tutorial is targeted toward developers who might be interested in cognitive approaches to
software engineering, as well as customers who have problems
that may be amenable to a cognitive approach.
Trac k : 7
08 3 0 -1000
Roo m W304g
Presenter:
Randolph M. Jones, Ph.D., Senior Artificial Intelligence Engineer
at SoarTech, is a leading developer of knowledge-rich intelligent
agent software. He has been principal investigator for a variety of the
company’s advanced R&D projects funded by ONR, ARI, DMSO, DARPA
and other DOD agencies. He has previously held teaching and research
positions at Colby College, the University of Michigan, the University of
Pittsburgh, and Carnegie Mellon University. His general areas of research
include computational models of human learning and problem solving,
executable psychological models, and automated intelligent entities for
training and entertainment systems. He earned a BS in Mathematics and
Computer Science at UCLA, and M.S. (1987) and Ph.D. (1989) degrees
from the Department of Information and Computer Science at the
University of California, Irvine.
Games and simulations have
great potential for supporting adaptive learning by
situating the learner in a “real-world” environment that
Global Force
enables learning in context.
Serious Gaming:
In military training and education game-based learning
History, Theory,
has gathered significant atPedagogy, and
tention as the gaming indusMilitary Application try has vaulted ahead of the
traditional simulation indus(1242) 
try in technological capability. This tutorial is aimed at I/ITSEC participants with interests in understanding how the use of serious games applies
to military training. This tutorial provides background in the
historical and pedagogical foundations of Serious Games
in training and education. A second section examines current applications of Serious Games across diverse domains
with emphasis on practical outcomes, findings, and lessons
learned. The final section presents techniques for identifying training suitable for Serious Games, applying a scientific
basis to Serious Games design, understanding potential cognitive and behavioral gains, and designing a successful experience within Serious Games military training applications.
Track: 8
0830- 1000
Roo m W304h
Presenters:
Elaine Raybourn, Ph.D., earned her doctorate in Intercultural
Communication with an emphasis in Human-Computer Interaction. She
has led computer game research in multi-role experiential learning, social
simulations, and designing training systems that stimulate intercultural
communication competence, and adaptive thinking. Currently Elaine is
on assignment from Sandia National Labs to the Advanced Distributed
Learning Initiative which where she leads research teams investigating
next generation learners’ cognitive adaptability and interactions with
future learning technology.
Curtis Conkey, Ph.D., deputy lead M&S Knowledge Management at
Missile Defense Agency, U.S. Army AMRDEC works as the lead for M&S
strategic execution focusing on VV&A or complex systems models related
to missile defense. His special interests include game based training,
mobile systems for LVC simulations, virtual worlds and immersive
simulations. His past work experience includes NAWCTSD, Lucent
Technologies and Bell Labs.
Peter Smith is the lead for emerging technologies at ADL where he
is responsible for research efforts in games, virtual worlds, and social
media. Peter has a background in serious games ranging from massively
multiplayer online games to small scale web games. Peter is currently
pursuing his Ph.D. in M&S at UCF.
21
Tutorials
Trac k : 1
12 4 5 -1415
Roo m W304A
Understanding the implications of a mobile workforce
is an important new dynamic, and new technologies are
arising to meet this chalMobile and 3D/
lenge. How can you develop
AR for Blended
simulations that can be used
on mobile devices or in a
Simulation
mobile context to the benefit
(1230) 
of your troops, associates,
or workers? The session will
demonstrate and elaborate
on the affordances of mobile
simulation for promoting learning and increasing human
performance — and focus on best practices for design, development, and strategy.
Mobile content is delivered (and user performance assessed) via channels such as e-mail, voice, text messages,
web, and mobile apps, on devices and platforms that are
ubiquitous and familiar. Emerging technologies such as mobile 3D and augmented reality are expanding the potential
applications of mobile simulation. In this session, you will:
see current government and military examples of how mobile
technology is being used for training and simulation; explore
key technological features and design characteristics unique
to mobile; and develop your own mobile strategy. The tutorial
will cover information necessary to build and implement a
cohesive design and development strategy for mobile training
and simulation and is intended for a broad audience – technical, instructional, and managerial. No pre-requisites required.
In the effort to make encounters in medical simulation more faithful to the patients being simulated, there
is always the desire to simuSimulated Biology
late the biology of a virtual
in Virtual Reality
patient. The two problems
Medical Education involved with this are first,
simulating human biology
(1251) h
for sake of the training scenario and second, making
biological changes apparent
to the simulation’s human
learner. Simulated biology generally refers to human physiology with emphasis on pharmacology and cardiovascular &
respiratory systems. Technologies that can simulate physiology include complex modeling systems, physiology engines,
complex state machines, simple state machines and kinetic
models. Each approach varies in complexity and fidelity.
Making biological changes apparent to the medical simulation’s learner is a challenge. It is difficult to show biological
changes through an on-screen avatar, although biological
sounds, flushing, pallor, respirations, secretions and behavior
are doable. The majority of biology that can be simulated
currently requires graphs and readouts. Given the limitation
in what can be perceived by learners with current systems,
lower fidelity systems that are easy to author are often preferable to complex approaches. Several technologically simple
methods are demonstrated that feature simple approaches to
simulated physiology.
Presenters:
Presenter:
David Metcalf, Ph.D., is a Senior Researcher at the University of
Central Florida’s Institute for Simulation and Training. Prior to founding
IST’s Mixed Emerging Technology Integration Lab (METIL), Dr. Metcalf
was Chief Learning Technologist at RWD Technologies and director of the
multimedia lab at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center. As a recognized expert
in the international field of mobile learning, he is a frequent invited
speaker and consultant on mobile learning best practices and served as
Conference Chair for mLearn 2009. Dr. Metcalf is the author of Blended
eLearning (2005) and mLearning (2006) and is co-editor of mHealth:
From Smartphones for Smart Systems (2012) published by the Health
Information Management Systems Society.
Thomas “Brett” Talbot, M.D., M.S., is founder and chief scientist of
the Armed Forces Simulation Institute for Medicine (AFSIM), a laboratory
of the Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center. Through
these efforts, Dr. Talbot has created the nation’s largest research and
development program focused on medical education. Impact areas include
live tissue/simulator comparative science, assessment and maintenance
of medical competency, game-based approaches to learning, virtual
reality rehabilitation, and virtual standardized patients for learning. He
researches medical virtual reality science at the USC Institute for Creative
Technologies. He is a veteran of the US Army with wartime experience
and was chief of academic computing for the US Army Medical Research
Institute of Chemical Defense (USAMRICD). Dr. Talbot has more than
15 years experience as a developer. As a pediatrician, scientist and
futurist, Dr. Talbot endeavors to create meaningful improvements that
will advance the state of the art in medical education and patient care.
He envisions a future where clinician education is a daily experience and
where technology is employed to better engage patients.
Angela Hamilton is a Researcher at the UCF Institute for
Simulation and Training. With an educational background in technical
communication, Ms. Hamilton has led mobile R&D projects and
authored strategy reports for government and industry leaders such as
DAU, Microsoft, and Johnson & Johnson. She also served as Academic
Coordinator for mLearn 2009.
Track: 2
1245- 1415
Roo m W304B
22
Tutorials
The High-Level Architecture (HLA) is the leading
international standard for
simulation
interoperability.
It
originated
in the deHLA 101:
fense communities but is
Introduction
increasingly used in other
domains. This tutorial gives
to High Level
Architecture (HLA) an introduction to the HLA
standard. It describes the
(1208)
requirements for interoperability, flexibility, composability and reuse and how
HLA meets them. The principles and terminology of an HLA
federation are given including some real world examples.
This tutorial is intended for all audiences; however, some
familiarity with basic principles of distributed computing
and distributed simulation will contribute to the participant’s
overall understanding of the material presented.
Trac k : 3
12 4 5 -1415
Roo m W304E
Presenter:
Katherine L. Morse, Ph.D., is a member of the Senior Professional
Staff at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. She
received her BS in Mathematics (1982), BA in Russian (1983), M.S. in
Computer Science (1986) from the University of Arizona, and M.S. (1995)
and Ph.D. (2000) in Information & Computer Science from the University
of California, Irvine. Dr. Morse has worked in the computer industry for
over 30 years, specializing in the areas of simulation, computer security,
compilers, operating systems, neural networks, speech recognition, image
processing, and engineering process development. Her Ph.D. dissertation
is on dynamic multicast grouping for data distribution management, a
field in which she is widely recognized as a foremost expert. Dr. Morse
was the 2007 winner of the IEEE Hans Karlsson Award. She is the chair
of the SISO Executive Committee.
This tutorial will focus on
the evolving requirements of
the U.S. export laws resulting from the ongoing Export
Export Controls 2012 Control Reform initiative
that has altered the play– The Changing
ing field for U.S. companies
with international business.
Landscape of
Whether a company is proInternational
viding a simulation solution
Simulation Business for the U.S. Government
abroad, supplying equip(1207) $
ment for a Foreign Military
Sale, or marketing to a prospective foreign customer, the U.S.
export laws impose far-reaching and often confusing requirements. U.S. Government enforcement efforts continue to increase with a focus on cutting-edge technology that provides
a military advantage, such as modeling and simulation, and
industry must be aware of the export requirements that govern their business and the coming changes to the export
laws. International joint ventures, subsidiaries and teaming
agreements, an increased focus on international markets resulting from U.S. defense cuts, and cooperative military efforts with allies have increased the interaction between U.S.
companies and the world, and most interactions in the simulation arena trigger some aspect of the U.S. export laws. Participants will understand the scope of the U.S. export laws,
anticipated changes, how the U.S. Government applies them
to the simulation industry, including controls on software,
hardware, services and activities at events such as I/ITSEC,
as well as strategies for ensuring compliance in commercial,
U.S. government and foreign contracts.
Track: 4
1245- 1415
Roo m W307A B
Presenter:
Jeremy Huffman is a Partner with Huffman Riley Kao PLLC, a
law firm specializing in assisting clients with export licensing and
compliance matters. The firm counsels defense and commercial clients,
including members of the modeling and simulation industry, in all areas
of export controls under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations,
Export Administration Regulations and Office of Foreign Assets Control
regulations, including: classification of products/services; licensing;
design and implementation of compliance programs; training; export
audits and investigations; and handling voluntary disclosures to the U.S.
Government.
23
Tutorials
Distributed simulation first
appeared in the 1960s with
the development of a twoplayer interactive computer
game. In the 1980s the DARDistributed
PA SIMNET program created
Simulation
the first virtual world for
military training by networkFundamentals
ing combat simulators. To(1246) 
day distributed simulations,
games, and virtual worlds
are used not only by the
military, but also by manufacturing, emergency management, and medical fields.
This tutorial will focus on fundamentals of distributed
simulation systems. It will start with a brief introduction,
followed by an overview of computer architectures and networks. Several industry standards have evolved that enable the
networking of simulations and games; these will be covered
along with their relevant design issues. The tutorial will end
with a discussion of the challenges in achieving simulation
interoperability.
The tutorial is intended for both simulation developers
and managers wanting more fundamental information on
distributed simulation.
Trac k : 5
12 4 5 -1415
Roo m W307c d
Presenter:
Margaret L. Loper, Ph.D., is the Chief Scientist for Georgia Tech
Research Institute’s Information & Communications Laboratory. Margaret
has twenty-seven years of experience in M&S. Her technical focus
is parallel and distributed simulation and she has contributed to the
areas of temporal synchronization, simulation testing, and simulation
communication protocols. She earned a Ph.D. in Computer Science from
the Georgia Institute of Technology, a M.S. in Computer Engineering from
the University of Central Florida, and a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from
Clemson University.
Simulation conceptual modeling is a critical step in
simulation development frequently overlooked in the
rush to demonstrate program
Simulation
progress. A simulation conConcept Modeling
ceptual model is an abstraction from either the existing
– Theory and
or a notional physical world
Application
that serves as a frame of ref(1236)
erence for further simulation
development by documenting simulation-independent
views of important entities and their key actions and interactions. A simulation conceptual model describes what the
simulation will represent, the assumptions limiting those
representations, and other capabilities needed to satisfy the
stakeholder’s requirements. It bridges between these requirements, and simulation design.
This tutorial will present the theory and application of
simulation conceptual modeling as documented during the
research done by the NATO MSG 058 and SISO SCM SG/SSG/
PDG. In addition, use cases that have been drawn from previous conference presentations will be presented to illustrate
how conceptual modeling has been performed. Additional
work is necessary to mature the state-of-the-art of simulation
conceptual modeling before a recommended practices guide
could be standardized. This tutorial has been created to continue the maturation of the simulation conceptual modeling
best practices.
Track: 6
1245- 1415
Roo m W304f
Presenter:
Jake Borah is a Senior Member of Technical Staff for AEgis Technologies
Group, Inc. He has been assigned as Project Manager or Technical Lead
on several projects that require a high degree of modeling and simulation
expertise and a capability to integrate leading edge technology into
ongoing processes. His most recent work has been for the Air Force
Modeling and Simulation Training Toolkit (AFMSTT). He has frequently
supported US and Canadian government sponsored military simulation
projects because of his mastery of the M&S technology, and expertise in
High Level Architecture federation development. He is a Charter Certified
Modeling and Simulation Professional (CMSP). He is a recognized expert
and a prominent member of the worldwide M&S community as reflected
by his contributions to the Simulation Interoperability and Standards
Organization (SISO) workshops and products. He graduated from the
United States Air Force Academy in 1974 and possesses a Master of
Aeronautical Science degree from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.
24
Tutorials
Trac k : 7
12 4 5 -1415
Roo m W304g
Intelligent Tutoring System
(ITS) technology provides
the means to expand the
educational capabilities of
simulation to include indiIntelligent
vidualized teaching without
Tutoring Systems:
the man-power required of
Advanced Learning individual human tutors or
observer/controllers.
SpeTechnology
cifically, an ITS can provide,
for Enhancing
to a student performing in a
simulated scenario, an auWarfighter
tomatic debriefing, tailored
Performance
remediation to address de(1220)
ficiencies observed in their
performance in the simulation, and automatic selection of
the best scenarios for that student to allow them to practice
their weakest areas. This tutorial provides an introduction to
ITSs and their benefit when combined with simulation. The
major components that constitute an ITS will be described.
The tutorial will also offer information on how to implement
intelligent tutoring system technology. Issues dealing with
integration with simulation will be addressed by explanation
and example.
The tutorial will utilize actual ITS examples to illustrate important concepts, including simulator/game integration demonstrating the synergies afforded by this union. Finally a live
demonstration will be conducted where a simple ITS will be
constructed and interfaced to a simulation, thus showing the
major authoring steps for an ITS. The tutorial will provide the
foundation to help simulator users and developers determine
how best to exploit the benefits of intelligent tutoring systems.
The tutorial is appropriate for managers and technologists.
Serious games have transitioned from a supplemental
military training tool to an
indispensable one, especially in this age of shrinkSerious
ing military budgets. While
Communications
serious games are an integral part of Live-Virtualfor Serious Games
Constructive (LVC) training,
(1259) 
they must provide the necessary modeling and simulation tools to interact with
higher-fidelity training devices and live assets. Many
serious games provide simulation interoperability for entities. However, networked voice and radio communication
is often overlooked or is an afterthought when integrating
with existing simulation systems. By enhancing communication simulation in LVC training, serious games can better
integrate with high-fidelity vehicle simulators and even liveassets, thus increasing training environment fidelity. In addition, communication protocols can be better leveraged in
After Action Review sessions for additional training benefit.
This tutorial will provide an overview of voice and radio
communication in traditional simulation environments and
compare this to the past and current state of in-game communications. Next we will discuss state-of-the-art communications for serious games and how to achieve better integration
with high-fidelity vehicle simulators and live training exercises.
Finally, this tutorial will present next generation communication training and integration within the LVC serious game
environment.
Presenter:
Presenter:
Dick Stottler has been working on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITSs)
for the military since 1993 and has managed a large number of tactical
ITS projects. His philosophy emphasizes the use of scenarios in training
simulations to provide an active learning-by-doing type of instruction.
Evaluations of student knowledge are performed automatically by the
ITS while the students are performing scenarios that are as realistic and
close to operational as possible. These ITS projects include the TAO
ITS for the Navy, an ITS that teaches principles of counter terrorism
intelligence analysis for the Army, the acoustic signal analysis ITS for the
Navy, an ITS that teaches tactics and operations for the Navy’s newest
anti-submarine helicopter, and many more. Additionally, Mr. Stottler has
taught numerous Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems courses. He
has experience as a classroom instructor as well.
Track: 8
1245- 1415
Roo m W304h
Ross H. Kukulinski is the Director of Product Development at
Advanced Simulation Technology, Inc. and has positioned himself on
the frontier of networked communication simulation. His team works to
develop innovative solutions for conventional military and commercial
training. Additionally, ASTi’s gaming product team builds COTS voice
communication and radio simulation for serious games. Prior to his
product development role, Ross worked as a project engineer, interfacing
with customers and gaining hands-on experience designing full-fidelity
sound and communication models for flight simulators. Now, Ross is
actively seeking new ways to bridge the gap between higher-fidelity
training systems and serious games in the LVC environment. Ross earned
his B.S. in Electrical and Computer Engineering with a concentration in
embedded real-time systems at Carnegie Mellon University.
25
Tutorials
This tutorial introduces
HTML5 as a technology for
developing interactive training and simulation content.
It provides an overview of
An Overview
the problems HTML5 is
of HTML5 and
meant to solve, implementation issues, and its feaDeciding When to
tures and uses. Real world
Use It
examples of HTML5 will be
(1206)
used to illustrate some of its
exciting capabilities such as
3D graphics, easy styling,
and interactions with web services. The tutorial will briefly
cover the history and marketplace realities of HTML5 as well
as tools and other resources that can be used to create and
maintain HTML5 content. The tutorial culminates with a decision rubric that managers and developers can use to determine the suitability of HTML5 for a project. This rubric considers programming, implementation, creative, and practical
aspects and enables planners to weigh all of these elements
when deciding if HTML5 is the right choice.
Trac k : 1
14 3 0 -1600
Roo m W304A
Presenters:
Robby Robson, Ph.D., is an internationally recognized innovator in
online learning and expert on learning technologies. He began developing
web-based learning content and learning management systems in 1995,
chaired the IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee from 2000
– 2008, led Department of Defense projects that explored the use of
emerging technologies such as XML for training and has designed several
authoring tools and learning management systems. Since 2003 he has
contributed to the theory and practice of reusable design for learning
content, starting with work for the National Science Digital Library. Dr.
Robson co-founded Eduworks in 2001 where he has guided research,
services and product development. He holds a doctorate in mathematics
from Stanford University and has held posts in both academia and
industry.
Virtual patient simulations
(screen-based clinical cases) have been described as
“cognitive task trainers” that
enable the acquisition of exVirtual Patients
pertise through deliberate
as Cognitive Task
practice. However, effectively designing virtual patients
Trainers
that meet specific training
(1258) h
goals requires knowledge of
the affordances of the technology and the ability to apply them appropriately.
Through interactive, guided discussion and hands-on skill
building, this tutorial will explore the methods, pedagogical
techniques and design considerations needed to author your
own effective virtual patient cases. As a group we will review
the optimal approaches to case writing and simulation building that enable your learners to engage in deliberate practice
and acquire expertise in any field. We will explore how virtual
patients can be used as assessment tools and how to blend
with other simulation modalities. Finally, as a group, we
will outline the necessary steps to get started creating your
own comprehensive, simulation-based, cognitive training
programs.
Track: 2
1430- 1600
Roo m W304B
Presenter:
James B. McGee, M.D., is the Assistant Dean for Medical Education
Technology, Director of the Laboratory for Educational Technology,
Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh School
of Medicine, and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Board for Decision
Simulation. He has over fifteen years of experience developing and using
virtual patients and other simulation-based learning techniques and has
led over one dozen workshops on virtual patient authoring world-wide.
Heather L. Jones is an experienced learning technologist and trainer.
Ms. Jones spent over three years supporting IT while serving in the
U.S. Army after which she started her own company specializing in
the development of interactive web content and delivering online and
instructor-led training. She is a Microsoft Certified Trainer who has
published training with Microsoft and provided training to the government
and private companies (Boeing, Wells Fargo, and Draper Labs). Heather
joined Eduworks Corporation in 2012 where she is Director of Customer
Solutions and has used HTML5 to design and develop an interactive
web application for instructional designers. She holds a BS in Business
Administration and MIS from the New York Institute of Technology.
26
Tutorials
The Distributed Interactive
Simulation (DIS) protocol is
an IEEE standard for binary
exchange of information in
military simulations. SimuDistributed
lation interoperability is
Interactive
based on a consistent overthe-wire format for informaSimulation: The
tion, agreed-upon constants
Basics
as enumeration values, and
(1244)
commonly agreed-upon semantics. Anyone can obtain
the IEEE-1278.x standard
and implement a compliant, interoperable DIS application
using a large variety of tools and codebases. DIS is especially
effective at physics-based entity-state updates and interactions between entities in large-scale virtual environments.
The open-source Open-DIS software library has implemented
the IEEE DIS Protocol using a common XML-based representation to auto generate matching API libraries in Java, C++,
C#, and Objective C. Automated Java export also creates JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) bindings. This tutorial further reports experimental results from piping DIS streams
using a variety of browser-based techniques. Performance is
excellent, often exceeding several hundred PDU packets per
second. Examples of Java applications are provided including varied 3D visualizations using WebGL and the Extensible
3D (X3D) Graphics international standard.
This tutorial is intended as a CEU-credit “DIS 101” short
course for software implementers.
Trac k : 3
14 3 0 -1600
Roo m W304E
Presenters:
Don McGregor is a research associate at the Naval Postgraduate
School. He holds a B.S. and M.S. in Industrial Engineering from Oregon
State University. He is the primary author and project leader of Open-DIS,
an open source implementation of the Distributed Interactive Simulation
protocol for C++, Java, Objective-C, C#, and Javascript. He has also
worked on simulation in high performance computing clusters, discrete
event simulation, large scale web-based games, and server-side system
infrastructure as well as with high speed networks and mobile device
applications.
Don Brutzman, Ph.D., is a computer scientist and Associate Professor
working in the Modeling Virtual Environments & Simulation (MOVES)
Institute at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey California USA. He
co-chairs the X3D Working Group and leads X3D technical development
efforts. Dr. Brutzman directs numerous research and development
projects as part of the Extensible Modeling and Simulation Framework
(XMSF).
The primary objective of the
tutorial is to familiarize the
attendee with the Modeling
and Simulation Professional
Certification Program. IndiThe New Certified
viduals enter the M&S field
Modeling and
from a number of different academic backgrounds.
Simulation
Through the process of
Professional
studying for the accrediting
Examination
examination and obtaining
certification, a professional
(1261)
in the M&S field is recognized as having mastered an understanding of simulation
spanning the multiple disciplines upon which it is based.
The certification examination has recently been restructured
and the program now offers dual track, one for management
and the other for technologists and developers. This presentation will describe the body of knowledge from which the
exam has been developed, outline the types of questions and
resources for study and what is involved in actually taking
the exam.
Certified M&S professionals who wish to maintain their
certification will also find out how that is done.
This tutorial is intended for all in the community who are
interested in their own professional development as a member
of a growing, multi-disciplinary community.
Track: 4
1430- 1600
Roo m W307A B
Presenter:
Mikel D. Petty, Ph.D., is Director of the University of Alabama in
Huntsville’s Center for Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis, Associate
Professor of Computer Science, and Research Professor of Industrial and
Systems Engineering and Engineering Management. Prior to joining UAH,
he was Chief Scientist at Old Dominion University’s Virginia Modeling,
Analysis, and Simulation Center and Assistant Director at the University
of Central Florida’s Institute for Simulation and Training. He received a
Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of Central Florida in 1997.
Dr. Petty has worked in modeling and simulation research and education
since 1990 and has published over 165 research papers. He served on a
National Research Council committee on modeling and simulation, is a
Certified Modeling and Simulation Professional, and is an editor of the
journals SIMULATION and Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation.
Dr. Petty has been an active participant in the body of knowledge that
provides the foundation for the M&S certification program and is one of
the developers of the certification examination.
27
Tutorials
Live, Virtual and Constructive (LVC) capabilities are
being used singularly or in
combination by a variety
of functional communities.
Process for
Many organizations have inEstablishing
tegrated select LVC simulation capabilities for various
Live, Virtual and
exercises and events within
Constructive
the training, testing, acquiEnvironments
sition, and analysis communities. With the increasing
(1254) $
cost of operating real world
systems, limitations in live environments and resource constraints organizations are pursuing the establishment of LVC
Environments to offset these challenges. Given the complexity and evolving technologies associated with establishing an
LVC Environment, managers require a systematic approach
that can compare and contrast the advantages and disadvantages of each component of the environment to achieve the
required fidelity for a given application. This tutorial will provide foundational training in the basic concepts and processes
of establishing a LVC Environment. Concepts and processes
will be provided that will allow managers to focus on those
areas required to ensure the LVC Environment is appropriate
for the required application. Information presented will provide managers with an approach to plan, design and establish
a LVC Environment through an integrated architecture.
Trac k : 5
14 3 0 -1600
Roo m W307c d
Presenter:
Edward J. Degnan, Ph.D., has worked Modeling and Simulation
(M&S) in the military, academia, industry and government. He holds
a doctorate in the field of Educational Leadership from the University
of Central Florida and an advanced degree in Industrial Management
from Lynchburg College. Dr. Degnan is retired from the military, where
he spent nine years working on design, applications and analysis of
interactive computer simulations for both the US Army and the US Air
Force. Currently, Dr. Degnan is the Division Chief for M&S Foundations
at the Air Force Agency for M&S. His division is responsible for the
establishment of an Integrated Architecture that supports the Air and
Space Live-Virtual-Constructive Environment (IA-ASLVCE) and for the
establishment of an AF M&S Workforce. IA-ASLVCE will ensure that the
AF standards and architectures are designed with interoperable standards,
protocols, and databases for simulations supporting acquisition, analysis,
experimentation, test and evaluation, planning and training both
internally to the USAF and externally to the Joint community, other
services, coalition partners, and other non DoD Agencies. In the area
of Workforce Development he is ensuring that AF warfighters have the
appropriate skills, experience, and training to exploit what LVC has to
offer.
This tutorial gives an overview of the new features
of High Level Architecture
(HLA) Evolved (IEEE STD
1516-2010) which is a suHLA 201:
perset of the previous HLA
What’s New in
standard. It describes the
new functionality and what
“HLA Evolved”
new capabilities it provides
(1215) 
to federations. It also gives
an overview of the open
standardization process behind this new version. Some
key new features include Modular FOMs, extended XML features, Fault Tolerance, Dynamic Link Compatibility, Encoding helpers, Web Services and Smart Update Rate Reduction.
A number of recent experiences in distributed training
applications are described, for example the NATO Education
and Training Network architecture and the recent US-Swedish
Viking 11 civil-military crisis management exercise.
Finally some approaches for migrating existing federations
to “HLA Evolved” are given, including notes on tool support.
An extensive list of in-depth reading is also provided.
While all are welcome, attendees with some technical
expertise in developing distributed simulations will benefit
most from this tutorial.
Track: 6
1430- 1600
Roo m W304f
Presenters:
BJÖRN MÖLLER is the vice president and co-founder of Pitch, the
leading supplier of tools for HLA 1516 and HLA 1.3. He leads the strategic
development of Pitch HLA products. He serves on several HLA standards
and working groups and has a wide international contact network in
simulation interoperability. He has twenty years of experience in high-tech
R&D companies, with an international profile in areas such as modeling
and simulation, artificial intelligence and Web-based collaboration. Björn
Möller holds an M.Sc. in Computer Science and Technology after studies
at Linköping University, Sweden, and Imperial College, London. He is
currently serving as the vice chairman of the SISO HLA Evolved Product
Support Group.
ROBERT LUTZ is a principal staff scientist at the Johns Hopkins
University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL) in Laurel, MD. He has
over 30 years of experience in the design, implementation, and evaluation
of M&S systems for military customers. Mr. Lutz has served in leadership
roles on numerous M&S standards initiatives, including the Object Model
Template (OMT) component to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE) 1516 High Level Architecture (HLA) standard and the
IEEE 1730 Distributed Simulation Engineering and Execution Process
(DSEEP) standard. He also serves as a regular guest lecturer in The Johns
Hopkins University (JHU) Whiting School of Engineering.
28
Tutorials
Recent developments have
enabled advanced interaction for many applications
in which users can more
realistically interact with
Speech-based
serious games in virtual enInteraction
vironments. Unfortunately,
mainly because of its com(1229) 
plex nature, allowing users to fully interact through
speech is a challenge for
machine processing, particularly in areas where the task
is unconstrained and performed under adverse conditions.
As such, speech has been often neglected as a modality that
can enhance the naturalness of interacting with virtual training systems. Furthermore, user-based evaluations of speech
interfaces are intrinsically difficult. However, recent research
brings hope that, despite these shortcomings, there are several interesting areas and approaches for research and development that could lead to improvements in the design and
implementation of training systems.
This tutorial will explain how Automatic Speech Recognition works; the challenges in enabling speech as a modality
for hands-free interaction; some usability issues in speechbased interaction systems; opportunities for researchers and
developers to enhance system interactivity by enabling speech,
and how to enable speech-based interaction within immersive,
mixed-reality environments.
The tutorial is intended for developers interested in implementing speech recognition in interactive applications, as well
as for researchers dedicated to developing methods and systems that allow humans to naturally interact with technology.
Trac k : 7
14 3 0 -1600
Roo m W304g
Presenters:
Cosmin Munteanu, Ph.D., is a Research Officer with the National
Research Council Canada, where he leads several research projects
exploring speech and natural language interaction for advanced learning
systems and mixed reality training simulators. His area of expertise is
at the intersection of Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) and HumanComputer Interaction (HCI), having extensively studied the human
factors of using imperfect speech recognition systems, and having
designed and evaluated systems that consider humans as an important
part of the ASR process. He has authored numerous publications in HCI,
ASR, and Computational Linguistics.
Gerald Penn, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Computer Science
at the University of Toronto, Canada, where he is conducting research
and publishing in Speech and Natural Language Processing. His area
of expertise is the computational and mathematical study of human
languages.
29
notes
30
Special Events
The Power of
Innovation
Enabling the
Global Force
special event
MOnday
3 December
1030-1200
Room W208abc
M&S Caucus Chairman
and Founder
J. Randy Forbes
Virginia 4th District
Congressional
M&S Event
Caucus Members
Select Members of Congress
will participate in this
I/ITSEC Special Event
Robert Aderholt
Alabama 4th District
Members of the Congressional M&S Caucus address the audience (above)
and visit the exhibit floor (below) in 2011.
Gus Bilirakis
Florida 9th District
Virginia Foxx
North Carolina 5th District
Todd Russell Platts
Pennsylvania 19th District
Vern Buchanan
Jim Gerlach
Bill Posey
Ken Calvert
California 44th District
Phil Gingrey
Georgia 11th District
Dutch Ruppersberger
Maryland 2nd District
John Carter
Texas 31st District
Martin Heinrich
New Mexico 1st District
Bobby Scott
Virginia 3rd District
Mike Conaway
Texas 11th District
Maurice Hinchey
New York 22nd District
John Sullivan
Oklahoma 1st District
Ander Crenshaw
Doug Lamborn
Colorado 5th District
Tim Walz
Minnesota 1st District
Mark Critz
Jim Matheson
Utah 2nd District
Joe Wilson
South Carolina 2nd District
Susan Davis
California 53rd District
Jeff Miller
Florida 1st District
Rob Wittman
Virginia 1st District
E
Sandra Adams
xtraordinary interest is expected for the 2012 I/ITSEC
Congressional M&S Event presentation in light of the fact
that the 2012 Presidential election will have been completed.
Regardless of the outcome, already there are concerns because of announced Defense cuts with across-the-board impact on programs. Technology-based training should retain
its critical role in the face of the looming cuts, but there remain uncertainties and much will depend on the makeup of
the U.S. Congress. The national interest in the benefits of
simulation will retain its intensity, even broadening its appeal as the expanding applications of simulation technology
are being experienced in other fields beyond military training. It is expected that the Members at I/ITSEC will have key
comments about the attitude of the Congress for programs
supporting M&S and how these can be supported by the M&S
Community. The most recent Capitol Hill M&S EXPO on June
28, 2012 further demonstrated the high level of interest and
support realized from Congressional members and their
staffs. Key to this I/ITSEC session will be audience questions
about expectations and timing to get on with not only the
legislative process but also industry’s response to the national needs.
31
special session
MOnday
3 December
1300-1600
Room W304C
European Training
and Simulation
Association
There will be a coffee
break during this
Special Session
Chairman and Principal Speaker:
Graham McIntyre
Chairman of ETSA and Director of Business
Strategy, Newman and Spurr Consultancy (UK)
F
ounded in 2004, ETSA, a British Community Interest Company (non-profit), has as its
mission to be a beacon of excellence in enabling its members to learn, engage, and
interact with European international training, modeling and simulation communities.
With a membership representing eight European countries ETSA provides a means by which
different elements of the European training and simulation community can cooperate to their
mutual benefit including representation to European institutions, governments, research
funders and operational users. The purpose of this Special Session is to inform as to who
ETSA is and what ETSA can do for your organization. NTSA has been cooperating very
closely with ETSA since its establishment, primarily in support to the ITEC event in Europe.
At I/ITSEC 2011 ETSA and NTSA signed a formal Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the
enhancement of training and simulation activities that will accrue to the benefit of industry
and government in both the USA and the European Union.
Do you want to know what is going on in Europe? Do you want to access a new market,
products, services and technologies? Do you need help to find a European partner for services
or products not currently available to you or a capability or technology which you currently
lack for your home market? Do you want assistance in bringing your products and services
to new markets? Below are listed specific country presentations to introduce you to some
possibilities:
Panelists by Country
ETSA Chairman McIntyre with
German LtGen Viereck at ITEC 2012
France
Jean-Louis Igarza
Deputy Chairman of ETSA, representing
Antycip Simulation
The Netherlands
Dr. Bert Boltjes, Jeroen Dezaire and Wim
Huiskamp
TNO
GERMANY
Colonel Hans Heinrich Matthies
Head of Development and Strategic Plans
Army Aviation
Stefan Klaes
Vice President Sales Management
Simulation and Training, Rheinmetall
UNITED KINGDOM
Lee Thomas
Head of Training Solutions Division, PDM
Training and Consultancy Division Ltd.
Paul Swinscoe
Director, Sales and Marketing EMEA,
Raytheon Professional Services GmbH
CAPT Rees, RN & RADM Lewis signing
ETSA/NTSA MOA at I/ITSEC 2011
ETSA Booth at
I/ITSEC 2011
32
special event
tuesday
4 December
1015-1200
Peabody hotel
Windermere Ballroom
General/Flag
Officer Panel
VADM Skinner
Dr. Junor
VADM Dunaway
Mr. Ormond
RADM Mehling
Mr. Solhan
Mr. Blackhurst
Panelists
Moderator
Vice Admiral W. Mark Skinner
Principal Military Deputy
to the Assistant Secretary
of the Navy (Research,
Development, and
Acquisition)
Laura J. Junor, Ph.D.
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Readiness
Vice Admiral David Dunaway, USN
Commander, Naval Air Systems Command
Dale A. Ormond, SES
Director, U.S. Army Research, Development
and Engineering Command
Rear Admiral Stephen E. Mehling, USCG
Commander of the Coast Guard Force
Readiness Command
George Solhan, SES
Director of the Expeditionary Maneuver
Warfare & Combating Terrorism
Department at the Office of Naval Research
Jack Blackhurst, SES
Director of the Human Effectiveness
Directorate, 711 Human Performance
Wing, Air Force Research Laboratory, and
also Acting Executive Director, Air Force
Research Lab
T
he I/ITSEC ‘12 theme, “The Power of Innovation, Enabling the Global
Force” recognizes the importance that innovation will play in sustaining current readiness while enabling future capabilities that are critical
to a geographically dispersed warfighting force while our nation continues to
experience sustained economic distress. This year’s panel is represented by
Senior General/Flag/Chief Technology Officers that are addressing this challenge today and leading the S&T/R&D initiatives of their Service and OSD
organizations. They will address these times of uncertainty from their unique
perspectives and will share their views on bringing innovation to the forefront. During the course of their discussions, they will address the challenges
and necessity of stimulating “out-of-the-box” thinking in order to achieve a
profound impact in transitioning from the Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom era, while maintaining a versatile and adaptable force
that can meet the challenges of tomorrow.
33
special event
Tuesday
4 December
1400-1600
Room W307ABCD
Better Buying
Power
Department of Defense
Acquisition Executive
Perspectives
Frank Kendall
Keynote Speaker
The Honorable Frank Kendall
Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition, Technology
and Logistics
Sean Stackley
Heidi Shyu
Lt Gen Charles R. Davis
Speakers
The Honorable Sean Stackley
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development &
Acquisition)
The Honorable Heidi Shyu
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and
Technology)
Lieutenant General Charles R. Davis
Military Deputy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force (Acquisition)
David Dunaway
Moderator
A
34
Vice Admiral David Dunaway, USN
Commander, Naval Air
Systems Command
s the Defense Acquisition Executive, Mr. Frank Kendall, Under Secretary of Defense,
Acquisition, Technology & Logistics, will address DoD Acquisition in terms of balancing
the warfighters’ requirements with the significant reduction in the budget. Mr. Kendall’s
opening remarks will be followed by the Service Acquisition Executives (SAEs) from the Army,
Navy and Air Force who will address improving the efficiencies and affordability of their respective
organizations by implementing Better Buying Power initiatives. These key Acquisition Leaders
will speak to the efficiencies derived from Better Buying Power initiatives and ongoing efforts to
reduce acquisition spending. This training
workshop will offer an in-depth focus on
a variety of relevant acquisition topics
designed to further enhance knowledge and
improve situational awareness.
This is an outstanding opportunity to
hear directly from DoD senior leaders on the
latest Acquisition, Technology and Logistics
(AT&L) challenges. Learn from subject matter experts on a variety of AT&L topics and
network with Military, Government and Industry acquisition professionals.
Who should attend? Government acquisition personnel, contracting officers, program and project managers, and technology
professionals as well as industry acquisition
professionals and executives.
Acquisition professionals may earn Continuous Learning Points by attending this
event.
special event
Tuesday
4 december
1530-1700
Moderator
Wednesday
5 december
1030-1200
s the Overseas Contingency Operations continue, Airmen, Soldiers, Sailors, Marines,
and Coast Guardsmen continue on duty in Afghanistan and other locations at home
and abroad. The resources of the United States government, our allies and Industry
are all committed to a positive outcome. The challenges facing our servicemen and women
can only increase in an era of declining defense budgets. Come learn how tomorrow’s training
systems/technologies can assist our Warfighters.
Warfighters’ Corner provides a forum for hearing the personal experiences of those
individuals who ultimately derive the greatest benefit from I/ITSEC and the organizations
that support this significant event. There will be a session each day of I/ITSEC featuring
servicemen and women recently returned from deployment. Service representatives will tell
their stories, their personal experiences, and present their views of what has or has not been
effective in terms of tactics, techniques and equipment related to their day-to-day operations
and training. Many of the speakers have served multiple tours in theater and have a sense of
perspective of important issues.
All Warfighters’ Corner sessions will have representatives of each of the Services at each
session. The presenters will discuss joint operations and also provide insights into the role
of allies, international organizations and private organizations in theater. The Wednesday
morning session will be attended by veterans groups from the local Florida area.
Don’t miss the opportunity to attend these sessions!
Thursday
6 December
1030-1200
Booth 3181
Warfighters’
Corner
DeLloyd Voorhees, Jr.
General Dynamics Information Technology
A
35
special event
Tuesday
4 december
1600-1730
Room W304C
Ignite!
I/ITSEC 2012
Moderator
John Aughey
The Boeing Company
Speakers
Rick Raymer
Senior Emerging Technologies Learning
Architect, Serco Inc.
Roger Smith, Ph.D.
Chief Technology Officer, Florida Hospital
Nicholson Center
J. Mark “Atis” Lozano
Principal, ATIS Consulting
Frank Boosman
Principal, Z Shift, Inc.
Howard Mall
VP of Engineering, Engineering & Computer
Simulations, Inc.
Douglas Whatley
Chief Executive Officer, BreakAway Games
Emily Duff Bartel
Associate, Booz Allen Hamilton
Come and hear industry experts speak on topics such as
Game Design, Robotic Surgery, Augmented Reality, and more.
H
ave you ever sat through a long presentation and
lamented that there were only five minutes of
content? Imagine if you could hear only that five
minutes of targeted, compelling, and maybe even provocative
content... that’s Ignite!
Ignite is a presentation format that allows dynamic, high
octane speakers a platform to share their passion and ideas.
I/ITSEC’s version of Ignite focuses on topics that are relevant
and thought-provoking, and which embody this year’s theme
of “The Power of Innovation, Enabling a Global Force.”
So bring your short attention span and prepare to be
inspired, entertained, educated and amazed by an array
of talented speakers. Seven presenters have been selected
from over 30 nominations, and each talk is jam-packed with
inspiration and information using 20 slides that auto-advance
every 15 seconds, creating a fun and dynamic event.
Five minutes, 20 slides. What would you say?
36
special event
wednesday
5 december
0830-1000
Room W307AB
Optimizing M&S for
Law Enforcement
Training: The Next
Challenge
Moderator
Michael R. Hanneld, SES
Assistant Director for
Training Innovation and
Management, Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center
(FLETC)
Participants
Connie L. Patrick, SES
Director, FLETC
Roger L. Brown
Assistant Commissioner Royal Canadian Mounted Police
(RCMP), Commanding Officer “Depot” Division
Dale Sheehan
Director, Police Training and Development, INTERPOL
Sandy Peavey
Assistant Director, Chief Information Officer, FLETC
T
he use of Modeling and Simulation (M&S) as a training enabler within the Department
of Defense has become readily accepted and relatively commonplace. It is easy to
fall into the trap and believe that other training communities have adopted the same
emerging technologies in the pursuit of their training objectives. But that would be a mistake!
Every community has enough differences in culture, politics, resources and requirements to
make the optimization of M&S a multi-faceted and varied challenge.
From across the globe, we have assembled the top leaders responsible for providing law
enforcement training to address this challenge. This special event is designed for you to hear
a global perspective on not only how M&S is being used to accomplish this vital training, but
the visions and challenges facing these similar but different training endeavors. Discussion
topics will include: today’s requirements for law enforcement training; strategies that are
being employed to meet those requirements; and challenges and lessons learned in the
realization of those strategies.
37
special event
Wednesday
5 december
1030-1200
Room W307AB
Human Systems:
An RDT&E Priority
Herb Bell
Moderator
Herbert Bell, Ph.D.
Technical Advisor,
Warfighter Readiness
Research Division, 711
Human Performance
Wing, Air Force Research
Laboratory
T
he Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (ASD(R&E)) has
identified a number of areas that are critical for enabling future military success.
One of these areas is Human Systems (HS). Because of its importance, ASD(R&E)
established a Priority Steering Council to review needs and identify science and technology
efforts involving human-machine interfaces and training that are critical to ensuring that
operators have the right equipment and training to accomplish their missions.
In order to successfully coordinate the development of HS technologies, a separate
Community of Interest (CoI) has been established with senior leaders from the Services
and industry. The HS CoI provides a vehicle for communicating and coordinating efforts
involving developing and transitioning technologies to meet the HS challenge.
Modeling, simulation, and training provide key technologies for successfully meeting the
HS challenge. The purpose of this panel is to provide the I/ITSEC audience an overview of
the importance DoD places on HS science and technology and Service-specific investments
for that area.
Following the presentations by the panel members, there will be an open question and
answer session.
Patrick Mason
John Tangney
Laurel Allender
Jack Blackhurst
Christopher Nemeth
Participants
Patrick Mason, Ph.D., Senior Executive Service, Director of the Human Performance, Training,
and BioSystems for ASD(R&E), will outline the priority for HS technologies within DoD and
how these technologies are being monitored within ASD(R&E).
John Tangney, Ph.D., Senior Executive Service, Director of Human and Bioengineering
Systems Division Office of Naval Research, will review and goals of the HS CoI and describe
HS science and technology priorities for the Navy.
Laurel Allender, Ph.D., Senior Executive Service, Director of the Human Research and
Engineering Directorate, Army Research Laboratory, and Jack Blackhurst, Senior Executive
Service, Director of Human Effectiveness Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory, will
provide an overview of HS science and technology priorities within the Army and Air Force.
Christopher Nemeth, Ph.D., CHFP, Principal Scientist III and Group Leader for Cognitive
Systems Engineering at Cognitive Solutions Division of Applied Research Associates will
describe how industry and academia can play a major role in helping to mature the HS
CoI, foster the exchange of information among participants, and help the Services develop
solutions that will enhance human performance.
38
special Session
wednesday
5 december
1030 - 1200
1400 - 1530
Room W304a
2012 Best Papers
I
/ITSEC has a long tradition of recognizing authors of exceptional papers as part of our
commitment to excellence. This year, we present two sessions featuring the outstanding
papers of each I/ITSEC 2012 Subcommittee. Each of the six I/ITSEC subcommittees
selected, through peer review, one of their submitted papers as the best, in addition to two
honorable mentions. These six best papers are this year grouped into two Best Paper sessions
as part of the selection process for I/ITSEC 2012’s Best Paper. A Best Paper Committee, with
representation of each of the Services, Industry, and each of the subcommittees scores each
subcommittee’s best paper on paper content, presentation content, and presentation delivery.
1030 - 1200 | Best Papers Session 1 | Best Papers – PSMA, ECIT, Training
Session Chair
Session Deputy
John Owen
NAWCTSD
Karen Williams
U.S. Army PEO STRI
Converging Simulation and C2: Improving Foundation Data Consistency and Affordability (12326) 
Policy, standards, management & acquisition Best Paper
Michael Hieb, C4I Center at George Mason University; Daniel T. Maxwell, KaDsci, LLC
A Subset of Mixed Simulations: Augmented Physical Simulations with Virtual Underlays (12077)
h
Emerging Concepts & Innovative Technologies Best Paper
Samsum Lampotang, Frank J. Bova, David E. Lizdas, Didier A. Rajon, William A. Friedman,
Albert R. Robinson III, Isaac Luria, Wilhelm K. Schwab, Nikolaus Gravenstein, University of
Florida
Archetypal Patterns of Life for Military Training Simulations (12193)  
Training Best Paper
Sae Schatz, Kathleen Bartlett, David Solina, MESH Solutions, LLC, a DSCI Company; J.T.
Folsom-Kovarik, Robert E. Wray, Soar Technology
1400 - 1530 | Best Papers Session 2 | Best Papers – HP, Education, Simulation
Session Chair
Session Deputy
Anne Sullivan
Marcorsyscom
pm Trasys
Benjamin Bell, Ph.D.
CHI Systems
Using Simulators to Measure Communication Latency Effects in Robotic Telesurgery (12237)   h
Human Performance Best Paper
Roger Smith, Ph.D., Florida Hospital Nicholson Center; Sanket Chauhan, M.D., University
of Minneapolis Medical School
Making Good Instructors Great: USMC Cognitive Readiness and Instructor Professionalization
Initiatives (12185) 
education Best Paper
Sae Schatz, Ph.D., Kathleen Bartlett, Nicole Burley, MESH Solutions, LLC, a DSCI Company;
Capt. David Dixon, Policy Management Branch, TECOM; Kenneth Knarr, Lt Col Karl
Gannon, Ground Combat Standards Branch, TECOM
Leveraging Technologies to Reverse Engineer a Helicopter for Simulator Development (12431) 
Simulation Best Paper
Steven J. Smith, Brad Torgler, FlightSafety International

Legend (one or more of the following may appear on this page). The number in parentheses following Paper Title is the ID tracking number.
 International Author Continuing Education Units (see pg. 13)
h Healthcare-related Subject Matter
39
special event
Wednesday
5 december
1400-1530
Room W307ab
Cyber Security
Training
Panel Chair:
Frank DiGiovanni
Director, Office of the Secretary of Defense
for Personnel & Readiness, Training
Readiness & Strategy
Panelists:
LtGen Jon M. Davis, USMC (invited)
Deputy Commander, United States Cyber
Command (USCYBERCOM)
Michael Wertheimer, Ph.D.
Director of Research, National Security
Agency
MAJ T.J. O’Connor, USA
Communications Officer, United States
Army Special Forces
Michael Papay, Ph.D.
Sector Vice President, Cyber Initiatives,
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Jeffrey Brown
Vice President and Chief Information
Security Officer, Raytheon
Kevin Mahaffey
Co-Founder and Chief Technical Officer,
Lookout Mobile Security
Do not be afraid of the next catastrophic cyber-attack;
be prepared.
Join veterans of the cyber battlefield as they share their
knowledge on how to win the ever-waging cyber war. These
pioneers were among the cadre defeating over 100,000 active
attacks in 2011. They defend against an insidious threat, a
threat which often takes advantage of the most elemental
security flaws to cause the most harm.
They need your help.
In November 2011, hackers compromised a state’s main water
pumping station. The attack took seconds, and the damage
would have been catastrophic, from poisoning millions of
people to shutting down the water supply for weeks. Securing
the controlling software would have taken five minutes’ effort.
Over 70% of U.S. power and water systems are remotely
controlled through similar software. Experts say that current
threats can take down these systems to the point where it
would take a generation to rebuild.
This is why cyber security training is critical.
The Cyber Security panel will cover these topics:
• Cyberspace threats which represent a clear and present
danger to every level of society.
• Which training tools will be critical? What’s missing?
• Cyber threat trends and insights
• Challenges to industry, academia, military and training
organizations
• Opportunities for collaboration among different disciplines
• How to go from reactive to proactive?
Panelists will share their ideas followed by an extended
question and answer period.
“[T]he potential in cyber to be able to cripple our power grid, to be able to cripple our government systems, to be
able to cripple our financial system would virtually paralyze this country.” Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense
40
special event
Wednesday
5 december
1600-1730
Room W307AB
Simulation for
Real: Innovation
in Healthcare
Training and
Education
Moderator:
Paul Phrampus, M.D.
President Elect, Society for Simulation in Healthcare, Director of the Peter
M. Winter Institute for Simulation, Education and Research (WISER),
Department of Anesthesiology University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine,
Associate Professor in the Departments of Emergency Medicine and
Anesthesiology
Panelists:
Deborah Sutherland, Ph.D.
CEO, Center for Advanced
Medical Learning and
Simulation (CAMLS),
Associate Vice President,
University of South Florida
Health and Associate Dean, Morsani College
of Medicine, Continuing Professional
Development
Mark Smith, M.D., Ph.D.
System Director of Simulation
and Innovation, Banner
Health System
Barbara Lee Bass, M.D., F.A.C.S.
Executive Director, Methodist
Institute for Technology,
Innovation and Education
(MITIE), Chairman of the
Department of Surgery at the
Methodist Hospital, Professor of Surgery
at the Weill Medical College of Cornell
University
Haru Okuda, M.D., F.A.C.E.P
National Medical Director,
Simulation Learning
Education and Research
Network (SimLEARN)
Program, Veterans Health
Administration, Department of Veterans
Affairs.
N
umerous studies have proven the education and training value of simulation in
medical and healthcare education. It is now becoming widely accepted in medical
education and training. These innovative leaders put the power of simulation to
work improving training, education and competency, increasing patient safety, and enhancing
training efficiency and effectiveness.
This exciting event will give attendees a sense of both the art of the practical and the
art of the possible, blending the applications of simulation and training with an integrated
multi-disciplinary focus on innovation, simulation technology, and processes to accomplish
their business, education and mission objectives. Each panelist is a leader and innovator in
the implementation of simulation, representing a cross section of civilian users in healthcare
from government, academia, and industry.
Attendees will learn about:
• What motivated these organizations to invest in medical simulation and establish
simulation-based training and education programs.
• The business and financial approach that makes them successful and sustainable.
• How they incorporate innovation in simulation and training development into their
programs.
• Opportunities for partnering with industry to develop and field advanced applications for
training and education.
41
special Session
wednesday
5 December
1600 - 1730
Room W304a
2 0 1 2
Best Papers From
Around the Globe
Coordinator and
Session Chair
Dr. John Huddlestone
Cranfield University, United
Kingdom
Deputy Chair
Dr. Denise Threlfall
L-3 D.P. Associates Inc.
Newport News, Virginia
United States
Integrating a New Technology into a Traditional Military
Organisation: How A 15th Century Philosopher Helped Change an
Engineering Culture
SimTecT 2012 Best Paper
Kevin Heveldt, Fleet Personnel and Training Organization,
Royal New Zealand Navy
Marine Engineering Synthetic Training Environment
Manager
Real Time Ray Tracing in Real Simulation Systems (Visualisation &
Display Technologies)
ITEC 2012 Excellence Award Winner
Simon Skinner, XPI Simulation Ltd.
Managing Director (United Kingdom)
TNA is Dead; Long Live the Training DLOD (Requirements to
Achieve V&V)
ITEC 2012 Excellence Award Winner
Lieutenant Commander Paul Pine, Royal Navy
RN TNA Lead (United Kingdom)
T
he Education Subcommittee continues its sponsorship of the “Best From Around the
Globe” session, featuring the papers judged as the best by the ITEC 2012 and SimTecT
2012 Conference. Bringing together the Best Papers from other premier simulation and
training conferences around the world, the Best from Around the Globe session highlights
work recognized in I/ITSEC’s sister conferences abroad. This year we feature Best Papers
from our sister conferences SimTecT, held annually in Australia and ITEC, held this year in
London.
42
12-1
Brus
Brus
special event
Thursday
6 december
1030 - 1200
Room W307CD
Continuity of
Care: Supporting
the Veteran of
Tomorrow Through
Medical M&S
Moderators
Beth Pettitt
Branch Chief, Medical Simulation Research
Simulation and Training Technology Center
Laure Veet
Ashley Fisher
Jennifer Arnold
Principal, Booz Allen Hamilton
Panelists
Women’s Health Simulation and Training:
Dr. Laure Veet, M.D.
Veterans Health Administration, Women’s
Health Program, Transformation 21
David Litteral
M
Manny Dominguez
Refresher/Reset Training
Command Sergeant Major David Litteral, USA
(Retired)
NREMT-Paramedic, Independent Medical
Simulation Consultant
Use of non-DOD Specific Medical
Simulations to Support Transition from
Wartime to Peacetime
Lieutenant Colonel Manny Dominguez, Ph.D.
Chief Information Officer, Air Force Medical
Modeling & Simulation Program
Rehabilitation Medicine Research
Ashley Fisher, M.A.
Resilience Portfolio Manager, TATRC,
USAMRMC
edical simulation provides unique opportunity
to impart significant improvements to healthcare
providers’ professional development, delivery of
patient care, quality, safety, and ultimately patient outcomes
across continuum from Warfighters within DoD to Veterans
receiving care from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).
This exciting special event will give the audience an
opportunity to hear from experts across the medical,
academic, government, and industry arenas on the present
use and future state of medical simulation. The audience
will have a unique opportunity to shape this event by posing
their questions at the beginning of the event.
The presentations will examine, compare, and contrast
how DoD, VHA, and the medical community are leverage
emerging M&S tools and capabilities to address emerging
needs including:
• Responding to a significant increase in women patients
and the need to ensure healthcare providers are trained
and proficient to meet these patients requirements
• Assisting military healthcare providers to transition from
trauma oriented to general medical cases and treatments
• Offering and delivering additional physical rehabilitation
treatments
• Leveraging military training-oriented technologies to
support medical training
• Providing vivid visual representation of technology use,
reuse, and repurpose
All attendees will gain a clear understanding of the:
• Strategic vision for medical simulation training,
highlighting the need for research and development
• Focus areas for medical simulation within both civilian
and military healthcare organizations
• Current usefulness of simulation in healthcare including
deficits
• Identified high risk patient issues that require medical
simulation training in the future
• Overall future requirements of medical simulation
We are once again pleased to announce an exciting bonus
to this premiere event titled, “Perimeter Patrol,” displaying
groundbreaking and novel solutions developed to meet the
broader medical simulation arena needs.
43
international programs
International Pavilion Room W205
International attendees can meet and connect with counterparts from
around the world. Limited private meeting space is available on a firstcome, first-served basis to our international participants and may be
scheduled at the International Pavilion’s Welcome Desk. Additional
information about the many international activities throughout I/ITSEC are readily available in the International Pavilion. Sponsored by
CAE.
International Registrants should register at the dedicated International Check-in station positioned near the Main Registration Desk on Level One, Hall AB Registration. International
Conference Attendees’ Meeting Bags will be available for pick-up at the Welcome Desk in the
International Pavilion. More information specific to international attendees will be available
at that location.
International Pavilion Hours of Operation
Sunday, 2 December
1400-1800
Monday, 3 December
0800-1830
Tuesday, 4 December
1030-1830
Wednesday, 5 December
0800-1600
Thursday, 6 December
0800-1530
Program Notes of Special Interest for International Attendees
Papers
Explore your Program for the  indicating Papers from International Authors.
Tutorials
Monday, 3 December | Room W304F 1430-1600
HLA 201 – “What’s New in “HLA Evolved”
Monday, 3 December | Room W304G 1430-1600
Speech-based Interaction
Special Events
Monday, 3 December | Room W304C 1300-1600
What Can the European Training and Simulation Association Do for Your Organization?
Wednesday, 5 December | Room W304A 1600-1730
Best Papers from Around the Globe
Check in the International Pavilion for information about the International Reception on
Wednesday evening.
44
special guests
Central Florida Veterans Organizations
The citizens of the United States are more supportive of today’s men and women in Military
Service than they have been since WWII. The Overseas Contingency Operations continue
to be of great concern to all, whether in uniform or not. This I/ITSEC effort is to especially
A veteran…is
someone who, at one
point in his or her
inform U.S. Veterans about the dramatic changes in training methodologies and systems
life, wrote a blank
since their time in Service. Since 2006, we have had the pleasure and honor to have select
check made payable
members of Central Florida Veterans Organizations visit the I/ITSEC exhibits. The successful
to “The United States
experiences in broadening the Veterans’ understanding of today’s training transformation
of America” for an
as well as the appreciation of the other I/ITSEC attendees in seeing the Veterans, some in
amount of “up to and
their uniforms and with their decorations, has made this an annual event for I/ITSEC.
including my life.”
When you see these Veterans, thank them for their service to the Nation.
45
notes
46
Papers
The Power of
Innovation
Enabling the
Global Force
Paper sessions
Tue s d ay, 4 d e c e mbe r
Room
Session/Chair
1400
1430
1500
W304A P1 Process This!
Tammy Clark
Improving Software Development
Cost Estimation Models (12222)
$
Robbing Peter to Pay Paul –
Raising the Bar for the Military
Modeling Irregular Warfare Demand Construction Process (12367) $
Signals (12272)
W304B EC1 Who, What, Where;
Dismounted Training
Solutions
Ray Pursel
Implementation of an Augmented
Reality System for Training
Dismounted Warfighters (12149)
Multi-Kinect Tracking for
Dismounted Soldier Training
(12378)
Urban Short Range Interaction: An
LVC Solution for Urban Operation
Training (12042)  
W304E S1 Electronic Attack: Cyber
and Countermeasures
Jerry Hendrix
Developing a Complex Simulation
Environment for Evaluating Cyber
Attacks (12248) 
Synthetic Cyber Environments for
Training and Exercising Cyberspace
Operations (12408)
Electronic Warfare (EW) Modeling
Support for RED FLAG Exercises
(12093)
W304F HP1 Training: HP Style
Jennifer Murphy
What are the Most Critical Skills
for Manned-Unmanned Teaming?
(12202) 
Digital Training and Interface
Lessons Learned from Operational
Use Patterns (12084)
End-User Tools for Multimedia
Annotation of Video Training
Demonstrations (12418) 
W304G T1 Pods, Flocks & Swarms:
Keep Your Boat Afloat
Ami Bolton, Ph.D.
Implementing Integrated LVC for
Naval Aviation Training (12073) 
Ballistic Missile Defense Fleet
Synthetic Training (FST) at Sea
(12241) 
Countering a Swarm Attack (12183)

W304H ED1 Mobile: The Rest of the
Story
Ramona Shires
Come On, Let’s Start Using Mobile
Learning (12092) 
Mobile Learning: Not Just Another
Delivery Method (12079)
How Do You Like Your Learning? E,
M, or C? (12424) 
1630
1700
Room
Session/Chair
1600
W304A P2 Aspects of Validation
Bob Wallace
Training Device Certification and
Accreditation Process (12360) 
Sustainment of Modeling and
Simulation Tools in the Defense
Environment (12323) 
Face Validation: From Concept to
Concrete Process
(12218) 
W304B EC2 United We Game
1st Lt Thomas Olaes, USAF
Simulation of Cooperative
Unmanned Systems Mission
Execution Using Fuzzy Logic
Networks (12213)
Social Networks Technology Supporting Civil-Military Cooperation
“The Benefits of Crowdsourced
Information (12299)  
Applying Gaming Principles
to Support Evidence-based
Instructional Design (12203) 
W304E S2 This Land is Your Land,
This Land is My Land
Larry Rieger
Missionland: The Creation of a
Virtual Continent for Mission
Simulation (12087) 
Easy Pattern-of-Life Generation
using Physical and Human Terrain
(12180) 
Dynamic Synthetic Environments
Through Run-Time
Modification of Source Data (12050)
W304F HP2 Ready, Aim, Assess
Ellen Menaker, Ph.D.
The IACE Assessment Model: An
Approach to Evaluating Simulation
Suitability (12035) 
Modifying Action Learning to
Increase Readiness (12311)
Automated Human Performance
Measurement: Data Availability and
Standards (12302)
W304G T2 Rethinking Immersive
Training
Liz Gehr, Ph.D.
Evaluating Immersion in Training
Environments (12046) 
Comparing Training Transfer
of Simulators: Desktop versus
Wearable Interfaces (12008) 
Enhancing Realism in Desktop
Interfaces for Dismounted Infantry
Simulation (12043)
W304H ED2 Get Smart: Reflect on
the Past to Build a Better
Future
Anne Sullivan
The Serious Games Showcase &
Challenge Distilled (12262) 
Sharing Learning Content: Beyond
the Technology (12293)
Smartphones, Data Collection and
Analysis: Lessons Learned from
Professional Sports (12296)
47
Paper sessions
W e d n e s d ay, 5 d e c e mbe r
Room
Session/Chair
0830
0900
0930
W304A P3 The Ends, Ways,
and Means of Software
Development: Cost
Estimating to Achieve ROI
Jan Drabczuk
Cracking the Code: Contracting for
Open Source Software (12104)
Maximizing U.S. Army Return
on Investment Utilizing Software
Product-Line Approach (12109)
Training Systems Acquisition for
Major Defense Programs (12147)
W304B EC3 Effective Computer
Based Modeling
Chip Bowlin
A Modular Framework to Support
the Authoring and Assessment of
Adaptive Computer-Based Tutoring
Systems (CBTS) (12017) 
Creating Adaptive Emotional
Experience during VE Training
(12101)
RADIS: Real Time Affective State
Detection and Induction System
(12196)
W304E S3 Virtually Faithful
Brian Holmes
To Believe or Not to Believe,
Fidelity is the Question (12425)
Combining Constructive Models
with a 3D Game for Enhanced
Immersion (12329) 
Virtual Locomotion Concepts and
Metrics Study: Experimentation and
Results (12236)
W304F HP3 Seeing is Believing
CDR Joseph Cohn, USN
On the Utility of Stereoscopic
Displays for Simulation Training
(12301)
Effects of Visual Interaction
Methods on Simulated Unmanned
Aircraft Operator Situational
Awareness (12435) 
Improving Naval Shiphandling
Training through Game Based
Learning (12271) 
W304G EC4 You Can Have All Three
(Faster, Better, Cheaper)
Steve Gordon, Ph.D.
Sideslip Misconceptions in
Helicopter Simulators (12432) 
Budget-Constrained Simulations
Using a Context-Interaction Model
and Crowdsourcing (12020)
FACT: An M&S Framework for
Systems Engineering (12115)
W304H ED3 Choosing Wisely
Susan Coleman, Ph.D.
Finding an Empirical Basis for
Personalizing Training (12186)
Live or Virtual Military Training?
Developing a Decision Algorithm
(12184) $
Use of Evidence-based Strategies
to Enhance the Extensibility of
Adaptive Tutoring Technologies
(12288)
Room
Session/Chair
1030
1100
1130
W304A BP1 Best Papers – PSMA,
ECIT, Training
John Owen, NAWCTSD
Converging Simulation and C2:
Improving Foundation Data
Consistency and Affordability
(12326) (PSMA)
A Subset of Mixed Simulations:
Augmented Physical Simulations
with Virtual Underlays (12077)
(ECIT)  h
Archetypal Patterns of Life for
Military Training Simulations
(12193) (Training) 
W304B EC5 New Ways of Looking at
Existing Capabilities
Jennifer Arnold
Evaluating Effectiveness in Virtual
Environments with MR Simulation
(12075)
Effective Learner Modeling for
Computer-Based Tutoring of
Cognitive and Affective Tasks
(12032)
Advanced Tools and Techniques for
Gateway Performance
Testing (12016)
W304E S4 Build It and They Will
Come
Mike Aldinger
Migrating Processor Architectures
for Simulation (12289)
You Can Handle the Truth:
Service Oriented Architecture Role
Simulation Architecture for Multiple in Air Force and Navy Common
Truth Engines (12198)
Trainer Initiatives (12192)
W304F HP4 Increasing Readiness
through Training
Effectiveness
Jim Threlfall
Enhancing Human Effectiveness
through Embedded Virtual
Simulation (12404) 
Quantification of Trainee Affective
and Cognitive State in Real-time
(12064) 
Measuring the Training
Effectiveness of Combat Lifesaver
Simulation Training Systems
(12098)  h
W304G T3 “Mobile”-izing Military
Training
Eliot Winer, Ph.D.
Not Just for Angry Birds, Practical
Training with Mobile Devices
(12150)
Automated Trend Analysis for
Navy-Carrier Landing Attempts
(12247) 
Applying Service Orientation to
the U.S. Army’s Common Training
Instrumentation Architecture
(12123)
W304H ED4 Moving Forward: Future
Concepts
Denise Stevens, Ed.D.
Rethinking the Role of the
Instructor: Teaching 21st Century
Learners (12148) h 
Transmedia Design for Education
and Training (12207)
What’s Wrong with this Picture?
Video-Annotation with ExpertModel Feedback as a Method of
Accelerating Novices’ Situation
Awareness (12422) 
48
Paper sessions
W e d n e s d ay, 5 d e c e mbe r
Room
Session/Chair
1400
1430
1500
W304A BP2 Best Papers – HP,
Education, Simulation
Anne Sullivan
Using Simulators to Measure
Communication Latency Effects
in Robotic Telesurgery (12237)
(HP) h
Making Good Instructors Great:
USMC Cognitive Readiness and
Instructor Professionalization
Initiatives (12185) (Education)
Leveraging Technologies to Reverse
Engineer a Helicopter for Simulator
Development (12431) (Simulation)

W304B EC6 Display Technologies
Stacy Pierce
Constant Resolution: A Disruptive
Technology for Simulator Visual
System Design (12030)
Beyond High Definition: Emerging
Display Technologies for the
Warfighter (12127)
Glass versus Film Mirrors for Wide
FOV Collimated Visual Displays
(12204)
W304E S5 Say What?
Matt Spruill
Bridging Live and Virtual Radios
Without Specialized Cross-Domain
Solutions (12259)
Modeling and Simulation for
Dynamic Spectrum Access (12386)
“Can You Hear Me Now?”
Understanding the Cosite
Interference Hurdle (12122) 
W304F EC7 Innovative Medical
Simulations: Reforming
Training & Treatment
Mary Trier
High Fidelity Physiological Model
for Immersive Simulation and
Training (12097) h
A Haptic Simulator for Training
Force Skill in Laparoscopic Surgery
(12228) h
W304G T4 Building the Training
Framework: The Right Tool
for the Right Job
Felicia Douglis
A Site Selection Methodology to
Optimize Task Training (12336)
Scientific Principles to Support
Rapid Scenario Development
(12334) 
Towards Adaptive Scenario
Management (ASM) (12080) 
W304H ED5 The Key to Assess
Jan Brown
S’cape from Formality: Embedded
and Automatic Assessments within
Simulation Games (12067) 
Planning Low Bandwidth
Assessments that Support
Curriculum Competencies (12130)
Simulation2Instruction: Using
Simulation in All Phases of
Instruction (12328)
Room
Session/Chair
1600
1630
1700
W304A ED6 Best Papers From
Around the Globe
John Huddlestone, Ph.D.
Integrating a New Technology into
a Traditional Military Organisation:
How A 15th Century Philosopher
Helped Change an Engineering
Culture 
Real Time Ray Tracing in Real
TNA is Dead; Long Live the
Simulation Systems (Visualisation & Training DLOD (Requirements to
Display Technologies) 
Achieve V&V) 
W304B EC8 Cyber
Robert Chapman
Adaptive Cyber Immunity Using a
Private Cloud (12065)
A Virtual Cyber Range for Cyber
Warfare Analysis and Training
(12211) 
W304E S6 Behind the Scenes
John “DZ” Dzenutis
Building Terrain Under the Tower of Geospatial Correlation Testing
Babel (12029) 
Framework and Toolset (12107)
THREADS…Tying Integration
Together (12004)
W304F S7 P“air”idigm Shift
Cathy Matthews
Applying Practices from Instructor
Applications to Creating Simulated
Avionics Displays (12120)
Lessons Learned During the
Implementation of Aerial Refueling
DMO (12283) 
Augmented Reality Training
Application for C-130 Aircrew
Training System (12197)
W304G T5 Reality Check: Virtual
Performance
Amy Jenison
Can UAS Training Be Done Without
Live Flight? (12307)
A Capabilities-Based Assessment
Tool for USMC Squad Immersive
Training (12124)
From a Submarine to a Virtual
Environment and Vice
Versa (12071)  
W304H ED7 Virtually There
Kristy Murray, Ed.D.
Can Role-Play with Virtual Humans
Teach Interpersonal Skills? (12318)

Performance-based Cross-cultural
Competence Assessment and
Training (12135) 
Designing Useful Virtual
Standardized Patient Encounters
(12354)
Cloud Simulation Infrastructure
– Delivering Simulation from the
Cloud (12343)
49
Paper sessions
Th urs d ay, 6 De c e mbe r
Room
Session/Chair
0830
0900
0930
W304A P4 Breaking Global
Boundaries
Rich Grohs
Establishing a Classified U.S.
Training Network Enclave
in Australia (12201) 
Simulation in Healthcare – What is
Holding Us Back? (12405)   h
W304B EC9 Improving Training
Realization through
Innovative Technologies
Tony DalSasso
Realistic Water Simulation for
Training Amphibious Vehicle Crews
(12167)  
Innovative, Reconfigurable UGV
Simulator to Support Anti-crisis
Operations (12173)
W304E S8 Better Bot Brains
Matt Kraus
Human Activity Modeling and
Simulation with High Biofidelity
(12038)
No More Zombies! High-Fidelity
Character Autonomy for Virtual
Small-Unit Training (12045)
Customizable Speech Centers
for Automated Entities within
Simulation (12094) 
W304F HP5 Expanding Human
Performance Horizons
Randy Crowe, Ph.D.
A Paradigm Shift in Cultural
Training: Culture-General
Characteristics of Culturally
Competent Forces (12011)
Using Virtual Environments to
Improve Real World Performance in
Combat Identification (12136)
No Compromise – An Innovative
Section 508 Approach Supporting
All Learners (12154)
W304G T6 Training to Total
Performance
Kevin Moore, Ph.D.
The Effects on Performance After
Combining Driving and Judgment
Simulation (12074)  
Crossing the Barrier: A Scalable
Simulator for Course of Fire
Training (12187) 
High Fidelity Ballistics and Gunner
Training as a Part of Integrated
Aircrew Training Simulators (12429)
W304H ED8 Get Rid of the Boxes:
Innovations in Medical
Training
Jake Aplanalp
T3 Pursuit: Triage, Transport, &
Training and Retention of Medical
Track Combat Health Support Board Skills (12335) h
Game (12066)  h
Room
Session/Chair
1030
1100
Progressive Tinnitus Management
Training: A Development Model for
Content Currency in a Field in Flux
(12169) h
1130
W304A P5 Standards—Bringing It
All Together
Roy Scrudder
Integrate vs. Interoperate; an Army
Training Use Case (12099) 
W304B EC10 Analytics in Training;
Input or Output
J. Mark “ATIS” Lozano
Broadening Quantitative Analysis of Simulation in Support of Army
Distributed Interactive Simulation
Structure Analysis (12088) 
with Data Mining Functionalities
(12039) 
Applying Semantic Analysis to
Training, Education, and Immersive
Learning (12151)
W304E S9 Accessible AI
Richard Boyd
Design Patterns for the
Configuration of Utility-Based AI
(12146)   
Achieving Modular AI through
Conceptual Abstractions (12401)

Modeling Cultural Behavior for
Military Virtual Training (12054)

W304F T7 Leading Others: Shift or
Sink
Suzy Sutton
Leader Emotion Management:
Design and Evaluation of a Training
Program (12031)
Future Training for Leaders in
Garrison during Expanded Dwell
Times (12214)
A Collaborative Effort: Serious
Game for Safety and Security
Education in the Netherlands
(12018)  
W304G T8 Training for Making
Decisions Outside “The Box”
Elaine Raybourn, Ph.D.
Framework for Training Adaptable
and Stress-Resilient Decision
Making (12229) 
The Dynamic Team Training
Experiment; Improving Tactical
Team Decision Making (12396) 

Cutting the Cords: Training
for Marshalling with Gesture
Technology (12044)
W304H ED9 Going the Distance
Janet Weisenford
Measuring Distance Learning
Workload: The Army Model for DL
Instructor Hours (12440)
Setting the Stage: Preparation
for Advanced Combat Profiling
Training (12063) 
Joint Continuum of eLearning:
Implementing Engaging, Effective,
and Meaningful Military E-Learning
(12138)
Coalition Battle Management
Services (CBMS) (12257) 
Information Assurance Impacts of
Mobile Architecture in a Training
System (12096)  
50
Paper sessions
Th urs d ay, 6 De c e mbe r
Room
Session/Chair
1330
1400
1430
W304B EC11 Practice Makes Perfect Adaptive Training for Visual Search
Maureen Bergondy-Wilhelm (12144)
Gesture and Brain Computing
Interfaces: Impacts on Next
Generation Learning (12028) 
W304E S10 Livin’ the Dream
Keith Biggers, Ph.D.
Developing Interoperable
Simulations through Conceptual
Modeling and Ontological Analysis
(12110) 
Embedded LVC Training: A
Distributed Training Architecture
for Live Platforms (12385)
OmniScribe – Enhancing AAR in an
LVC Environment (12119)
W304F EC12 Little Apps That Can
Anya Andrews, Ph.D.
The Next Generation of SCORM:
Innovation for the Global Force
(12114) 
A General Framework for
Developing Training Apps on
Android Devices (12006) 
Augmented Reality on Tablets
in Support of MRO Performance
(12358) 
W304G T9 CAUTION: Domain
Crossing Ahead
Heath Morton
Training Credibility in Cross
Domain Events (12188) 
Toward a Training Enterprise
Cross Domain Information Sharing
Solution (12206)
W304H ED10 Can You See Over the
Dashboard?
Chris Bryant
Demonstration of the Potential for
Simulators in Young Driver Training
(12009) 
User Interface as a Literacy –
Impact on Design (12057)
Application of Worked Examples to
Unmanned Vehicle Route Planning
(12292) 
&
Reception
Awards
T h u r s d ay E v e n i n g
banquet
at the Peabody Orlando Hotel
In vit e d
th e N a v y
B a n d So u
th e a s t C e r e m o n ia
l Band
Transportation: Buses will run to and from
all I/ITSEC hotels and the Peabody Hotel from 1730-2300.
51
Papers/Authors
Best Papers
BP1 | Wednesday, 5 D e c e m b e r | 1 0 3 0 | W 3 0 4A
B P 2 | We d n e s d ay, 5 De c e mbe r | 1400 | W 3 0 4 A
Best Papers – PSMA, ECIT, Training
Best Papers – HP, Education, Simulation
Session Chair: John Owen, NAWCTSD
Session Deputy: Karen Williams, U.S. Army PEO STRI
Converging Simulation and C2: Improving Foundation
Data Consistency and Affordability (12326) (PSMA)
 Michael Hieb, Ph.D., C4I Center at George Mason
University; Daniel T. Maxwell, Ph.D., KaDsci, LLC
A Subset of Mixed Simulations: Augmented Physical
Simulations with Virtual Underlays (12077) (ECIT)  
h Samsum Lampotang, Ph.D., Frank J. Bova, Ph.D., David
E. Lizdas, Didier A. Rajon, Ph.D., William A. Friedman,
M.D., Albert R. Robinson III, M.D., Isaac Luria, Wilhelm K.
Schwab, Nikolaus Gravenstein, M.D. University of Florida
Archetypal Patterns of Life for Military Training
Simulations (12193) (Training)   Sae Schatz, Ph.D.,
Kathleen Bartlett, David Solina, MESH Solutions, LLC, a
DSCI Company; J.T. Folsom-Kovarik, Ph.D., Robert E. Wray,
Soar Technology
Session Chair:Anne Sullivan, Marcorsyscom pm
Trasys
Session Deputy: Benjamin Bell, Ph.D., CHI Systems
Using Simulators to Measure Communication Latency
Effects in Robotic Telesurgery (12237) (HP)   h Roger
Smith, Ph.D., Florida Hospital Nicholson Center; Sanket
Chauhan, M.D., University of Minneapolis Medical School
Making Good Instructors Great: USMC Cognitive Readiness
and Instructor Professionalization Initiatives (12185)
(Education)  Sae Schatz, Ph.D., Kathleen Bartlett, Nicole
Burley, MESH Solutions, LLC, a DSCI Company; Capt. David
Dixon, Policy Management Branch, TECOM; Kenneth Knarr,
Lt Col Karl Gannon, Ground Combat Standards Branch,
TECOM
Leveraging Technologies to Reverse Engineer a Helicopter
for Simulator Development (12431) (Simulation)  
Steven J. Smith, Brad Torgler, FlightSafety International
Ed u c a tio n
The Best Paper for this category, Making Good Instructors Great: USMC Cognitive Readiness and Instructor
Professionalization Initiatives (12185), will be presented on Wednesday in Room W304A at 1400
ED1 | Tu esday, 4 D e c e m b e r | 1 4 0 0 | W 3 0 4 H
Mobile: The Rest of the Story
Session Chair:Ramona Shires, CACI-CMS Information
Systems, Inc.
Session Deputy:Trientje Tippens, Army Training Support
Center, CAC-T
Come On, Let’s Start Using Mobile Learning (12092) 
Cdr. Geir Isaksen, Norwegian Defence University
Mobile Learning: Not Just Another Delivery Method
(12079) Peter Berking, Serco, in support of the ADL Initiative;
Thomas Archibald, Ph.D., Jason Haag, The Tolliver Group,
in support of the ADL Initiative; Marcus Birtwhistle, Katmai
Support Services, in support of the ADL Initiative
How Do You Like Your Learning? E, M, or C? (12424) 
Rebecca McKeown, John Huddlestone, Ph.D., Cranfield
University
Simulations; Kent Gritton, Joint Training Integration &
Evaluation Center/NAWCTSD
Sharing Learning Content: Beyond the Technology (12293)
Damon Regan, Ph.D., Booz Allen Hamilton, in support
of the ADL Initiative; Thomas Archibald, Ph.D., The
Tolliver Group, Inc., in support of the ADL Initiative; David
Twitchell, Ph.D., Department of Veterans Affairs; Dean
Marvin, Katmai Support Services, in support of the ADL
Initiative
Smartphones, Data Collection and Analysis: Lessons
Learned from Professional Sports (12296) Jay F. Graser,
Gemini Technologies
E D3 | We d n e s d ay, 5 De c e mbe r | 0830 | W 3 0 4 H
Choosing Wisely
Session Chair:Susan Coleman, Ph.D., Intelligent Decision
Systems Inc.
Session Deputy: Kevin Cahill, Aero Simulation Inc.
ED2 | Tu esday, 4 D e c e m b e r | 1 6 0 0 | W 3 0 4 H
Finding an Empirical Basis for Personalizing Training
Get Smart: Reflect on the Past to Build a Better Future
(12186) Sara Elizabeth Gehr, Ph.D., Bruce M. Perrin,
Session Chair:Anne Sullivan, MARCORSYSCOM PM TRASYS Barbara J. Buck, The Boeing Company
Session Deputy: Ingo Cegla, U.S. Army PEO STRI
Live or Virtual Military Training? Developing a Decision
The Serious Games Showcase & Challenge Distilled
Algorithm (12184) $ Christina K. Curnow, Ph.D., Arthur
(12262)  Jennifer McNamara, BreakAway, Ltd.; Peter
Paddock, ICF International; Robert A. Wisher, Ph.D.,
Smith, Katmai Government Services in support of the
Independent Consultant; Frank C. DiGiovanni, Carl
ADL Initiative; Brent Smith, Engineering and Computer
Rosengrant, Office of the Secretary of Defense
 Nominated for Best Paper/Tutorial Award h Healthcare-related Subject Matter
52
 Honorable Mention for Best Paper Award
 International Author  Game-related Subject Matter
Continuing Education Units (see pg. 13)
Papers/Authors
Use of Evidence-based Strategies to Enhance the
Extensibility of Adaptive Tutoring Technologies (12288)
Benjamin Goldberg, Keith Brawner, Robert Sottilare, Ph.D.,
ARL-HRED; Ron Tarr, Deborah R. Billings, Ph.D., Naomi
Malone, Institute for Simulation & Training, UCF
ED4 | Wednesday, 5 D e c e m b e r | 1 0 3 0 | W 3 0 4H
Moving Forward: Future Concepts
Session Chair:Denise Stevens, Ed.D., General Dynamics
Information Technology
Session Deputy: Stu Armstrong, QinetiQ
Rethinking the Role of the Instructor: Teaching 21st
Century Learners (12148) h  Linda McGurn, Dynamics
Research Corporation; Mike Prevou, Ph.D., Strategic
Knowledge Solutions
Transmedia Design for Education and Training (12207)
Jennie Bottone, Katmai Government Services in support of
the ADL Initiative
What’s Wrong with this Picture? Video-Annotation with
Expert-Model Feedback as a Method of Accelerating
Novices’ Situation Awareness (12422)  Peter J. Fadde,
Ph.D., Southern Illinois University
ED5 | Wednesday, 5 D e c e m b e r | 1 4 0 0 | W 3 0 4H
The Key to Assess
Session Chair: Jan Brown, CAE USA
Session Deputy: Tam Huynh, USAJFKSWCS TLDE
S’cape from Formality: Embedded and Automatic
Assessments within Simulation Games (12067)  Jeffrey
A. Olsen, Brett E. Shelton, Ph.D., Utah State University
Planning Low Bandwidth Assessments that Support
Curriculum Competencies (12130) Karen E. Marcellas,
Ph.D., Dina Kurzweil, Concurrent Technologies
Corporation/Uniformed Services University of the Health
Sciences; Joseph Lopreiato, M.D., Ph.D., Justin T. Woodson,
M.D., Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
Simulation2Instruction: Using Simulation in All Phases of
Instruction (12328) Robert Wray, Ph.D., Soar Technology,
Inc.; Allen Munro, Ph.D., University of Southern California
ED6 | Wednesday, 5 D e c e m b e r | 1 6 0 0 | W 3 0 4A
Best Papers From Around the Globe
Session Chair:John Huddlestone, Ph.D., Cranfield
University
Session Deputy:Denise Threlfall, Ph.D., L-3 D.P. Associates
Inc.
Integrating a New Technology into a Traditional Military
Organisation: How A 15th Century Philosopher Helped
Change an Engineering Culture (SimTecT 2012 Best Paper)
 Kevin Heveldt, Fleet Personnel and Training Organization,
Royal New Zealand Navy
Real Time Ray Tracing in Real Simulation Systems
(Visualisation & Display Technologies) (ITEC 2012
Excellence Award Winner)  Simon Skinner, XPI
Simulation Ltd. (United Kingdom)
TNA is Dead; Long Live the Training DLOD (Requirements
to Achieve V&V) (ITEC 2012 Excellence Aw ard Winner)
 Lieutenant Commander Paul Pine, Royal Navy, RN TNA
Lead (United Kingdom)
E D7 | We d n e s d ay, 5 De c e mbe r | 1600 | W 3 0 4 H
Virtually There
Session Chair: Kristy Murray, Ed.D., ADL Initiative
Session Deputy: Capt Scott Ruppel, USAF, AFAMS
Can Role-Play with Virtual Humans Teach Interpersonal
Skills? (12318)  Matthew Jensen Hays, Ph.D., Julia
C. Campbell, Ph.D., Matthew A. Trimmer, University of
Southern California Institute for Creative Technologies;
Joshua C. Poore, Ph.D., Andrea K. Webb, Ph.D., Charles
Stark Draper Laboratory; Teresa K. King, Ph.D., Naval
Service Training Command
Performance-based Cross-cultural Competence Assessment
and Training (12135)  Edward Sims, Ph.D., Gerald Glover,
Ph.D., Harris Friedman, Ph.D., Vcom3D, Inc.; Elizabeth
Culhane, Ph.D., Michael Guest, Ph.D., Marinus Van Driel,
Ph.D., Dr. Richard Oliver Hope Human Relations Research
Center at DEOMI
Designing Useful Virtual Standardized Patient Encounters
(12354) Thomas B. Talbot, M.D., Kenji Sagae, Ph.D.,
Bruce John, Albert A. Rizzo, Ph.D., University of Southern
California Institute for Creative Technologies
E D8 | T h urs d ay, 6 De c e mbe r | 0830 | W3 0 4 H
Get Rid of the Boxes: Innovations in Medical Training
Session Chair: Jake Aplanalp, NAWCTSD
Session Deputy: Carla Cropper, Rockwell Collins
T3 Pursuit: Triage, Transport, & Track Combat Health
Support Board Game (12066)  h Justin Woodson, M.D.,
MPH, James Schwartz, Uniformed Services University;
Dina M. Kurzweil, Karen E. Marcellas, Ph.D., Concurrent
Technologies Corporation
Training and Retention of Medical Skills (12335) h Anna
Skinner, Corinna Lathan, Ph.D., P.E., AnthroTronix, Inc.;
Margaret Meadors, Marc Sebrechts, Ph.D., The Catholic
University of America
Progressive Tinnitus Management Training: A
Development Model for Content Currency in a Field in
Flux (12169) h David G. Twitchell, Ph.D., Russell L.
Bennett, Marisa Costagliola, Department of Veterans Affairs,
VHA/EES; Caroline J. Schmidt, Ph.D., VA Connecticut
Healthcare System; James A. Henry, Ph.D., Tara L. Zaugg,
Au.D., Department of Veterans Affairs, NCRAR; Paula
Myers, Ph.D., James A Haley VA Hospital
53
Papers/Authors
ED9 | Thu r sday, 6 D e c e m b e r | 1 0 3 0 | W 3 0 4H
E D10 | T h urs d ay, 6 De c e mbe r | 1330 | W 3 0 4 H
Going the Distance
Can You See Over the Dashboard?
Session Chair: Janet Weisenford, ICF International
Session Deputy: Robert Dixon, U.S. Army PEO STRI
Measuring Distance Learning Workload: The Army Model
for DL Instructor Hours (12440) Peggy L. Kenyon, Linda A.
Summerlin, The Army Distributed Learning Program
Setting the Stage: Preparation for Advanced Combat
Profiling Training (12063)  Gian Colombo, Rhianon
Dolletski-Lazar, Matt Coxe, Ron Tarr, Institute for Simulation
and Training, UCF
Joint Continuum of eLearning: Implementing Engaging,
Effective, and Meaningful Military E-Learning (12138)
David T. Fautua, Ph.D., Join Staff, J7, Joint & Coalition
Warfighting; Sae Schatz, Ph.D., John Killilea, MESH
Solutions, LLC, a DSCI Company; Emilie Reitz, General
Dynamics Information Technology
Session Chair: Chris Bryant, Kratos Training Solutions
Session Deputy:Robert Snyder, CACI-CMS Information
Systems, Inc.
Demonstration of the Potential for Simulators in Young
Driver Training (12009)  Kevin F. Hulme, Ph.D., Ian
Duncan, Anand Abraham, Jacob Deutsch, NYSCEDII
University at Buffalo
User Interface as a Literacy – Impact on Design (12057)
Andy Johnson, Problem Solutions, in support of the ADL
Initiative
Application of Worked Examples to Unmanned Vehicle
Route Planning (12292)  Patricia L. McDermott, Thomas
F. Carolan, Ph.D., Mark R. Gronowski, Alion Science and
Technology
E m e r gi n g Co n c e pt s & I n n ov a tiv e T e c h n ologi e s
The Best Pa per for this category, A Subset of Mixed Simulations: Augmented Physical Simulations
with Virtual Underlays (12077), will be presented on Wednesday in Room W304A at 1030
EC1 | Tu esday, 4 D e c e m b e r | 1 4 0 0 | W 3 0 4 B
Who, What, Where; Dismounted Training Solutions
Session Chair:Ray Pursel, Marine Corps Warfighting
Laboratory
Session Deputy: Todd Glenn, FAAC Inc.
Implementation of an Augmented Reality System for
Training Dismounted Warfighters (12149) Rakesh Kumar,
Ph.D., S. Samarasekera, A. Chaudhry, Zhiwei Zhu, Ph.D.,
Han-Pang Chiu, Taragay Oskiper, Ryan Villamil, Vlad
Branzoi, Raia Hadsell, SRI International Sarnoff; Eugene Ray
Pursel, Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory; Frank Dean,
Pat Garrity, ARL-HRED-STTC
Multi-Kinect Tracking for Dismounted Soldier Training
(12378) Brian M. Williamson, Dr. Joseph J. LaViola Jr.,
University of Central Florida; Tim Roberts and Pat Garrity,
ARL-HRED-STTC
Urban Short Range Interaction: An LVC Solution for
Urban Operation Training (12042)   Tijmen Muller,
Robbert Krijnen, Gillian Visschedijk, TNO
EC2 | Tu esday, 4 D e c e m b e r | 1 6 0 0 | W 3 0 4 B
United We Game
Session Chair:1st Lt Thomas Olaes, USAF, Air Force
Research Laboratory
Session Deputy: Toni Scribner, HQ Air University
Simulation of Cooperative Unmanned Systems Mission
Execution Using Fuzzy Logic Networks (12213) R. Scott
Starsman, Ph.D., Avineon, Inc.
Social Networks Technology Supporting Civil-Military
Cooperation “The Benefits of Crowdsourced Information”
(12299)   Marco Biagini, Ph.D., University of Genoa;
Bruce Joy, Vastpark Pty Ltd.
Applying Gaming Principles to Support Evidence-based
Instructional Design (12203)  Robert Wray, Ph.D., Angela
Woods, Soar Technology, Inc.; Heather Priest, Ph.D., U.S.
Army Research Institute
EC3 | We d n e s d ay, 5 De c e mbe r | 0830 | W 3 0 4 B
Effective Computer Based Modeling
Session Chair: Chip Bowlin, USSOCOM
Session Deputy:Beth Pettitt, ARL-HRED-STTC
A Modular Framework to Support the Authoring and
Assessment of Adaptive Computer-Based Tutoring Systems
(CBTS) (12017)  Robert A. Sottilare, Ph.D., Benjamin
S. Goldberg, Keith W. Brawner, Heather K. Holden, Ph.D.,
ARL-HRED-STTC
Creating Adaptive Emotional Experience during VE
Training (12101) David Jones, Kelly Hale, Ph.D., Sara
Dechmerowski, Design Interactive, Inc.; Hesham Fouad,
D.Sc., VR Sonic, Inc.
RADIS: Real Time Affective State Detection and Induction
System (12196) Hesham Fouad, D.Sc., VR Sonic Inc.; Ge
Jin, Ph.D., Purdue University Calumet
54
Papers/Authors
EC4 | Wednesday, 5 D e c e m b e r | 0 8 3 0 | W 3 04G
You Can Have All Three (Faster, Better, Cheaper)
Session Chair:Steve Gordon, Ph.D., Georgia Tech Research
Institute
Session Deputy:Capt Aaron Burciaga, USMC, Headquarters,
Marine Corps Installation and Logistics
Sideslip Misconceptions in Helicopter Simulators (12432)
 Steven J. Smith, FlightSafety International Simulation
Budget-Constrained Simulations Using a ContextInteraction Model and Crowdsourcing (12020) Jonathan
Kaye, Ph.D., Equipment Simulations LLC; Will Thalheimer,
Ph.D., Work-Learning Research, Inc.
FACT: An M&S Framework for Systems Engineering
(12115) Tommer R. Ender, Ph.D., Daniel C. Browne,
Ph.D., Georgia Tech Research Institute; LtCol William
W. Yates, USMC, MARCORSYSCOM; Michael O’Neal,
MARCORSYSCOM
EC5 | Wednesday, 5 D e c e m b e r | 1 0 3 0 | W 3 04B
New Ways of Looking at Existing Capabilities
Session Chair: Jennifer Arnold, Booz Allen Hamilton Inc.
Session Deputy:Kent Gritton, Joint Training Integration &
Evaluation Center/NAWCTSD
Evaluating Effectiveness in Virtual Environments with
MR Simulation (12075) Doug A. Bowman, Ph.D., Cheryl
Stinson, Eric D. Ragan, Siroberto Scerbo, Virginia Tech;
Tobias Höllerer, Ph.D., Cha Lee, University of California,
Santa Barbara; Ryan P. McMahan, Ph.D., University of Texas
at Dallas; Regis Kopper, Ph.D., University of Florida
Effective Learner Modeling for Computer-Based Tutoring
of Cognitive and Affective Tasks (12032) Heather K.
Holden, Ph.D., Robert A. Sottilare, Ph.D., Benjamin S.
Goldberg, Keith W. Brawner, ARL-HRED-STTC
Advanced Tools and Techniques for Gateway Performance
Testing (12016) Michael J. O’Connor, Kurt Lessmann, Jim
Chase, Trideum Corporation; Robert Lutz, David Drake,
The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory;
Dannie Cutts, AEgis Technologies
EC6 | Wednesday, 5 D e c e m b e r | 1 4 0 0 | W 3 04B
Display Technologies
Session Chair: Stacy Pierce, Rockwell Collins
Session Deputy: Paul Lyon, Barco Simulation
Constant Resolution: A Disruptive Technology for
Simulator Visual System Design (12030) Carl Vorst, Harry
Streid, Boeing Training Systems and Government Services
Beyond High Definition: Emerging Display Technologies
for the Warfighter (12127) Harry Streid, Carl Vorst, Boeing
Training Systems and Government Services; Rod Sterling,
JVC Technology Center
Glass versus Film Mirrors for Wide FOV Collimated Visual
Displays (12204) Marty Quire, CAE USA, Inc.; Andrew
Fernie, CAE Inc.
EC7 | We d n e s d ay, 5 De c e mbe r | 1400 | W 3 0 4 F
Innovative Medical Simulations: Reforming Training &
Treatment
Session Chair:Mary Trier, Capital Communications &
Consulting
Session Deputy:
CDR Brent Olde, Naval Air Systems Command
High Fidelity Physiological Model for Immersive
Simulation and Training (12097) h Teresita M. Sotomayor,
Ph.D., ARL-HRED-STTC; Benjamin Quintero, James Sherrill,
Engineering & Computer Simulations; Angela M. Salva,
SIMETRI, Inc.
A Haptic Simulator for Training Force Skill in
Laparoscopic Surgery (12228)  h Lindsay Long,
Ravikiran Singapogu, Sarah DuBose, Giovannina Arcese,
Bliss Altenhoff, Timothy Burg, Ph.D., Christopher Pagano,
Ph.D., Clemson University
EC8 | We d n e s d ay, 5 De c e mbe r | 1600 | W 3 0 4 B
Cyber
Session Chair:Robert Chapman, Alion Science and
Technology
Session Deputy: Michael O’Connor, Trideum Corporation
Adaptive Cyber Immunity Using a Private Cloud (12065)
John W. Graham, Raytheon
A Virtual Cyber Range for Cyber Warfare Analysis and
Training (12211)  Lloyd Wihl, Maneesh Varshney, Ph.D.,
Scalable Network Technologies
Cloud Simulation Infrastructure – Delivering Simulation
from the Cloud (12343) Michael R. Macedonia, Ph.D.,
Christina Bouwens, James Shiflett, SAIC
EC9 | T h urs d ay, 6 De c e mbe r | 0830 | W3 0 4 B
Improving Training Realization through Innovative
Technologies
Session Chair: Tony DalSasso, U.S. Air Force
Session Deputy: Mike Papay, Ph.D., Northrop Grumman
Realistic Water Simulation for Training Amphibious
Vehicle Crews (12167)   Martin Schwarz, Krauss-Maffei
Wegmann; Scott Arbuthnot, Acron; Don Kemper, Wegmann
USA, Inc.
Innovative, Reconfigurable UGV Simulator to Support
Anti-crisis Operations (12173) Maciej Zasuwa, Ph.D., The
Institute of Aeronautics and Applied Mechanics, Warsaw
University of Technology
55
Papers/Authors
EC1 0 | Thursday, 6 D e c e m b e r | 1 0 3 0 | W 3 0 4B
Analytics in Training; Input or Output
Session Chair: J. Mark “ATIS” Lozano, ATIS Consulting
Session Deputy:Mark Friedman, Concurrent Technologies
Corporation
Broadening Quantitative Analysis of Distributed
Interactive Simulation with Data Mining Functionalities
(12039)  Daniel Dor, Yaniv Minkov, Ground Forces
Command of the Israeli Defense Forces
Simulation in Support of Army Structure Analysis (12088)
 Erlend Øby Hoff, Per-Idar Evensen, Helen Rødal Holhjem,
Ingvild Bore Øyan, Helena Kvamme Nygård, Norwegian
Defence Research Establishment (FFI)
Applying Semantic Analysis to Training, Education, and
Immersive Learning (12151) Robby Robson, Fritz Ray,
Eduworks Corporation
EC1 1 | Thursday, 6 D e c e m b e r | 1 3 3 0 | W 3 0 4B
Practice Makes Perfect
Session Chair: Maureen Bergondy-Wilhelm, NAWCTSD
Session Deputy:Robert Sottilare, Ph.D., ARL-HRED
Adaptive Training for Visual Search (12144) Kelly S. Hale,
Ph.D., Angela Carpenter, Matthew Johnston, Jing-Jing
Costello, Jesse Flint, Design Interactive, Inc.; Stephen M.
Fiore, Ph.D., University of Central Florida
Gesture and Brain Computing Interfaces: Impacts on Next
Generation Learning (12028)  Sridhar Natarajan, Ph.D.,
Schawn E. Thropp, Zachary Weaver, Jesse Davis, Alan
Hoberney, Concurrent Technologies Corporation
EC12 | T h urs d ay, 6 De c e mbe r | 1330 | W3 0 4 F
Little Apps That Can
Session Chair: Anya Andrews, Ph.D., Erudition Corporation
Session Deputy: Stacy Pierce, Rockwell Collins
The Next Generation of SCORM: Innovation for the Global
Force (12114)  Jonathan Poltrack, Nikolaus Hruska, Andy
Johnson, Problem Solutions, in support of the Advanced
Distributed Learning Initiative; Jason Haag, The Tolliver
Group, Inc., in support of the Advanced Distributed
Learning Initiative
A General Framework for Developing Training Apps on
Android Devices (12006)  Jeremy Ludwig, Ph.D., Robert
Richards, Ph.D., Bart Presnell, Dan Fu, Stottler Henke
Associates, Inc.
Augmented Reality on Tablets in Support of MRO
Performance (12358)  Andrew Woo, Billy Yuen, Tim
Hayes, NGRAIN (Canada) Corporation; Carl Byers, Logres
Inc.; Eugene Fiume, University of Toronto
EC P ublis h On ly
Real-Time Fusion of Surveillance Imageries in Urban
Scenes (12026)   Ling Ling Sik, Sumanta Pattanaik,
Ph.D., University of Central Florida
H u m a n P e r fo r m a n c e
The Best Paper for this category, Using Simulators to Measure Communication Latency Effects
in Robotic Telesurgery (12237), will be presented on Wednesday in Room W304A at 1400
HP1 | Tu esday, 4 D e c e m b e r | 1 4 0 0 | W 3 0 4 F
HP 2 | T ue s d ay, 4 De c e m be r | 1600 | W3 0 4 F
Training: HP Style
Ready, Aim, Assess
Session Chair:Jennifer Murphy, U.S. Army Research
Institute
Session Deputy: Kelly Hale, Ph.D., Design Interactive, Inc.
What are the Most Critical Skills for Manned-Unmanned
Teaming? (12202)  John E. Stewart, Ph.D., Army Research
Institute; Paul J. Sticha, Ph.D., Human Resources Research
Organization; William R. Howse, Ph.D., Independent
Consultant
Digital Training and Interface Lessons Learned from
Operational Use Patterns (12084) Gregory A. Goodwin,
Ph.D., U.S. Army Research Institute
End-User Tools for Multimedia Annotation of Video
Training Demonstrations (12418)  Rachael Dubin,
Benjamin Bell, Ph.D., CHI Systems, Inc.; Christina Curnow,
Ph.D., ICF International; Allison Dyrlund, Ph.D., Army
Research Institute; Bernice Willis, MTS Technologies, Inc.
Session Chair:Ellen Menaker, Ph.D., Intelligent Decision
Systems, Inc.
Session Deputy: Phil Brown, D.M., NORTHCOM
The IACE Assessment Model: An Approach to Evaluating
Simulation Suitability (12035)  Christopher John Huffam,
Ph.D., Department of National Defence Canada
Modifying Action Learning to Increase Readiness (12311)
CDR Kevin A. Jones, United States Coast Guard
Automated Human Performance Measurement: Data
Availability and Standards (12302) Emily Wiese, Matthew
Roberts, Jeanine Ayers, Aptima, Inc.; Beth F. Atkinson,
NAWCTSD; Delonna M. Ramoutar, Kaegan Corporation
56
Papers/Authors
HP3 | Wednesday, 5 D e c e m b e r | 0 8 3 0 | W 3 0 4F
Seeing is Believing
Session Chair: CDR Joseph Cohn, Office of Naval Research
Session Deputy:Denise Nicholson, Ph.D., MESH Solutions,
LLC, a DSCI Company
On the Utility of Stereoscopic Displays for Simulation
Training (12301) Charles J. Lloyd, Visual Performance LLC
Effects of Visual Interaction Methods on Simulated
Unmanned Aircraft Operator Situational Awareness
(12435)  Brent A. Terwilliger, Ph.D., Rockwell Collins STS
Improving Naval Shiphandling Training through Game
Based Learning (12271)  LT Ethan A. Reber, LT Benjamin
Bernard, USN Surface Warfare Officers Schools Command;
Perry McDowell, CDR Joseph Sullivan, USN The MOVES
Institute
HP4 | Wednesday, 5 D e c e m b e r | 1 0 3 0 | W 3 0 4F
Increasing Readiness through Training Effectiveness
Session Chair: Jim Threlfall, C2 Technologies, Inc.
Session Deputy: Keith Anderson, Paltech, Inc.
Enhancing Human Effectiveness through Embedded
Virtual Simulation (12404)  Thomas Alexander, Dr. Ing.,
Fraunhofer-FKIE; Dee Andrews, Ph.D., U.S. Army Research
Laboratory; Jan Joris Roessingh, Ph.D., National Aerospace
Laboratory (NLR); Robert Sottilare, Ph.D., Stephen Goldberg,
Ph.D., ARL-HRED-STTC; Lochlan Magee, Ph.D., DRDC
Toronto
Quantification of Trainee Affective and Cognitive State in
Real-time (12064)  Christina Kokini, Meredith Carroll,
Ph.D., Ruben Ramirez-Padron, Xuezhong Wang, Ph.D.,
Kelly Hale, Ph.D., Design Interactive, Inc.; Robert Sottilare,
Ph.D., Benjamin Goldberg, U.S. Army Research Laboratory
Measuring the Training Effectiveness of Combat Lifesaver
Simulation Training Systems (12098)  h Teresita M.
Sotomayor, Ph.D., ARL-HRED-STTC; Angela M. Salva,
SIMETRI, Inc.; Brent W. York, ArtSimMagic, Inc.
HP 5 | T h urs d ay, 6 De c e mbe r | 0830 | W3 0 4 F
Expanding Human Performance Horizons
Session Chair: Randy Crowe, Ph.D., Lockheed Martin
Session Deputy: Beth Biddle, Ph.D., The Boeing Company
A Paradigm Shift in Cultural Training: Culture-General
Characteristics of Culturally Competent Forces (12011)
Jessica L. Wildman, Ph.D., Thomas Skiba, Brigitte Armon,
Rana Moukarzel, Florida Institute of Technology & Institute
for Cross-Cultural Management
Using Virtual Environments to Improve Real World
Performance in Combat Identification (12136) Emilie A.
Reitz, General Dynamics Information Technology; Kevin P.
Seavey, Alion Science and Technology
No Compromise – An Innovative Section 508 Approach
Supporting All Learners (12154) David Twitchell, Ph.D.,
Department of Veteran Affairs, VHA/EES; Bill Bandrowski,
Craig Clark, Concurrent Technologies Corporation
HP P ublis h On ly
Recommendations for Modern Tools to Author Tutoring
Systems (12260) Keith Brawner, Heather Holden, Ph.D.,
Benjamin Goldberg, Robert Sottilare, Ph.D., ARL-HRED
Improving Training through Human Systems Design in a
Mobile Apps World (12327) Susan Archer, Alion Science
and Technology; Kevin Roney, Sysergi LLC
P oli c y, St a n d a r d s , M a n a g e m e n t & A c q u i s itio n
The Best Paper for this category, Converging Simulation and C2: Improving Foundation Data Consistency
and Affordability (12326), will be presented on Wednesday in Room W304A at 1030
P1 | Tu esday, 4 D e c e m b e r | 1 4 0 0 | W 3 0 4 A
Process This!
Session Chair: Tammy Clark, Cubic Applications, Inc.
Session Deputy: Rob Matthews, NAWCTSD
Gloria Tuck, MARCORSYSCOM PM TRASYS
Improving Software Development Cost Estimation Models
(12222)  $ Scott Nelson, Karen Williams, Rodney
Figaroa, U.S. Army PEO STRI; Charles Stroup, SAIC; Arlene
Minkiewicz, Bob Koury, Price Systems
Robbing Peter to Pay Paul – Modeling Irregular Warfare
Demand Signals (12272) Britt Bray, Paul O’Meara, DRC
Raising the Bar for the Military Construction Process
(12367) $ Susan D. Nachtigall, AIA, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory;
Nadia Abou-El-Seoud, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort
Worth District-SWF
P 2 | T ue s d ay, 4 De c e m be r | 1600 | W304 A
Aspects of Validation
Session Chair: Bob Wallace, U.S. Air Force
Session Deputy: Tom Yanoschik, SAIC
William Glaser, TPO OneSAF
Training Device Certification and Accreditation Process
(12360)  John Owen, NAWCTSD; John Meyers, NAWCAD
Sustainment of Modeling and Simulation Tools in the
Defense Environment (12323)  James E. Coolahan,
Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
57
Papers/Authors
Face Validation: From Concept to Concrete Process (12218)
 Cindy Dunn, SAIC, Maneuver Battle Lab Experiment
Environments Branch
P 4 | T h urs d ay, 6 De c e mbe r | 0830 | W3 0 4 A
Breaking Global Boundaries
Session Chair: Rich Grohs, U.S. Air Force
Session Deputy: Harry Robinson, VA SimLEARN
P3 | Wednesday, 5 D e c e m b e r | 0 8 3 0 | W 3 0 4 A
Establishing a Classified U.S. Training Network Enclave
The Ends, Ways, and Means of Software Development: in Australia (12201)  Gerald McGowan, Joint Staff, DDJ7
Cost Estimating to Achieve ROI
JCW; Allan Deacon, Joint Combined Training Capability
Session Chair: Jan Drabczuk, Inter-Coastal Electronics (ICE) Simulation in Healthcare – What is Holding Us Back?
Session Deputy:John Schlott, L-3 Link Simulation & Training (12405)   h Richard J. Severinghaus, CMSP, The AEgis
Cracking the Code: Contracting for Open Source Software
Technologies Group, Inc.
(12104) Randy Saunders, Johns Hopkins University Applied
Physics Lab; Gary Allen, Ph.D., Joint Training Integration &
P 5 | T h urs d ay, 6 De c e mbe r | 1030 | W3 0 4 A
Evaluation Center
Standards—Bringing It All Together
Maximizing U.S. Army Return on Investment Utilizing
Session Chair:Roy Scrudder, University of Texas, Applied
Software Product-Line Approach (12109) Michael Dillon,
Research Laboratories
U.S. Army PEO STRI; Jorge Rivera, Rowland Darbin,
Session Deputy: Frank Mullen, AT&L MSCO
General Dynamics C4 Systems; Barry Clinger, Riptide
Integrate vs. Interoperate; an Army Training Use Case
Software
(12099)  Paul Dumanoir, U.S. Army PEO STRI
Training Systems Acquisition for Major Defense Programs
Coalition Battle Management Services (CBMS) (12257) 
(12147) Fred Hartman, Institute for Defense Analyses; Lori
Saikou Diallo, Ph.D., VMASC; W.D. Scott Wood, Warren W.
Frumkin, Alion Science & Technology
Bizub, JCS DD J7 JCW
Information Assurance Impacts of Mobile Architecture
in a Training System (12096)   Graham Fleener,
U.S. Army PEO STRI; Andrew Maxon, Cybernet Systems
Corporation
Si m u l a tio n
The Best Paper for this category, Leveraging Technologies to Reverse Engineer a Helicopter for Simulator
Development (12431), will be presented on Wednesday in Room W304A at 1400
S1 | Tu esday, 4 D e c e m b e r | 1 4 0 0 | W 3 0 4 E
Electronic Attack: Cyber and Countermeasures
Session Chair: Jerry Hendrix, Camber Corporation
Session Deputy:Capt Jeff Falkinburg, USAF, Air Force
Research Laboratory
Developing a Complex Simulation Environment for
Evaluating Cyber Attacks (12248)  Maj Alexandre B.
Barreto, Brazilian Air Force, Michael Hieb, Ph.D., C4I Center
at George Mason University; Dr. Edgar Yano, Ph.D., Instituto
Tecnológico de Aeronáutica
Synthetic Cyber Environments for Training and Exercising
Cyberspace Operations (12408) Stephanie D. Harwell,
Christopher M. Gore, Camber Corporation
Electronic Warfare (EW) Modeling Support for RED
FLAG Exercises (12093) Amanda Cinnamon, Wyle; John E.
Farrier, Booz Allen Hamilton
S 2 | T ue s d ay, 4 De c e m be r | 1600 | W304 E
This Land is Your Land, This Land is My Land
Session Chair: Larry Rieger, TRADOC ARCIC
Session Deputy: Randy Scott, USSTRATCOM J-75
Missionland: The Creation of a Virtual Continent for
Mission Simulation (12087)  Arjan Lemmers, Arno
Gerretsen, National Aerospace Laboratory NLR; Simon
Skinner, XPI Simulation Ltd.; Edward Jones, Dstl
Easy Pattern-of-Life Generation using Physical and
Human Terrain (12180)  Philip Kerbusch, Dr. Ruben
Smelik, Ph.D., Selmar Smit, Frido Kuijper, TNO
Dynamic Synthetic Environments Through Run-Time
Modification of Source Data (12050) Kenny J. Hebert, Dale
Sexton, Presagis
58
Papers/Authors
S3 | Wednesday, 5 D e c e m b e r | 0 8 3 0 | 3 0 4 E
S 6 | We d n e s d ay, 5 De c e mbe r | 1600 | W3 0 4 E
Virtually Faithful
Behind the Scenes
Session Chair:Brian Holmes, The AEgis Technologies
Group, Inc.
Session Deputy: Leslie Dubow, U.S. Army PEO STRI
To Believe or Not to Believe, Fidelity is the Question
(12425) Randall Garrett, Ph.D., Northrop Grumman
Combining Constructive Models with a 3D Game for
Enhanced Immersion (12329)  Marjorie Zielke, Ph.D.,
Gary Hardee, University of Texas at Dallas; Joe R. Gonzalez,
Jr., Texas A&M University
Virtual Locomotion Concepts and Metrics Study:
Experimentation and Results (12236) Timothy Roberts, Pat
Garrity, ARL-HRED-STTC; Jay Saffold, Research Network,
Inc.
Session Chair: John “DZ” Dzenutis, The Boeing Company
Session Deputy: Ann O’Kennon, Daedalus Technologies, Inc.
Building Terrain Under the Tower of Babel (12029) 
Robert F. Richbourg, Ph.D., Institute for Defense Analyses
Geospatial Correlation Testing Framework and Toolset
(12107) Freddie Santiago, Marlo Verdesca, Jon Watkins,
Dignitas Technologies, LLC; Julio de la Cruz, ARL-HREDSTTC
THREADS…Tying Integration Together (12004) Tammie F.
Smiley, Trideum; Lawrence Rieger, U.S. Army TRADOC ARCIC
S4 | Wednesday, 5 D e c e m b e r | 1 0 3 0 | W 3 0 4 E
Build It and They Will Come
Session Chair:Mike Aldinger, Northrop Grumman
Corporation
Session Deputy:Scott Szurgot, MARCORSYSCOM
PM TRASYS
Migrating Processor Architectures for Simulation (12289)
Kenneth F. Corbo, Renee L. Niemiec, Ethan Money, Hillary
Egan, Adam Moore, Michelle O’Bryan, David Thonglyvong,
Lockheed Martin Global Training and Logistics
You Can Handle the Truth: Simulation Architecture for
Multiple Truth Engines (12198) James A. Hadley, Steven E.
Elrod, Timothy E. Etters, The Boeing Company
Service Oriented Architecture Role in Air Force and Navy
Common Trainer Initiatives (12192) Christopher Lawless,
NAWCTSD; Ilya Lipkin, Ph.D., Tony DalSasso, USAF
Simulators Division
S5 | Wednesday, 5 D e c e m b e r | 1 4 0 0 | W 3 0 4 E
Say What?
Session Chair:Matt Spruill, Engineering & Computer
Simulations
Session Deputy:Scott Szurgot, MARCORSYSCOM
PM TRASYS
Bridging Live and Virtual Radios Without Specialized
Cross-Domain Solutions (12259) Ryan McLaughlin,
Benjamin Leppard, Cindy Walker, Northrop Grumman
Corporation
Modeling and Simulation for Dynamic Spectrum Access
(12386) Keith Philpott, Titus Pottinger, The Boeing
Company
“Can You Hear Me Now?” Understanding the Cosite
Interference Hurdle (12122)  Diane Richie, NAWCTSD
S 7 | We d n e s d ay, 5 De c e mbe r | 1600 | W3 0 4 F
P“air”idigm Shift
Session Chair:Cathy Matthews, Matthews Systems
Engineering, Inc.
Session Deputy:Brian Overy, Lockheed Martin Global
Training and Logistics
Applying Practices from Instructor Applications to
Creating Simulated Avionics Displays (12120) Matthew
Crumley, CAE USA, Inc.
Lessons Learned During the Implementation of Aerial
Refueling DMO (12283)  Michael Parker, QuantaDyn
Corporation; Ronald Kornreich, USAF ANG NGB/A5I
Augmented Reality Training Application for C-130 Aircrew
Training System (12197) Charles R. Mayberry, HQ AETC/
A3ZM; Sheila Jaszlics, Gary Stottlemyer, Garrett Fritz,
Pathfinder Systems, Inc.
S 8 | T h urs d ay, 6 De c e mbe r | 0830 | W3 0 4 E
Better Bot Brains
Session Chair: Matt Kraus, Nuvolect LLC
Session Deputy: Nick Giannias, Presagis
Human Activity Modeling and Simulation with High
Biofidelity (12038) Zhiqing Cheng, Ph.D., Stephen Mosher,
Jeanne Smith, Isiah Davenport, Infoscitex Corporation; John
Camp, Ph.D., Darrell Lochtefeld, Ph.D., Air Force Research
Laboratory 711th Human Performance Wing
No More Zombies! High-Fidelity Character Autonomy for
Virtual Small-Unit Training (12045) Brian S. Stensrud,
Ph.D., Angela Woods, Samuel Wintermute, Ph.D., Soar
Technology, Inc.; Eugene Ray Purcel, Marine Corps
Warfighting Laboratory; Gino Fragomeni, Pat Garrity, ARLHRED-STTC
Customizable Speech Centers for Automated Entities within
Simulation (12094)  Jason R. Potts, Todd Griffith, Ph.D.,
Kyle R. Roth, Jared K. Snyder, Discovery Machine Inc.
59
Papers/Authors
S9 | Thu r sday, 6 De c e m b e r | 1 0 3 0 | W 3 0 4 E
S 10 | T h urs d ay, 6 De c e mbe r | 1330 | W3 0 4 E
Accessible AI
Livin’ the Dream
Session Chair: Richard Boyd, Lockheed Martin
Session Deputy: Long Nguyen, Ph.D., NAWCTSD
Design Patterns for the Configuration of Utility-Based AI
(12146)    Kevin Dill, Lockheed Martin Global Training
and Logistics; Eugene Ray Pursel, Marine Corps Warfighting
Laboratory; Pat Garrity, Gino Fragomeni, ARL-HRED-STTC
Achieving Modular AI through Conceptual Abstractions
(12401)   Kevin Dill, Lockheed Martin Global Training
and Logistics; Eugene Ray Pursel, Marine Corps Warfighting
Laboratory; Pat Garrity, Gino Fragomeni, ARL-HRED-STTC
Modeling Cultural Behavior for Military Virtual Training
(12054)   Karel van den Bosch, Philip Kerbusch, Keff
Schram, TNO
Session Chair: Keith Biggers, Ph.D., Texas A&M University
Session Deputy: Maj. Eric Whittington, USMC, TECD
Developing Interoperable Simulations through Conceptual
Modeling and Ontological Analysis (12110)  John W.
Graham, Raytheon; Richard J. Andrade, U.S. Army PEO
STRI
Embedded LVC Training: A Distributed Training
Architecture for Live Platforms (12385) Jaclyn Hoke, Jason
Wenger, Brian Wolford, Rockwell Collins, Inc.
OmniScribe – Enhancing AAR in an LVC Environment
(12119) Alden Peterson, Stephen Gilbert, Ph.D., Eliot Winer,
Ph.D., Iowa State University – Virtual Realities Applications
Center; Jeff Welch, Dignitas Technologies, LLC; Julio de la
Cruz, Hector Gonzalez, ARL-HRED-STTC
Training
The Best Paper for this category, Archetypal Patterns of Life for Military Training Simulations (12193),
will be presented on Wednesday in Room W304A at 1030
T 1 | Tu esday, 4 D e c e m b e r | 1 4 0 0 | W 3 0 4 G
Pods, Flocks & Swarms: Keep Your Boat Afloat
Session Chair: Ami Bolton, Ph.D., Office of Naval Research
Session Deputy: Cynthia Adams, Booz Allen Hamilton
Implementing Integrated LVC for Naval Aviation Training
(12073)  Rob Lechner, John Schwering, The Boeing
Company
Ballistic Missile Defense Fleet Synthetic Training (FST) at
Sea (12241)  John E. Bell, Alion Science and Technology;
Darrel M. Morben, Navy Warfare Development Command;
William T. Cook, Valkyrie Enterprises; Matt Morneault,
Engenuity, LLC
Countering a Swarm Attack (12183)   Morten Kolve,
Kongsberg Defence Systems; Geoff Tompson, Decisive
Encounters Limited
T 2 | Tu esday, 4 D e c e m b e r | 1 6 0 0 | W 3 0 4 G
Rethinking Immersive Training
Session Chair: Liz Gehr, Ph.D., The Boeing Company
Session Deputy:Capt. Sam Oliver, USMC, MARCORSYSCOM
PM TRASYS
Evaluating Immersion in Training Environments (12046)
 Krista Langkamer Ratwani, Ph.D., Webb Stacy, Ph.D.,
Alexandra Geyer, Ph.D., Scott Pappada, Ph.D., Emily Wiese,
Aptima, Inc.
Comparing Training Transfer of Simulators: Desktop
versus Wearable Interfaces (12008)  John S. Barnett,
Ph.D., U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and
Social Sciences; Grant S. Taylor, Ph.D., University of Central
Florida: Institute for Simulation and Training
Enhancing Realism in Desktop Interfaces for Dismounted
Infantry Simulation (12043) James Templeman, Ph.D.,
U.S. Naval Research Laboratory; Patricia Denbrook, DCS
Inc.
T 3 | We d n e s d ay, 5 De c e mbe r | 1030 | W3 0 4 G
“Mobile”-izing Military Training
Session Chair: Eliot Winer, Ph.D., Iowa State University
Session Deputy: John Stratis, Jacobs Technology Inc.
Not Just for Angry Birds, Practical Training with Mobile
Devices (12150) Steven Borkman, Dignitas Technologies;
Julio de la Cruz, ARL-HRED-STTC
Automated Trend Analysis for Navy-Carrier Landing
Attempts (12247)  Neil C. Rowe, Ph.D., U.S. Naval
Postgraduate School
Applying Service Orientation to the U.S. Army’s Common
Training Instrumentation Architecture (12123) Jeremy T.
Lanman, Ph.D., U.S. Army PEO STRI; Scott Clarke, Shawn
Hillis, R. Darbin, General Dynamics C4 Systems; Dave
Frank, AIT Engineering
T 4 | We d n e s d ay, 5 De c e mbe r | 1400 | W3 0 4 G
Building the Training Framework: The Right Tool for the
Right Job
Session Chair:Felicia Douglis, Kratos Technology & Training
Solutions
Session Deputy: Lisa Townsend, NAWCTSD
A Site Selection Methodology to Optimize Task Training
(12336) Jennifer K. Phillips, Cognitive Performance Group;
Marisa L. Miller, Ph.D., U.S. Army Research Institute
60
Papers/Authors
Scientific Principles to Support Rapid Scenario
Development (12334)  Jennifer J. Vogel-Walcutt, Ph.D.,
Jennifer K. Phillips, Karol G. Ross, Ph.D., Cognitive
Performance Group
Towards Adaptive Scenario Management (ASM) (12080)
 Perakath Benjamin, Ph.D., Mike Graul, Ph.D., Kumar
Akella, Jason Gohlke, Knowledge Based Systems, Inc.; Brian
Schreiber, Lisa Holt, Ph.D., Lumir Research, Inc.
T 5 | Wednesday, 5 D e c e m b e r | 1 6 0 0 | W 3 0 4G
Reality Check: Virtual Performance
Session Chair: Amy Jenison, Army Logistics University
Session Deputy: Karen Cooper, Ph.D., NAWCAD
Can UAS Training Be Done Without Live Flight? (12307)
Michael Cleveland, Parsons; Gregory A. Goodwin, Army
Research Institute
A Capabilities-Based Assessment Tool for USMC Squad
Immersive Training (12124) Joan H. Johnston, Ph.D., U.S.
Army Research Institute (ARI) Technology-Based Training
Research Unit; David Dunfee, John J. Keppeler, USMC
Training and Education Command; David Jarvis, Kaegan,
Inc.; Dan Torgler, Marcorsyscom PM Trasys
From a Submarine to a Virtual Environment and Vice
Versa (12071)   Lochlan E. Magee, Ph.D., Aidan A.
Thompson, Ph.D., Brad Cain, DRDC Toronto; Courtney
Kersten Kwan, CAE Inc.
T 6 | Thu r sday, 6 De c e m b e r | 0 8 3 0 | W 3 0 4 G
Training to Total Performance
Session Chair:Kevin Moore, Ph.D., Tier 1 Performance
Solutions
Session Deputy:Gene Beauvais, Raytheon Technical Services
Company
The Effects on Performance After Combining Driving and
Judgment Simulation (12074)   Gregory P. Krätzig, Fred
Foerster, Rae Groff, Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Crossing the Barrier: A Scalable Simulator for Course
of Fire Training (12187)  Helene Fournier, Ph.D., JeanFrancois Lapointe, Ph.D., Irina Kondratova, Ph.D., Bruno
Edmond, Cosmin Munteanu, Ph.D., National Research
Council of Canada
High Fidelity Ballistics and Gunner Training as a Part of
Integrated Aircrew Training Simulators (12429) Andrew
Morris, FlightSafety Simulation
T 7 | T h urs d ay, 6 De c e mbe r | 1030 | W3 0 4 F
Leading Others: Shift or Sink
Session Chair: Suzy Sutton, AETC
Session Deputy: Tere Sotomayor, Ph.D., ARL-HRED-STTC
Leader Emotion Management: Design and Evaluation of
a Training Program (12031) Kara L. Orvis, Ph.D., Pacific
Science & Engineering; Gregory A. Ruark, Ph.D., Army
Research Institute of the Behavioral and Social Sciences;
Krista Langkamer Ratwani, Ph.D., Eileen B. Entin, Ph.D.,
Aptima, Inc.
Future Training for Leaders in Garrison during Expanded
Dwell Times (12214) Kara L. Orvis, Ph.D., Pacific Science
& Engineering; Krista Langkamer Ratwani, Ph.D., Aptima,
Inc.; Jeffrey E. Fite, Ph.D., Army Research Institute of the
Behavioral and Social Sciences
A Collaborative Effort: Serious Game for Safety and
Security Education in the Netherlands (12018)  
Maarten van Veen, Edwin Dado, Ph.D., Netherlands
Defence Academy
T 8 | T h urs d ay, 6 De c e mbe r | 1030 | W3 0 4 G
Training for Making Decisions Outside “The Box”
Session Chair:Elaine Raybourn, Ph.D., Sandia National
Laboratories
Session Deputy: Chuck Secard, Lockheed Martin
Framework for Training Adaptable and Stress-Resilient
Decision Making (12229)  Meredith Carroll, Ph.D., Kelly
Hale, Ph.D., Kay Stanney, Ph.D., Michael Woodman, Ph.D.,
Luke DeVore, Design Interactive, Inc.; Peter Squire, Ph.D.,
Office of Naval Research; LT Lee Sciarini, Ph.D., USN,
NAWCTSD
The Dynamic Team Training Experiment; Improving
Tactical Team Decision Making (12396)   Edzard
Boland, Jelke van der Pal, Christopher Roos, National
Aerospace Laboratory NLR
Cutting the Cords: Training for Marshalling with Gesture
Technology (12044) Sarah Young MacDonald, Atlantis
Systems Crop.
T 9 | T h urs d ay, 6 De c e mbe r | 1330 | W3 0 4 G
CAUTION: Domain Crossing Ahead
Session Chair: Heath Morton, U.S. Air Force
Session Deputy:LTC Christopher Vaughn, Joint and Coalition
Warfighting
Training Credibility in Cross Domain Events (12188) 
Robert Chapman, Alion Science and Technology; Tony Valle,
Modern Technology Solutions, Inc.
Toward a Training Enterprise Cross Domain Information
Sharing Solution (12206) Gerald McGowan, Joint Staff,
DDJ7 JCW; Robert DeForest, AFAMS; Matthew Morneault,
NWDC
61
notes
62
STEM
The Power of
Innovation
Enabling the
Global Force
National Security
Workforce Initiative
I. S
TEM supports and promotes activities
encouraging students’ interest and pursuit in
Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics.
II. Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and
Education Conference
III. What does I/ITSEC do to support STEM?
A.Future Leaders Pavilion
B.Students at I/ITSEC
C.Post Graduate Scholarships (Masters and Doctorate)
D.Simulation Technician Scholarships
E.Serious Games Showcase and Challenge
F. Post I/ITSEC Professional Development Workshops
G.Central Florida Educators Workshop
H.Continuing Education Units
I.America’s Teachers at I/ITSEC
future leaders/students
Tuesday, 4 December
1200 - 1730
0930 - 1730
Stop!
See the Future
Future Leaders
Pavilion
a
Ed
on Conf
ucati
ere
2012
nc
e
n
rvice/I dustry T
rse
ra
te
i
In
Simulation
nd
ng
ni
Students at I/ITSEC
Thursday, 6 December • 0900 - 1400
0930 - 1500
Booth 3171
SPECIAL Session
1030 - 1200 • W309A
O
T
Learning and Leadership
are indispensable to each other.
he National Training and Simulation Association
and the members of I/ITSEC take great pleasure in
welcoming you to the Eighth Annual Future Leaders
Pavilion and Special Session.
We are delighted to host secondary students from such
diverse areas as:
• Columbus, GA
• Latham, NY
• Dayton, OH
• Lexington Park, MD
• Hampton, VA
• Orlando, FL
• Huntsville, AL
The students who participate in the Future Leaders
Pavilion (FLP) are committed to excellence and are enrolled
in engineering, computer sciences, mathematics, or modeling
and simulation tracks. Projects presented this year will
continue the legacy of excellence built by previous Future
Leaders.
Please remember to include FLP, located in Booth 3171,
during your visits to the exhibit floor.
On Thursday at 1030, please lend support to our Future
Leaders as they present their projects during their Special
Session – “The Future is Now!”
64
Students take their turn at a driving simulator.
ver the years, thousands of Central Florida high
school students have participated in a unique
learning experience by visiting the Exhibitors/
Exhibits at I/ITSEC. The purpose of the I/ITSEC Student
Tours is to allow students to experience first-hand, realworld Training, Simulation, and Education solutions that
will help bridge the gap between classroom theory and the
applied use of Science, Technology, Engineering and Math
(STEM) subjects. In 2011, over 600 students, along with 200
school chaperones and volunteer I/ITSEC member escorts,
were exposed to special demonstrations and static displays
of the Simulation, Training and Education Industry. Students
are able to learn about the basic building blocks required
to deliver high fidelity modeling and simulation products
across a broad range of training environments. Participating
in the I/ITSEC Student Tours on Thursday, December 6,
2012, will give students a complete understanding of how
they can apply the STEM related skills they learn in the
classroom to highly successful careers in our Industry. To
learn more about the I/ITSEC Conference and Student Tours,
please contact David Hutchings at [email protected]
or (386) 843-1187.
Students engage with the Cultural Learning Training demonstration.
educators
America’s Teachers at I/ITSEC
I/ITSEC has a long history of supporting the education
Thanks to these forward thinking
of students and teachers through visits to the
companies, we can continue to
conference. Specifically, since the America’s Teachers
at I/ITSEC program began in 2008, we have hosted invest in the future of our Industry:
teachers from Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, • The Boeing Company
Maryland, Montana, New York, Ohio, Tennessee,
• Brocade
Texas and Virginia. As part of I/ITSEC’s efforts to
further education in Science, Technology, Engineering • CSC
and Mathematics (STEM), teachers from across the • DynCorp International
country have been invited to attend the conference.
The America’s Teachers at I/ITSEC Program consists • General Dynamics
of an orientation session, attendance at the Modeling • The Imaging Source
and Simulation techCamp, guided tours of the Exhibit
• L-3 Communications
Hall, and attendance at tutorials, paper sessions, and
special events. This program is supported by the National Training and Simulation
Association and its industry members. We would like to acknowledge, in particular,
the sponsors of the Future Leaders Pavilion and America’s Teachers @ I/ITSEC
program.
Educators
Workshop to Introduce Simulation into the Physics Classroom – I/ITSEC 2012
Recognizing the need for a high tech workforce, the
Florida High Tech Corridor Council (FHTCC) established its
educational initiative – techPATH. Involving representatives
from a variety of academic affiliations and high tech
companies, techPATH is “cultivating tomorrow’s workforce”
in the Corridor’s 23 counties through a variety of innovative
programs, designed to encourage students to pursue high
tech careers. techPATH supports national objectives for
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM).
The signature offering of techPATH is FHTCC’s techCAMP
program. techCAMPs are high tech workshops offered to
middle and high school math, science, technology and career
education teachers and students, to provide information
about the industrial sectors that make up the Corridor. Since
1998, 75 techCAMPs have been delivered to more than 1,850
teachers and 860 students.
To highlight the thriving Modeling, Simulation & Training
(MS&T) sector in the Corridor, techPATH will be hosting two
special techCAMPs to be held during the I/ITSEC conference
– one for teachers and one for students – to learn about
new technologies in the Modeling, Simulation and Training
industry and the high tech jobs that are involved. This
workshop will feature guided tours of the conference exhibits
including the DaVinci Robot from the Nicholson Center for
Surgical Advancement at Florida Hospital that will be on
display in the Florida High Tech Corridor Council booth.
The workshop also offers presentations from well-known
experts in the MS&T field, including representatives from
the Institute for Simulation and Training at the University
of Central Florida, the National Center for Simulation,
the U.S. Navy Naval Air Systems Command NAVAIR, the
Army’s Simulation and Training Technology Center, and
the Research, Development and Engineering Command.
Teachers attending the special Educators techCAMP will
utilize their knowledge and experiences at I/ITSEC to
motivate their students to expand their math and science
educations. Students will have the opportunity to experience
the simulation industry up close, through presentations and
demonstrations that present concepts in math and physics
and show the progression from science to real jobs.
T H e w o r l d ’ s l a r g e s t m o d e l i n g & s i m u l at i o n e v e n t For more information, contact Vicki Morelli at
[email protected].
65
serious games
Showcase & Challenge
Finalist Showcase
3 December - 6 December
Booth 3263
Awards Ceremony
Thursday 6 December
1300 Booth 3181
Explore Serious Games, interact with developers and vote
for your favorite Serious Game!
T
The Serious Games Showcase & Challenge celebrates its seventh year of innovations in
he Serious Games Showcase & Challenge celebrates its seventh year of innovations in
game design and instructional technology. The 2012 Serious Games Showcase & Challenge
game design and instructional technology. The 2012 Serious Games Showcase & Chalwill once again highlight an amazing collection of cutting-edge serious games. This year’s
lenge will once again highlight an amazing collection of cutting-edge serious games.
challenge is divided into four distinct categories student, business, government and mobile.
This year’s challenge is divided into four distinct categories: student, business, government
The finalists have been thoroughly down- selected and narrowed to the top 15 Serious
and mobile. The finalists have been down-selected to the top 15 Serious Games to present
Games to present on the I/ITSEC exhibit floor. I/ITSEC attendees are invited to play the
on the I/ITSEC exhibit floor. I/ITSEC attendees are invited to play the games and learn more
games and learn more information about the games from the developers.
information about the games from the developers.
This year’s Serious Games Showcase & Challenge débuts an international partnership with
This year’s Serious Games Showcase & Challenge débuts an international partnership with
Australia’s SimTech conference. Two winners of SimTech’s Serious Games competition have
Australia’s SimTech conference. Two winners of SimTech’s Serious Games competition have
been invited to showcase their games at this years I/ITSEC floor.
been invited to showcase their games at this years I/ITSEC floor.
A panel of international judges has chosen the winners based on three key areas: problem
A panel of international judges has chosen the winners based on three key areas: problem
solving, technical quality, and playability/enjoyment. The games showcased during the
solving, technical quality, and playability/enjoyment. The games showcased during the
conference provide solutions to problems that could benefit the military and others now and
conference provide solutions to problems that could benefit the military and others now and
in the future. The winners will be awarded at this year’s awards ceremony on 6 December,
in the future. The winners will be awarded at this year’s awards ceremony on 6 December,
in Booth 3181 at 1300. Six awards will be presented, including a Special emphasis award for
in Booth 3181 at 1300. Six awards will be presented, including a Special emphasis award
adaptivity and the People’s Choice Award. The People’s Choice Award will be based on votes
for adaptivity and the People’s Choice Award. The People’s Choice Award will be based on
from you! We encourage all I/ITSEC attendees to participate by selecting a winner and
votes from you! We encourage all I/ITSEC attendees to participate by selecting a winner and
casting a ballot for the “People’s Choice Award”. Ballots are provided with each conference
casting a ballot for the “People’s Choice Award”. Ballots are provided with each conference
registration. All winners will be announced at 1300 on Thursday 6 December.
registration. All winners will be announced at 1300 on Thursday 6 December.
66
Stem Pavilion
Project based learning
STEM – Tomorrow’s
Workforce, Today!
Talks at Warfighter Corner
Tuesday – Thursday afternoon
See scheduling details provided at the
STEM Pavilion and at the Warfighter Corner.
TEM is the nationwide effort to stimulate interest
in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math
among young people and to promote their
enhanced instruction in our schools. Through Project
Based Learning, students learn important engineering and
design skills and are exposed to all the exciting careers
that are possible in modeling and simulation, applied
mathematics, science, technology and engineering.
Project Based Learning programs will be displayed by
the following companies:
T H e w o r l d ’ s l a r g e s t m o d e l i n g & s i m u l at i o n e v e n t 67
i/itsec scholarships
23rd Annual RADM Fred Lewis I/ITSEC Postgraduate Scholarship Recipients
RADM Fred Lewis, USN (Ret.)
President, NTSA • 1995 - May 2012
These scholarships have been named the
2012 RADM Fred Lewis Postgraduate
I/ITSEC Scholarship in honor of the former
President of the National Training and
Simulation Association (NTSA).
Important Dates
When to Apply
Applications must be postmarked
by 25 June 2013. (Don’t Delay!)
How to Apply
See http://www.iitsec.org/Community/
Education/Pages/Scholarships.aspx
for complete application details.
Award Announcement
3 August 2013
Michelle Alvarado
Graham Fleener
Doctoral
Candidate
Industrial
Engineering
Texas A&M
University
Master of Science
Student
Modeling and
Simulation
University of
Central Florida
Post Graduate Scholarships
Looking for
Future Leaders in the Simulation, Training and Education Community. Learn
more about the I/ITSEC community at www.iitsec.org
Eligibility
U.S. Citizens
Full-time Masters or Doctoral students
(complete undergraduate work by Spring 2013)
See Study Disciplines at http://www.iitsec.org/Community/Education/Pages/
Scholarships.aspx
Award Amounts
$10,000 (Doctoral Candidates)
$5,000 (Masters Candidates)
Available for Fall 2013
Be our guest at I/ITSEC 2–5 December 2013
Direct Further Inquiries and Provide Submissions
Lewis-I/ITSEC Scholarship Program
c/o The National Training and Simulation Association
2111 Wilson Boulevard Suite 400
Arlington, VA 22201-3061
(703) 247-2569 or [email protected]
Simulator Maintenance Technician Scholarship Programs
T
o promote the study of simulation technology, I/ITSEC continues agreements with Daytona State College (DSC) in Daytona Beach,
Florida, and Lake Region State College (LRSC), Devils Lake, North Dakota, to provide a year's funding at
each school for a student enrolled in the Simulation
Technology program. DSC and LRSC have established
themselves as leaders with accredited programs in this
field.
In addition to the scholarship programs, both schools are interested in acquiring
corporate partners willing to provide used simulators, establish intern positions,
or consider other means of supporting the programs. Contact us at (703) 247-2569
or [email protected] if you are interested in finding out more about scholarship
or partnership opportunities.
68
VADM John S. Disher, USN (Ret.)
Executive Director, NTSA • 1991-1995
These scholarships have been named
the Vice Admiral John S. Disher Simulator
Maintenance Technology Scholarship (DSC
and LRSC) in honor of the former Executive
Director of the National Training and
Simulation Association (NTSA).
professional development
Post-I/ITSEC Professional Development Workshops
Location:
Orange County Convention Center, West Concourse
Date:
Friday, 7 December
Times:
0700 Breakfast and registration • AM Session 0800 – 1200
Fees:
There is no fee to attend.
CEU:
Only I/ITSEC Conference Registrants are eligible for CEU credits.
Registration:Preregister via https://secure2.rhq.com/iitsec2012/public/index.cgi?track=workshoponly
Registrations also accepted on-site during I/ITSEC registration hours.
Lunch:
On own.
Coordinated by University of Central Florida’s Institute for Simulation and Training and Division of Continuing Education.
For additional information on these seminars including topical outline and instructor bios, please see: www.ce.ucf.edu/iitsec.
 All Post-I/ITSEC Profession Development Workshop are eligible for CEU credits. (See page 71) 
Half Day Session
Room W202A
0800 - 1200
Live-VirtualConstructive (LVC)
Interoperability
Techniques 
Edward Powell, Ph.D., Chief
Architect and Program
Manager for TENA, SAIC;
Randy Saunders, The Johns
Hopkins University Applied
Physics Lab
This workshop will provide
an overview of the three major interoperability techniques
and the future roadmap for
LVC integration. Recognized experts in the use of the Distributed Interactive Simulation (DIS) standards, the High Level
Architecture (HLA) for Modeling and Simulation, and the Test
and Training Enabling Architecture (TENA) will provide descriptions of their architectures, and discuss some of their use
cases. Recent and planned evolution of each architecture will
be explained. A discussion of how these architectures are actually used in the real world and the process for integrating
disparate systems in a multi-architecture environment will be
discussed. This will include a short discussion of the Distributed Simulation Engineering and Execution Process (DSEEP)
Multi-Architecture Overlay (DMAO) and its application to LVC
interoperability. The format of the workshop will be part lecture and part informal discussion/question answer. Participants are encouraged to raise specific topics.
Half Day Session
Room W202B
0800 – 1200
Phil Faye, C-Base, Inc.;
Rob Lisle, Newport News
Shipbuilding
Modeling &
Simulation for
Acquisition 
(M&S) in Department of Defense (DoD) acquisition programs encompasses a wide
variety of technologies, organizations, processes, and best
practices. This workshop provides a practical overview of
M&S for acquisition, created by professionals experienced in
the largest DoD acquisition programs. The workshop begins
with a high-level presentation of organizing principles, and
then transitions to specific, real-world examples. A guidebook
and slides will be provided as handouts for this course.
Half Day Session
Room W202C
0800 – 1200
David Gross, Ph.D., Deputy
Chief Engineer, Lockheed
Martin
Certified Modeling
& Simulation
Professional
(CMSP) Exam
Preparation 
This workshop will provide
an overview of the Certified
Modeling & Simulation Professional (CMSP) certification
program, with a particular focus on preparing prospective
applicants to take the CMSP
exam. The workshop will
cover the application and examination process (education/
work experience requirements, application fees, how the
exam is administered, etc.), in addition to an in-depth review of the new CMSP Exam Topic Outline. The CMSP exam
has been completely revised and refined over the past two
years, and new applicants will now have a choice of two
tracks — Technical and User/Manager — and will take an
entirely new exam. The workshop will be taught by charter/
pioneer CMSPs who have been involved in oversight of the
CMSP program and/or creation/revision of the CMSP exam.
The workshop will not by itself prepare applicants to take the
exam, but will provide a thorough overview of exam content
and a blueprint for further self-study.
T H e w o r l d ’ s l a r g e s t m o d e l i n g & s i m u l at i o n e v e n t 69
professional development
 All Post-I/ITSEC Profession Development Workshop are eligible for CEU credits. (See page 13) 
Half Day Session
Room W203B
0800 – 1200
Serious Game
Design Tutorial 
T alib Hussain, Ph.D., Senior
Scientist, Raytheon BBN
Technologies; Susan Coleman,
Ph.D., Chief Performance
Officer, Intelligent Decision
Systems, Inc.
Participants will be introduced to key concepts, steps
and processes involved in
designing a serious game for
learning. Through hands-on
activities and working together in groups, we will collectively
design a game. Central to our approach will be ensuring that
all key stakeholders are involved during design activities, and
ensuring that any key design decision takes into account both
the gaming and instructional implications. Participants will
experience each phase of the design process from identifying the training requirements and learning objectives to designing key game and instructional mechanics. We close the
workshop with a summary of the serious game design we
have produced.
70
Half Day Session
Room W203C
0800 – 1200
Michael DeVita, M.D., Past
President, Society for
Simulation in Healthcare
Immersive
Experience
in Healthcare
Simulation: Crisis
Recognition and
Response 
This interactive event is a
“course within a course.”
This workshop will teach
attendees how to lead a “team
building” course. They will
understand how to facilitate
learning from experience,
pitfalls in running a team
course. Additionally, the attendees will be immersed in a
simulation experience so they can gain first-hand knowledge
of the experience of “being a trainee” in the highly regarded
“First Five Minutes” course. This course is focused on
crisis recognition and first steps in a team response. Based
on experience from this session at I/ITSEC 2011, we will
immerse attendees in developing their own simulationbased team course: needs analysis, scenario development,
behavioral goal identification, debriefing strategies, and
course assessment. Both novice and experienced simulation
personnel will benefit.
continuing education units
Continuing Education Units: An I/ITSEC Opportunity
“CEUs are a convenient and efficient way
to keep track of my participation in
Who may attend the Sessions and who may receive
CEUs at I/ITSEC?
• Tutorials: Open to ALL ATTENDEES; only paid CONFERENCE
attendees may receive the CEU credits.
professional development activities.”
• Papers: paid CONFERENCE attendees may attend all
Paper Sessions and may receive the CEU credits for doing
so at no additional charge.
Continuing Education Units (CEU) were established in 1970
to create a unit of measurement to quantify continuing
education and training activities. CEUs apply to technical and
educational settings such as I/ITSEC. The primary focus of
I/ITSEC is to highlight innovative implementation of simulation
and education technologies as tools to achieve cost efficient
training and increased military readiness. Therefore CEUs are
offered for all Tutorials, selected Paper Sessions, and the Postconference Professional Development Workshops. CEUs are being
sponsored and maintained by the University of Central Florida,
Division of Continuing Education.
• Post-I/ITSEC Professional Development Workshops: Open to ALL.
Must register to attend and paid CONFERENCE attendees
may receive CEUs for doing so at no additional charge.
Why should I earn CEUs at I/ITSEC?
• Participation in the tutorials, papers and/or Post-conference
Workshops for CEU credit reinforces your commitment
to remain current in the evolving technologies relating to
training and simulation.
• The CEU transcript indicates your active participation in
the technical program of the conference to your employer.
• Previous attendees have indicated that CEUs have assisted
them in securing approval to attend the conference.
How do I receive CEUs at I/ITSEC?
1. Register as a paid Conference Attendee. This automatically triggers your eligibility for CEU.
2. Attend any Tutorial (all are CEU eligible) or any Paper
presentation marked by a book symbol ().
3. Attend the Post-I/ITSEC Professional Developmental
Workshops on Friday. These are half-day sessions on
various subjects. There is no additional fee to attend, but
participants need to register in advance. All workshops are
CEU eligible.
4. Within ten days of I/ITSEC, complete an on-line exam (four
questions for each Paper, ten for each Tutorial). A score
70% or better qualifies for CEU credit. There are no exams
for the Workshops.
5. Your CEU transcript will come to you via the University
of Central Florida, Division of Continuing Education. Ten
contact hours equate to one CEU credit.
Contact Maria Cherjovsky at (407) 882-0247 or [email protected] for additional information
Earning the CMSP designation will:
• Demonstrate expertise in the field of M&S to your
employer and the larger M&S community
• Provide opportunities for professional advancement
Requirements include 3-8 years of work experience
(depending on level of highest collegiate degree),
3 professional letters of reference, and successful
The completion of CEUs has long been used to demonstrate
dedication and career interest to supervisors, employers or
rating officers. CEU credit is among the qualifiers accepted for
demonstrating professional growth for the Certified Modeling
and Simulation Professional renewal.
T H e w o r l d ’ s l a r g e s t m o d e l i n g & s i m u l at i o n e v e n t New in 2012: Select between CMSP-Technical
To learn more about the requirements and to apply,
please visit www.simprofessional.org or contact
Patrick Rowe at [email protected].
71
notes
72
Exhibits
The Power of
Innovation
Enabling the
Global Force
hall happenings
Attendee Luncheon
Lunch will be served Tuesday - Thursday at 1200 in Exhibit Hall B3. You must enter & exit luncheon through the Exhibit
Hall. Full Conference registrants will receive lunch tickets with their registration materials. Exhibitors and Visitors may
purchase a ticket for $25.00 at the main Registration Station. Lunch tickets are dated; you must present the current
day’s lunch ticket for entry.
Connections Lounge & Grill
Stop by and relax in the Connections Lounge & Grill for a bite to eat or a refreshing drink and then connect to your
email or review the I/ITSEC program online to plan your next move at the conference. Connections Lounge & Grill will
be located in the Exhibit Hall A1. Sponsored by MetaVR
Show Management Office
Room W207A • The Show Management Office will be staffed during show hours for all questions regarding booth
space, rules, regulations, exhibitor locators, security and late/early passes. Registration will not be made available at
the Show Management Office.
National Training & Simulation Association (NTSA)
Booth 3141 • The National Training and Simulation Association (NTSA) is America’s premier organization representing
the interests of the modeling and simulation community. As such, it serves as a constant point of contact for government,
academia, industry, research organizations and the military to exchange information, share knowledge, align business
interests, and in general stimulate the growth and overall dynamism of the industry.
Service Booths
U.S. Army PEO STRI
U.S. Marine Corps Systems Command PM TRASYS
157, 171, 1841
1734
U.S. Navy NAWCTSD
552, 1740
U.S. Air Force
546, 1835
International Pavilions
Brazil
2870
Canada313
Netherlands
2063
European Training & Simulation Association
3140
Healthcare Pavilion
Society for Simulation in Healthcare
3251
Recognizing that simulation represents a paradigm shift in health care education, SSH promotes improvements in
simulation technology, educational methods, practitioner assessment, and patient safety that promote better patient
care and can improve patient outcome. Other participants in the Healthcare Pavilion: BigC: Dino-Lite Scopes, Gaumard
Scientific, Innovation in Learning Space, Laerdal Medical, Lifeline Mobile, MammaCare, Smooth On, Simulab and
Techline Technologies.
73
hall happenings
Innovation Showcase
NTSA Sustaining Member • NTSA Regular Member
W
West Exhibit Hall – Booth 3201
ant to hear about the advancements in head-mounted displays or how you can transform simulators into
precision training systems? You can hear this and many other exciting topics by attending 30-minute sessions at
the Innovation Showcase. Presentations within the Showcase are led by cutting-edge exhibiting companies and
government agencies that are knowledgeable on the various subject matter with the M&S Industry. Be sure to check the
schedule onsite for any changes to the Innovation Showcase Schedule.
(As of November 13, 2012)
Monday, 3 December
1430
Multi-Texturing and Shading Techniques for Realistic Human Characters
Di-Guy
1515
Training and Simulation Through the Crystal Ball
QinetiQ
1600
Modernization Through Spares
Zel Technologies, LLC
1645
Cross Domain Solutions Supporting LVC and RDT&E
Raytheon Trusted Computer
Solutions
Tuesday, 4 December
1230
Streamline Training Analysis with ADVISOR Enterprise
BNH Expert Software, Inc.
1315
Discover the Best Learning System to Leverage Simulation Training with a Deep
Core Knowledge of Anatomy!
Anatomy in Clay Learning
Systems
1400
Virtual Maintenance Training Trends
NGRAIN
1445
Gaze Interaction & Eye Control
Tobii Technology, Inc.
1530
LSI’s Blended Training Tool Suite: SCO Workbench
LSI, Inc.
1615
AI for Enhancing Realism in JSAF and VBS2
Discovery Machine
1700
21st Century Training
Promethean
1000
Recognition of the M&S Journal – Second Generation
DoD Modeling & Simulation
Coordination Office
1045
Immersive 3D in a Browser: The Unreal Engine GO Platform
Virtual Heroes, A Division of
Applied Research Associates
1130
Large-Scale GPU-Based Visual Simulation of Ocean Surface with Havok Vision
Engine
Havok
1230
How Vortex Can Accelerate Your Development of Urban & Ground Vehicle
Training & Analysis Applications
CM Labs
1315
Il-LUMEN-ated. Enabling High-Fidelity Instrumentation in DirectX Based
Simulators
DiSTI
1400
Dante & OpShed 3D Force-on-Force Mission Simulation & Planning
Sandia National Laboratories
1445
Disruptive Integration of COTS Constructive Simulation with COTS C2 Systems
MASA Group
1530
Personalized Social Simulation for Training
Alelo, Inc.
1615
WebLVC – Bringing Live, Virtual, Constructive Simulation to the Web
VT MÄK
1700
Flipping the Classroom: From Khan Academy to Government
Panopto
1000
Maintenance Training & Troubleshooting Simulation
Automation Studio
(Famic Technologies)
1045
Enhancing Audio Realism & Control of Simulated Radios & Vehicle Crew
Intercoms
Calytrix Technologies
1130
Experiences from Large Scale Command Level Training Using HLA Evolved
Pitch Technologies
1215
The Future of Simulation Visuals
ImmersaView
1300
Immersive 3D in a Browser: The Unreal Engine GO Platform
Virtual Heroes, A Division of
Applied Research Associates
1345
Cloud-Based Rapid Development of Geospecific Virtual World Terrain
Adayana Government Group
74
hall happenings
Exhibitor Networking Event
Tu e s d a y, 4 De c e m b e r • 1700 - 1830 • E x hib it H a lls
B
e sure to kick off I/ITSEC 2012 with a stop by one of the participating booths at the I/ITSEC Exhibitor Networking
Event. What a great way to view the latest technology, while networking with exhibitors and your fellow
attendees. Be sure to check the official I/ITSEC website and onsite signage for updated participants.
(As of November 13, 2012)
Booth #
Company
413
Bluedrop Performance Learning
435
Soar Technology, Inc.
761
Unity Technologies
813
AEgis Technologies
1040
Alion Science and Technology
1048
JVC Professional Products Co.
1163
Oakwood Extended Stay Lodging
1201
Krauss-Maffei Wegmann GmbH & Co. KG
1261QinetiQ
1271
Intelligent Decisions
1581
NGRAIN
1715
Calytrix Technologies
1720Kratos
1773
DiSTI
2101 Simigon, Inc.
2228
AMSEC
2301MYMIC
2439SAIC
2527
Camber Corporation
2563
RUAG Defence
2711
Alelo, Inc.
2755
Aptima, Inc.
2848
projectiondesign
3140ETSA
3141
NTSA
75
Exhibitors
(As of October 31, 2012)
3D Perception
2835
BigC: Dino-Lite Scopes
3149
4C Strategies AB
2181
Bihrle Applied Research Inc.
2207
711th Human Performance Wing
2683
Binghamton University, Watson Sch Eng
1105
AAI Corporation
2467
BIONATICS
2737
B-Line Medical 3351
Acme Worldwide Enterprises, Inc.
881
adapx3100
Bluedrop Performance Learning
Adayana, Inc
2941
BNH Expert Software Inc.
2801
Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) Initiative
2221
The Bob Pike Group
3011
Advanced Simulation Technology, Inc. (ASTi)
1149
Boeing749
Aechelon Technology, Inc.
1621
Boeing Trailer Exhibit AEgis Technologies
Aero Simulation, Inc.
413
145, 151
813
Bohemia Interactive
735
1415
Booz Allen Hamilton
1024
Aerotronics1092
Bosch Rexroth
2163
AFEI - Association For Enterprise Integration
3136
Boston Museum of Science - Engineering is Elementary
3162
AF Research Lab La Luz Academy STEM Outreach
3063
Brazilian Defense and Security Industries Association 2863, 2870
Air Force Agency for Modeling and Simulation
346
Britannica Knowledge Systems
2907
Air National Guard Trainer Development
1963
Brown University
2710
Alelo, Inc.
2711
Bugeye Technologies
2081
1040
C2 Technologies, Inc.
2215
Allied Container System, Inc
2321
CAE1433
AMERICAN SYSTEMS
2427
CALIBRE2935
791
Calytrix1715
American Tactical Training
Amidon Contracting Solutions, Inc.
3134
Calzone/Anvil Case Company
2931
AMSEC a Subsidiary of Huntington Ingalls Industries
2228
Camber Corporation
2527
Analytical Graphics, Inc.
2740
Canon U.S.A., Inc
Anatomy in Clay (R) Learning Systems
2912
Capstone Corporation 3022
AnyLogic North America
2382
Carley Corporation
1933
CAST Navigation LLC
2811
3363
Applied Research Associates Inc.
781
439
Aptima, Inc.
2755
Central Florida STEM Council
Argon Electronics
2882
CGI537
Arrington Research, Inc.
2380
Chemring Group PLC
Ascension Technology Corporation
1091
629
Christie Digital Systems
2549
A-T Solutions
891
Cinetransformer
2830
Atlantic Alliance of Aerospace & Defence Associations
313
Clear-Com
2826
Atlantis Cyberspace, Inc. (ACI)
1921
CMLabs/Vortex1221
Automation Studio (Famic Technologies Inc.)
3012
Cogent3D, Inc.
AVT Simulation
Cole Engineering
1080
BAE Systems
3234
Columbus State University
3350
Barco Simulation Products
1763
Command Post Technologies, Inc. 2782
Battlespace Simulations 1229
Computer Comforts, Inc.
2701
B-Design3D
2681
Concord XXI USA LLC
Bellevue University
2904
Concurrent Computer Corporation
Bering Straits Aerospace Services
2315
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
BGI, LLC
2280
Connections Café and Lounge
76
307
2001
613
861
1901
101
Exhibitors
Control Products Corporation
2327
ESG Elektroniksystem-und Logistik-Gmbh
861
Corsair Engineering
1565
ESP Inc.
Cranfield Aerospace, Ltd.
1781
ESRI3235
1815
CSC2425
ETC
2841
Cubic Defense Applications
2448
ETS News
3050
Cybernet Systems Corporation
2381
ETSA3140
Da-Lite Screen Company
2734
Evertz
D-BOX Technologies Inc. 2806
EWA Government Systems, Inc.
Dell Inc.
1580
Explotrain, LLC
2963
Design Interactive, Inc.
2421
Extron Electronics
3007
Diamond Visionics
2001
Exxact Corporation
2068
Digital Projection
2007
Eyetellect3127
DigitalGlobe
3015
FAAC, Inc.
2571
DI-Guy
2741
Fain Models, Simulation Systems 1781
Discovery Machine, Inc.
2780
FIDAE 2014
2965
Displays & Optical Technologies
2703
Fidelity Flight Simulation Inc.
DiSTI
1773
Fidelity Technologies
1181
506
767
721
DoDAAM SYSTEMS
3111
FIRST Robotics
3065
Doron Precision Systems, Inc.
3241
FlightSafety International
1701
DRC
2519
Floatograph Technologies, LLC
2920
Driven Technologies, Inc.
1204
Forth Dimension Displays
3018
Driving Science
3062
Frasca International, Inc.
2834
DRS Technologies
601
FreeWave Technologies
729
DSCI
529
Future Leaders Pavilion
3171
Dynamic Animation Systems, Inc.
1401
Gaumard Scientific Company
3151
DynCorp International 2020
Gemstar Manufacturing
3349
Dytecna
2918
General Atomics
E2M Technologies B.V
2107
General Dynamics IS&T
East View Geospatial, Inc.
3013
General Projection Systems
eCYBERMISSION 3164
Geodetics, Inc.
EDN Aviation
2810
GeoEye2911
828
701
2819
822
eInstruction3110
Georgia Tech Research Institute
Elbit Systems Ltd.
2557
Gerling & Associates, Inc.
892
Electro-Optical Imaging, Inc
1159
Global Business Solutions
2781
Electrosonic, Inc.
2953
Global Jet Services Inc.
1785
eMDee Technology, Inc.
2367
GO2Altitude 1985
Emerson Network Power 321
HaiVision Network Video
1008
880
Engility2173
Hampden Engineering Corporation
3107
Engineering & Computer Simulations, Inc.
Harris Corporation
2001
635
Engineering & Manufacturing Services, Inc (EMS)
3001
Havok
1821
ENSCO Avionics
1009
Heartwood Inc.
2307
Envitia Ltd
2729
Hidalgo2731
EPSON America, Inc.
3101
History of I/ITSEC
3375
Ergoneers GmbH
3353
History of Simulation
3180
77
Exhibitors
Holland Pavilion
2063
Lockheed Martin
ICF International
2015
LSI, Inc.
1571
IDS International
2829
M&S CO
2970
IEEE Xplore Digital Library
2803
MacAulay-Brown, Inc.
IHS1266
MammaCare Corporation
The Imaging Source LLC
ManTech International
2910
Immersaview, Inc.
301
1749
525
3250
783
Marathon Targets
2956
Marine Corps Modeling and Simulation Management Office
2981
Indra1409
Marine Corps System Command (PM TRASYS)
1734
Industrial Smoke & Mirrors
2407
MASA Group
2201
Inert Products LLC
1089
MaxVision LLC
3031
InnovaSystems International LLC
3081
McKellar Corporation
3026
Innovation in Learning
3252
MDI
3230
Innovation Showcase
2389
Mechanical Simulation
1262
Intelligent Automation, Inc.
2226
Media Box Studios, LLC
2727
Intelligent Decision Systems, Inc.
2831
Megatech Corporation
2900
Intelligent Decisions, Inc.
1271
Meggitt Training Systems
1032
Inter-Coastal Electronics Inc.
1129
MetaVR1229
InterSense, Inc.
2587
Metters Industries
1125
Intevac, Inc.
2827
Military Training Technology
1969
Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd.
2233
Military Wraps, Inc.
2957
Immersive Display Solutions, Inc. 1229
ITEC3137
MIL-SIM-FX International Inc.
J.F. Taylor, Inc.
1863
Modeling & Simulation Curriculum
793
Janus Research Group Inc.
2687
ModernTech1165
JETPUBS 3130
Moench Publishing Group
JHT, Inc.
2429
Moog2511
JRL Ventures, Inc.
2080
Motion Analysis Corporation
3091
JRM Technologies
713
MOVES-Delta 3D
2981
3165
3020
JVC Professional Products Company
1048
MS&T Magazine - Halldale Media
2718
Kairos Autonomi 3135
MT&SN 2929
Katmai1133
MVE Systems, Inc.
3158
Kentucky Trailer Technologies
MYMIC, LLC
1481, 1489
2301
KeyBridge Technologies, Inc.
789
National Center for Simulation
KGS-TraumaFX
888
3141
National DEFENSE Magazine 3141
409
National STEM Place
3070
725
Knight Eagle Technologies, Inc.
1088
Knowledge Management Training Institute
Kognito Interactive
1113, 3165
National Training & Simulation Association (NTSA)
3141
Kongsberg Maritime Simulation
2462
NATO
2881
Kratos Technology & Training Solutions
1720
Naval Postgraduate School
2981
Krauss-Maffei Wegmann GmbH & Co KG
1201
Naval Research Laboratory
2921
L-3 Communications
1449
Navy Modeling and Simulation Office
2981
Laerdal Medical
3257
nCASE–Materials World Modules
3161
Laser Shot
1213
NDIA
3141
LifeLine Mobile 3253
NeoMetrix Technologies, Inc.
2084
78
Exhibitors
Neuro Logic Systems, Inc.
3035
Quantum 3D, Inc.
Newman & Spurr Consultancy Ltd. 3140
Questionmark3102
Newport News Shipbuilding
3049
Qwizdom, Inc.
2906
1581
Rapid Prototyping Services
3348
NGRAIN
Nida Corporation
2900, 2901
RapidEye
2401
867
Night Readiness, LLC
2127
Rave Computer
1907
Northrop Grumman
2049
RAYDON Corporation
1056
NVIS, Inc.
3123
Raydon Trailer Exhibit Oakwood Extended Stay Lodging
1163
Raytheon1939
Office of Naval Research (ONR)
552
RealTime Immersive, Inc.
The O’Gara Group
820
REALTIMEVISUAL3019
OPINICUS Corporation
Optimal Technologies Int’l (OTi)
1249
424
361,367
325
Red Hat, Inc.
2805
RGB Spectrum
2856
OPTOKON A.S.
2902
Rheinmetall AG, Corporate Sector Defence
2415
Organic Motion 1788
Rheinmetall Defence Electronics GmbH
2719
Orlando Science Center Hands-On STEM Activities
3163
Riptide Software, Inc.
1170
Oshkosh Speciality Vehicles
2169
Robotel, Inc.
2823
Paltech, Inc.
1141
Robotics at UCF
3164
Panel Products Inc
2922
Rockwell Collins
2501
Panopto
2812
Rosetta Stone Ltd.
2804
Paramount Panels, Inc.
2880
RPA Electronic Solutions, Inc.
1873
RSI Visual Systems
1200
2563
Parsons
821
2913
RUAG Defence
PhaseSpace Inc. 2828
SAAB2139
Photo Etch
521
Safety Training Systems, Inc.
1101
PIRTEK Fluid Transfer Solutions
2914
SAIC2439
Pitch Technologies
2663
Sandia National Laboratories
PLEXSYS Interface Products, Inc.
2073
Scalable Display Technologies 2283
PLW Modelworks
2281
Scalable Network Technologies
2726
2886, 2970
Polhemus2465
SDS International
607
Power Innovations Int’l, Inc.
1421
SeaPerch3262
Praemittias Systems LLC
2919
Seeing Machines 3029
Presagis1609
Sensics1066
Prob-Test, Inc. 1090
SensoryCo.1157
Project Lead the Way
3264
SERCO, Inc.
projectiondesign
2848
Serious Games Challenge
3263
Projstream
3128
Serious Games International Limited
3057
SGB Enterprises, Inc.
1883
Promethean Inc.
612
829
Pulau Corporation
3048
SILKAN
2667
Q4 Services
1465
SimiGon, Inc.
2101
QinetiQ1261
SIMmersion LLC
1020
Quadrant Simulation Systems, Inc.
1915
SimPhonics, Inc.
2133
Qualisys Motion Systems
2710
Simthetiq
2814
Quality Team Building
3131
Simulab Corporation
3157
79
Exhibitors
Simulation and Control Technologies
SMART EYE AB
401
3036
SMART Technologies
Smooth On Inc.
Trident University International
2821
TSM Corporation
2949
633
Turning Technologies
2715
3249
U.S. Army PEO STRI
1841
435
U.S. Army PEO STRI Pavilion
171
3251
U.S. Army RDECOM STTC
171
Sonalysts
1981
U.S. Coast Guard FORCECOM
Sony Electronics, Inc.
1949
U.S. Navy / NAWCTSD
SRI International
1293
UCF Foundation, Inc.
889
STARBASE 3066
UFA, Inc.
621
Sterling Global Operations, Inc.
3059
Ultra Electronics Advanced Tactical Systems 1471
Stewart Film Screen 3051
United Electronic Industries (UEI)
1109
Stirling Dynamics
2065
Unity Technologies
Stottler Henke Associates
2126
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Society for Simulation in Healthcare Strategic Systems, Inc.
882
University of South Florida
3083
552, 1740
761
2710
407
StressVest Inc. 1789
URS1012
Symbolic Displays, Inc.
2926
USAA
2807
SYMVIONICS, Inc.
2315
USAF Training Systems Product Group
1835
SYNERCO SA
1290
Using Simulations for Applied Learning
3167
Tactical Micro 420
USM, Inc.
2735
1281
Valkyrie Enterprises, LLC
2813
TEAL Electronics
2115
Vcom3D, Inc.
1780
Tech Valley Technologies, Inc.
1086
VDC Display Systems
1070
Tech Wizards, Inc.
3114
Veraxx Engineering Corporation
1615
TECHLINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
3248
VirTra Systems, Inc.
Technical Sales & Applications/Pelican Products
1021
Virtusphere, Inc.
The Tatitlek Corporation
Tec-Masters, Inc.
501
771
2180
VMASC/ODU
3041
TekPanel2121
VSD
1927
TENA/JMETC
2168
VT Mäk
2535
Ternion Corporation
1471
Vuzix TDG/Six.15 Technologies
2282
TerraSim, Inc.
1121
WALLTOPIA 535
Thales1000
WARFIGHTERS CORNER
3181
Theissen Training Systems, Inc.
2591
Westar Display Technologies, Inc.
1256
THERMODYNE CASES
1881
WILL Interactive, Inc.
2581
Thetus Corporation
2927
WITTENSTEIN aerospace & simulation
2481
Third Dimension Technologies
3156
WorldViz
3119
Tobii Technology
3052
Wyle
3087
Trailer Transit, Inc
785
ZedaSoft, Inc.
1973
Training & Simulation Journal
2800
Transas Marine
2862
80
Zel Technologies, LLC
507, 508
Committees
The Power of
Innovation
Enabling the
Global Force
committees
Conference Committee
Service Executives
Capt Steven D. Nakagawa, USN
Col Michael A. Coolican, USMC
Col Peter K. Eide, USAF
James T. Blake, Ph.D., U.S. Army
OSD/Joint Executive
Frank C. DiGiovanni, OSD
Service Principals
Gary Fraas, U.S. Navy
Martin Bushika, U.S. Marine Corps
Mark Adducchio, U.S. Air Force
Traci Jones, U.S. Army
OSD Principal
Skip Vibert, OSD
Conference Chair
Amy Motko, Carley Corporation
Deputy Conference Chair Cyndi Turner, General Dynamics Information Technology
Program ChairRon Smits, DRC
Deputy Program Chair
Brent Smith, Engineering & Computer Simulations
Subcommittee Chairs
Education
Jennifer McNamara, BreakAway, Ltd.
Emerging Concepts and Innovative Technologies
Bob Johnson, McKean Defense Group
Human Performance
Catherine Emerick, Booz Allen Hamilton
Policy, Standards, Management and Acquisition
Bob Kleinhample, SAIC
Simulation
Bill Gerber, Ph.D., WJ Gerber Consulting
Training
Scott Ariotti, DiSTI
Best Paper Committee Chair John Owen, NAWCTSD
Tutorial Board Chair
Judy Converso, Ph.D., Northcentral University
Best Tutorial Committee Chair
Lee Lacy, Ph.D., DRC
Education and Training Advisor
VADM Al Harms, USN (Ret.), University of Central Florida
Scholarship Committee ChairMike Genetti, Ph.D., Rockwell Collins Simulation and
Training Solutions
Director for International Programs
Steve Monson, The Boeing Company
Strategic Planning and STEM Committee ChairLinda Brent, Ed.D., The ASTA Group
Special Event Coordinator
Janet Cichelli, Serco, Inc.
Website and Social Media Advisor
Sae Schatz, Ph.D., MESH Solutions (a DSCI Company)
Operations Committee Chair
Len Kravitz, LRK Associates, Inc.
Conference Sponsor
President
RADM James Robb, USN (Ret.)
Coordinator Barbara McDaniel
Exhibits and Sponsorships
Debbie Dyson, CEM
Advisor
CAPT Nelson P. Jackson, USN (Ret.)
Media Relations/Communications
John Williams
Protocol Coordinator
Steve Detro, L-3 Communications Link Simulation & Training
Historians
Carol Denton, Allen Collier
Veterans Coordinator
Earle Denton
Council of Chairs
The Council of Chairs is a special advisory group to the NTSA Sponsor and to the I/ITSEC Committee organization. The
exclusive membership comprises the previous I/ITSEC Conference chairs. Drawing on their cumulative experience of over a
quarter of a century, these leaders provide a unique perspective and advice for the ongoing mission of I/ITSEC.
1979A.W. Herzog (Deceased)
and G.V. (Vince) Amico
1980 Robert W. Layne
1981 Kurt Merl
1982 James A. Gardner, Ph.D.
1983 John Todd (Deceased)
1984Ralph T. Davis (Deceased)
1985 John W. Hammond
1986 Rodney S. Rougelot
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995 David P. Crane
Thomas E. Sitterley, Ph.D.
Arthur L. Banman
Steve Selcho
Donald M. Campbell
Jerry Jerome
J.D. (Jack) Drewett
G.P. (Pres) McGee
Judith Riess, Ph.D.
1996
1997 1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Ed Ward
Dennis Shockley
Jim Cooksey
Stan Aronberg
Ron Johnson (Deceased)
Debbie L. Berry
Paul Bernhardt
Bill Walsh
Buck Leahy
2005
2006 2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Steve Swaine
Steve Detro
Amy Henninger, Ph.D.
Don Currie
DeLloyd Voorhees, Jr.
Jim Wall, Ph.D.
Mike Genetti, Ph.D.
81
committees
Education
Chair: Jennifer
McNamara,
BreakAway Ltd.
Deputy Chair: Gerald
Dreggors, Northrop
Grumman
Emerging
Concepts &
Innovative
Technologies
Chair: Bob Johnson,
McKean Defense
Group
Deputy Chair:
Mark Soodeen, CAE
Human
Performance
Chair: Catherine
Emerick, Booz Allen
Hamilton
Deputy Chair: Dr. Anne
Little, CSC
82
Jake Aplanalp, NAWCTSD
Mike Armstrong, Pulau Corporation
Stu Armstrong, QinetiQ
Jan Brown, CAE USA
Christopher Bryant, Kratos Training Solutions
Kevin Cahill, Aero Simulation Inc.
Ingo Cegla, U.S. Army PEO STRI
Susan Coleman, Ph.D., Intelligent Decision
Systems Inc.
Carla Cropper, Rockwell Collins
Robert Dixon, U.S. Army PEO STRI
Glenda Feldt, Ph.D., USCG Forcecom Training
Center
John Huddlestone, Ph.D., Cranfield University
LTC Tam Huynh, USA, USAJFKSWCS TLDE
Perry McDowell, Moves Institute
Kristy Murray, Ed.D., ADL Initiative
Capt Scott Ruppel, USAF, Air Force Agency for
Rebecca Sampson, Air University Eaker Center
AETC/HRA
Frank Schufletowski, Ph.D., Delex Systems Inc.
Ramona Shires, CACI-CMS Information Systems,
Inc.
Dan Siegel, Ph.D., Full Sail University
Robert “Buddha” Snyder, CACI-CMS Information
Systems, Inc.
Denise Stevens, Ed.D., General Dynamics
Anne Sullivan, MarCorSysCom PM TraSys
Trientje Tippens, Army Training Support Center,
CAC-T
Mike Weber, Novonics Corporation
Janet Weisenford, ICF International
Tanya Woodcook, MARSOC HQ
Anya Andrews, Ph.D., Erudition Corporation
Jennifer Arnold, Booz Allen Hamilton
Maureen Bergondy-Wilhelm, NAWCTSD
Chip Bowlin, USSOCOM
Capt. Aaron Burciaga, USMC, HQ Marine Corps,
Installations & Logistics
Robert Chapman, Alion Science and Technology
Rick Copeland, U.S. Army PEO STRI
Tony DalSasso, USAF Simulators Division
Mark Friedman, Concurrent Technologies
Corporation
Charles Frye, Novonics Corporation
Todd Glenn, FAAC Inc.
Jim Godwin, The Tolliver Group, Inc.
Steven Gordon, Ph.D., Georgia Tech Research
Institute
Kent Gritton, JTIEC/NAWCTSD
Bob Heinlein, Medical Simulation Associates
Eric Jarabak, MarCorSysCom PM TraSys
J. Mark “Atis” Lozano, ATIS Consulting
Paul Lyon, BARCO Simulation
Michael O’Connor, Trideum Corporation
1st Lt Thomas Olaes, USAF, Air Force Research
Laboratory
LCDR Brent Olde, USN, NAVAIR PMA 205
Mike Papay, Ph.D., Northrop Grumman
Beth Pettitt, ARL-HRED-STTC
Stacy Pierce, Rockwell Collins
Ray Pursel, Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory
Toni Scribner, HQ Air University A4/6I
Robert A. Sottilare, Ph.D., ARL-HRED
Mary Trier, Capital Communications &
Consulting
Sam Worrell, FAAC Inc.
Keith Anderson, Paltech, Inc.
Lee Barnes, Northrop Grumman
Kristen Barrera, Air Force Research Laboratory
Holly Baxter, Ph.D., Strategic Knowledge
Solutions
Benjamin Bell, Ph.D., CHI Systems, Inc.
Elizabeth Biddle, Ph.D., The Boeing Company
Martin Bink, Ph.D., U.S. Army Research Institute
Maj Benjamin Brown, USMC, MAGTFTC
Phil Brown, D.M., U.S. NORTHCOM
CDR Joseph Cohn, USN, Office of Naval Research
Randy Crowe, Ph.D., Lockheed Martin
Capt Gabe Diaz, USMC, Marine Corps Warfighting
Laboratory
Sam Fragapane, Air Force Agency for Modeling &
Simulation
Kelly Hale, Ph.D., Design Interactive, Inc.
Kelsey Henderson, NAWCTSD
Bill Hornsby, A. Harold & Associates, LLC
Charlie Huffine, Craig Technologies
Sherrie Jones, Ph.D., MarCorSysCom PM
TraSys
John Martin, Air Force Research Laboratory
G.P. (Pres) McGee, ZedaSoft, Inc.
Ellen Menaker, Ph.D., Intelligent Decision
Systems, Inc.
Jennifer Murphy, U.S. Army Research Institute
Denise Nicholson, Ph.D., MESH Solutions (a
DSCI Company)
John Owen, NAWCTSD
Rob Parrish, U.S. Army PEO STRI
Kevin Roney, Sysergi LLC
James Threlfall, C2 Technologies, Inc.
Dan Young, SCCI Integrated Logistics Solutions
committees
Policy, Standards,
Management, and
Acquisition
Chair: Bob
Kleinhample, SAIC
Deputy Chair: Michael J. Motko,
QinetiQ
Simulation
Chair: Dr. Bill Gerber,
Skybridge Tactical,
LLC
Deputy Chair: John
Aughey, The Boeing
Company
Training
Chair: Scott Ariotti,
DiSTI
Deputy Chair: Lisa Scott
Holt, Ph.D., Lumir
Research Institute, Inc.
Paul Bernhardt, P&S Partners
George Burmester, U.S. Army PEO STRI
Tammy Clark, Cubic Applications, Inc.
Jan Drabczuk, Inter-Coastal Electronics
Corky Franklin, Raytheon Technical Services
Company
LTC William Glaser, TPO OneSAF
Clem Greek, Kratos Technology and Training
Solutions
Rich Grohs, USAF Air Combat Command
Steve Husak, Steve Husak & Associates
John Jinkerson, CAE USA
Timothy Lincourt, USAF Simulators Division
John Marino, NAVAIR PMA 205
Rob Matthews, NAWCTSD
Frank Mullen, AT&L MSCO
Annie Patenaude, AMP Analytics
Karen Pogoloff, KLPinc
Harry Robinson, Veterans Health AdministrationSimLEARN
Mark Russell, Electronic Consulting Services
John Schlott, L-3 Link Simulation & Training
Roy Scrudder, The University of Texas at Austin,
Applied Research Laboratories
Jerry Stahl, Cypress International
Brett Telford, MCMSMO
Rene Thomas-Rizzo, ASN, RD&A
Gloria Tuck, MARCORSYSCOM PM TRASYS
Judy Wade, Ph.D., MARCORSYSCOM AC ALPS
Robert Wallace, 29th Training Systems Squadron
Karen Williams, U.S. Army PEO STRI
Thomas Yanoschik, SAIC
Michael Aldinger, Northrop Grumman
Keith Biggers, Ph.D., Texas A&M University
Richard Boyd, Lockheed Martin
Meredith Brehm, Lockheed Martin Global
Training and Logistics
Ismael Cotto, NAWCTSD
Leslie Dubow, U.S. Army PEO STRI
Ba Duong, MarCorSysCom PM TraSys
John Dzenutis, The Boeing Company
Capt. Jeffrey Falkinburg, USAF, Air Force
Research Laboratory
Nick Giannias, Presagis
Jerry Hendrix, Camber Corporation
Amy Henninger, Ph.D., U.S. Army Center for
Army Analysis
Brian Holmes, AEgis Technologies Group Inc.
Matt Kraus, Nuvolect LLC
Ed Kulakowski, OT Training Solutions, Inc.
Cathy Matthews, Matthews Systems Engineering
Long Nguyen, Ph.D., NAWCTSD
Ann O’Kennon, Daedalus Technologies, Inc.
Brian Overy, Lockheed Martin Global Training
and Logistics
Paul Phillips, USAF Simulators Division
Larry Rieger, TRADOC ARCIC
Randy Scott, U.S. Strategic Command/J75
Steve Scott, U.S. Air Force Special Operations
Command
Matt Spruill, Engineering & Computer
Simulations
Scott Szurgot, MARCORSYSCOM PM TRASYS
Sandy Veautour, U.S. Army AMRDEC
Maj Eric Whittington, USMC, TECOM TECD
Cynthia Adams, Booz Allen Hamilton
Gene Beauvais, Raytheon Technical Services
Company
Ami Bolton, Ph.D., Office of Naval Research
Karen Cooper, Ph.D., NAWCAD
Felicia Douglis, Kratos Technology & Training
Solutions
Fred Fleury, ZedaSoft, Inc.
Luis Garcia, MARcorsyscom, PM TRASYS
Liz Gehr, Ph.D., The Boeing Company
Jacqueline Haynes, Ph.D., Intelligent
Automation, Inc.
Amy Jenison, Army Logistic University, CASCOM
Tony Marton, U.S. Army PEO STRI
Kevin Moore, Ph.D., Tier 1 Performance
Solutions
Heath Morton, USAF Simulators Division
Capt. Sam Oliver, USMC, MARCORSYSCOM PM
TRASYS
Kara Orvis, Ph.D., Pacific Science & Engineering
Elaine Raybourn, Ph.D., Sandia National
Laboratories
Judith Riess, Ph.D., Education & Training
Solutions
Chuck Secard, Lockheed Martin GTL
Tere Sotomayor, Ph.D., ARL-HRED-STTC
John Stratis, Jacobs Technology Inc.
Mary Sue “Suzy” Sutton, U.S. Air Force, HQ Air
Education & Training Command
Lisa Townsend, NAWCTSD
LTC Christopher Vaughn, USA, Joint and
Coalition Warfighting
JoAnn Wesley, Marcorsyscom PM Trasys
Eliot Winer, Ph.D., Iowa State University
83
committees
Tutorial Board
Operations Committee
Chair
Judy Converso, Ph.D., Northcentral University
Chair
Deputy Chair
Robert Richbourg, Ph.D., Institute for Defense Analyses
Deputy Chairs
Bruce Schwanda, B.A.S. Associates, LLC
Jim Pohlen, Daedalus Technologies, Inc.
Members
Charles Cohen, Ph.D., Cybernet Systems Corporation
James Coolahan, Ph.D., The Johns Hopkins University/
Applied Physics Lab
Luis Miguel Encarnacao, Ph.D., ACT, Inc.
Mike Freeman, Ed.D., Adayana Government Group
Zach Johnson, Booz Allen Hamilton
Lee Lacy, Ph.D., DRC
Robert Lutz, The Johns Hopkins University/Applied Physics
Lab
Thomas Mastaglio, Ph.D., Mymic LLC
David Milewski, Booz Allen Hamilton
S. K. Numrich, Ph.D., Institute for Defense Analyses
Katrina Ricci, Ph.D., NAWCTSD
Larry Skapin, The Boeing Company
Special Events Committee
Coordinator
Janet Cichelli, Serco Inc.
Deputy Coordinator
Denny Shockley, Motion Analysis Corporation
Members
Warfighters’ Corner
DeLloyd Voorhees, General Dynamics Information
Technology
I/ITSEC Fellows
Robert Richbourg, Ph.D., Institute for Defense Analyses
Margaret Loper, Ph.D., Georgia Tech Research Institute
Robert Lutz, Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics
Laboratory
Operations Liaison
International Programs
Director
Steve Monson, The Boeing Company
Members
Mike Armstrong, Pulau Electronics Corporation
Jan Baka, Electronic Consulting Services, Inc.
Bob Bret, R.E. Bret, Inc.
Corky Franklin, Raytheon Technical Services Company
Charlie Frye, Novonics Corporation
Jim Godwin, The Tolliver Group
Bill Hornsby, A. Harold & Associates, LLC
Zach Johnson, Booz Allen Hamilton
Ed Kulakowski, OT Training Solutions, Inc.
Annie Patenaude, AMP Analytics
David Shorrock, The Shorrock Group
STEM Committee
Chair
Linda Brent, Ed.D., The ASTA Group LLC; NTSA, Strategic
Planning
Members
Serious Games
Kent Gritton, JTIEC/NAWCTSD
Future Leaders Pavilion
Ann Friel, CSC
Students at I/ITSEC
D. David Hutchings, Raydon Corporation
Scholarships
Mike Genetti, Ph.D., Rockwell Collins
CEU/Post I/ITSEC Workshops
Debbie Berry, Lockheed Martin
Maria Cherjovksy, University of Central Florida Continuing
Education
America’s Teachers at I/ITSEC
Margaret Loper, Ph.D., Georgia Tech Research Institute
STEM Pavilion Project Based Learning Exhibits
Robert Seltzer, NAWCTSD
Abdul Siddiqui, U.S. Army PEO STRI
Deputy Director
K. Denise Threlfall, Ph.D., L-3 D.P. Associates Inc.
Members
Michael Weber, Novonics Corporation
John Huddlestone, Ph.D., Cranfield University, UK
84
Conference
Information
The Power of
Innovation
Enabling the
Global Force
Registration Information
About Registration
What Do The Registration Fees Cover?
Registration fees cover Continuing Education Units (CEUs), Lunches (T-W-Th), Coffee Breaks (T-W PM, W-Th AM), Continental
Breakfasts (W-Th), and the Thursday Banquet. A meeting bag with conference materials (including an Abstract book and CD
ROM of the current papers), is included. The fees also cover administrative expenses incurred.
I/ITSEC Registration Services for 2012
We strive to minimize the time spent in line so you can move
on to the conference events or the exhibit floor. Our goal is
to make your I/ITSEC experience a pleasant one even before
you enter the OCCC. Avoid that line and move on to what you
came to I/ITSEC to do!
Traditional Registration Stations. Located in Hall A Registration
area, traditional walk-up registration will be available for Full
Service Registration, on-site payments, changes/edits to name
badges, multiple badge pick-ups, or just because you prefer
dealing one-to-one with a real person.
Alternate Registration Stations within the Orange County Convention
Center. Specific stations at the Main Registration Station will
be open Friday and Saturday to handle, especially, Exhibitor
Registration. Conference Attendees are encouraged to wait
until Sunday afternoon or use the Self Badging/Self Registration
kiosks.
Self-badging printing stations will be available for those
who pre-registered and received a confirmation number. To
Parking
complete your registration at this station, you must be paid
in full with no outstanding balance or questions remaining
about your registration.
Self-Registration will be available for those who want to walk
up to a station and register on-site. Credit card payments are
required at these stations.
VIPs, Speakers (including Paper Presenters), Media, and
International registrants will have special registration stations.
More details will be provided to each group, but be sure and
watch for signage pointing to these areas.
Registration Station outside of the Orange County Convention Center.
Attendees staying at the Peabody hotel should look for the
I/ITSEC Full Service Registration located in the Mallards
Lobby. From Sunday noon through Tuesday, staff will assist
whether you just need to pick up a bag and badgeholder, are
starting from scratch, or need to complete any stage of the
registration process.
Exhibitor Parking:$13 per Day – For regular vehicles with re-entry privileges each day.
Exhibitor must show badge and receipt for repeat entries.
$25 per Day – For oversized vehicles with re-entry privileges each day.
Exhibitor must show badge and receipt for repeat entries.
Attendee Parking:
$13 per Day – For regular vehicles per entry.
$25 per Day – For oversized vehicles per entry.
After 5 PM:
$8 per Day – For regular vehicles. Same stipulations as above.
$16 per Day – For oversized vehicles. Same stipulations as above.
Accepted Payment Methods:
Cash, Traveler’s Checks, American Express, MasterCard & Visa
Dress Code
Branch
Army
Marine Corps
Navy
Air Force
Coast Guard
Civilian
Conference and General Sessions
ACUs or Duty Uniform
Service “C”
Service Khaki , Summer White
or Navy Service Uniform
Short or Long Service Blues
Tropical Blue Long
Business attire
Banquet
Army Blue (Army Evening Mess optional)
Evening Dress (Dress Blue “B” or Service “A” optional)
Service Dress Blue with tie and jacket (Mess Dress optional)
Black tie (optional)
85
Lodging
The National Training and Simulation Association has blocked
rooms with the Orlando hotels listed below. Make your lodging
arrangements either on-line or by phone through the central
reservation service through 21 November 2012. Hotel phone
numbers will be posted on the I/ITSEC web at that time for your
convenience in making last minute changes or arrangements.
(Current room rates may apply after 21 November.) Travel
Planners, Inc. is our official housing partner and the only company
authorized to represent I/ITSEC and NTSA. If you are contacted
by other companies who present themselves as representing the
Conference or Association, please report to [email protected].
On-Line: Go to
http://www.iitsec.org/attendees/Pages/LocalAccommodations.aspx,
select Lodging, select whether you are a corporate or government
attendee and the program attached will lead you through the
process from location, to hotel selection, to special needs, to
payment and confirmation.
By Phone: If you prefer to book via telephone, friendly and
knowledgeable agents are ready to take your calls Monday through
Friday from 9:00AM – 7:00PM ET at 800-221-3531 or 212-532-1660.
More Information about Lodging Arrangements:
• Some Room Rates are subject to change, based on the government
per diem rate. Those listed with an * are the most likely to change.
• Government Rate Room Reservations: Rooms shown in the “Gov’t
Rate” column are to be assigned to those with appropriate ID,
to be presented at the hotel desk upon check-in. Please do not
reserve unless you are eligible to do so.
• Be aware that some hotels may charge an additional Resort Fee
as well as applicable taxes.
• Additional hotels may be added at a later date.
• The individual hotels are not authorized to accept reservations
q Peabody Orlando
directly for this conference. You may state your hotel preference
when making your reservations.
• Attendees must identify themselves as being with the I/ITSEC to
receive the rates shown.
• The Conference is being held at the Orange County Convention
Center, located directly accross the street from the Peabody, which
is the headquarters Hotel. (I/ITSEC 2012 activities will be located
in the West Concourse).
• Shuttle buses/vans will be available throughout the conference
(including following the closing banquet).
• Cancellations for reservations paid by check will be charged a
cancellation fee of $25.00.
• To help defray conference management costs, an assessment is
included in the room rates shown with these hotels. We encourage
you to make your lodging arrangements within the designated
housing package established.
Check your bags and print Domestic Flight boarding
passes with “Baggage Airline Guest Service”, or
B.A.G.S., can be used to check bags and print
boarding passes for Air Tran, Alaska, American,
Continental, Delta, Jet Blue, Southwest, United, and US Airways.
This program, certified by the F.A.A. and T.S.A., is available at
the Rosen Centre (Valet Stand) the Rosen Plaza (Bell Stand), and
Rosen Shingle Creek (Valet Stand). The counters are open from
6:00 AM – 2:00 PM. Passengers must check in at the counter 3
hours prior to flight departure and no earlier than 10 hours prior.
Same day of flight only. The charge is $10 per person. Credit card
payment required. Additionally, airline luggage fees still apply.
B.A.G.S. will also be set up to provide this service near the
I/ITSEC Registration Desk at the Orange County Convention
Center on Thursday, 6 December.
Conference Headquarters
9801 International Drive
(407) 352-4000
Industry: $224
Government: $97*
w Days Inn Convention Center
(407) 352-8700
One Rate: $69
eDoubletree by Hilton
at Sea World
(407) 352-1100
Industry Rate: $129
Government: $97*
r Embassy Suites I-Drive
(407) 352-1400
Industry: $197
Government: $97*
tHampton Inn Convention
Center
8900 Universal Boulevard
(407) 354-4447
Industry: $121
Government: $97*
86
yHilton Orlando
6001 Destination Parkway
(407) 313-4300
Industry Rate: $219
Government: $97*
Holiday
Inn Resort-The Castle
u
(407) 317-5753
One Rate: $97*
iHomewood Suites
(407) 248-2232
Industry: $131
Government: $97*
oHyatt Place Convention
Center
(407) 370-4720
One Rate: $123
a Rosen Centre Hotel
(407) 996-9840
Industry: $189
Government: $97*
sRosen Inn at the Pointe
Orlando 9000 International Drive
(407) 996-8505
One Rate: $79
Rosen
Plaza
d
(407) 996-9840
Industry: $182
Government: $97
f
Vista Cay Condominiums
(407) 996-4647
Industry: $199
Government: $97*
gRosen Shingle Creek Resort
& Golf Club
(407) 996-9939
Industry: $149
hWestin Imagine Orlando
(407) 233-2200
Industry: $120
Government $97*
Getting Around During I/ITSEC
The National Training and Simulation Association has arranged for the Hertz Company to be
the official car rental agency for I/ITSEC with the special rates below.
You can also make your reservations on-line through the I/ITSEC website (Lodging/Travel).
Car
A
B
C
D
F
G
I
L
R
U
Class
Economy
Compact
Midsize
Standard 2/4 Door
Full Size 2/4 Door
Premium
Luxury
4WD/AWD SUV
Mini Van
Convertible
Daily
$46.49
$51.49
$55.49
$58.49
$61.49
$66.49
$85.49
$80.49
$85.49
$80.49
Weekend
$27.49
$30.49
$32.49
$37.49
$39.49
$44.49
$71.49
$69.49
$71.49
$69.49
Weekly
$185.49
$199.49
$216.49
$231.49
$247.49
$257.49
$354.49
$346.49
$354.49
$346.49
To receive special meeting rates, call Hertz at 1-800-654-2240 To get from your hotel to the West Concourse (halls A/B) of
or 405-749-4434 or your nearest Hertz reservation center, your the OCCC, you have several choices of transportation.
corporate travel department, or your travel agent and give the • I/ITSEC will provide Shuttle Bus service to all properties
listed. (Schedules will be available at the hotels, and at the
agent CV#04860005.
entrance to the conference registration area.)
Rates are guaranteed from November 28 - December 8, 2012 • Very reasonable Public Transportation is available on the
I-Ride trolley bus along International Drive.
subject to car availability. Government surcharges, taxes, tax
Check http://www.iridetrolley.com or your hotel for
reimbursment, title and license fee reimbursement and optional
schedules.
items such as refueling or additional driver fees, are extra.
Advance reservations are (strongly) recommended. Minimum • Your own or a rented vehicle. Limited parking available,
$13.00 per passenger car per day. Pay for each re-entry. See
rental age is 20 (age differential for age 20-24 applies). Standard
page 88 for more detailed parking information. Oversize
rental conditions and qualifications qualify.
vehicles $25.00. Prices are subject to change.
• Most of the hotels are within walking distance (wear comfortable shoes).
Make all the difference in your
trip to Orlando by filling your
down time with magical moments. Whether it’s spending
a truly unforgettable evening
with an old friend or sharing
a dazzling nighttime sky with
a new contact, magical experiences reign supreme in the
Walt Disney World® Theme
Parks. To get additional information and order
tickets go online at:
http://www.iitsec.org/attendees/planningyourstay/
Pages/OrlandoConnections.aspx
or call 407-566-5600.
Client Events & Discounts to Dining,
Nightlife, Attractions, Golf, etc.!
Orlando Convention Aid has partnered with
I/ITSEC to help you arrange for the perfect
restaurant for your client or staff dinner/event. We have a relationship with 60 local venues to provide this service on a complimentary
basis, and we will provide you with availability, pricing, and options,
normally at a discount, within 24 hours! Please also visit our website by clicking on the golden ticket graphic at http://www.iitsec.org/
attendees/planningyourstay/Pages/OrlandoConnections.aspx to make dinner
reservations, buy discounted attraction tickets, book tee times, and so
much more! This web site will help you plan your time in Orlando
and SAVE MONEY! Be sure to check out the coupons available and
get your coupon book at registration — jam packed with thousands
of dollars of savings!
87
Publications & Media
Advertising Opportunities:
Official Publications of I/ITSEC
Now more than ever, with the increased
challenges facing the defense and security
marketplace, you need to keep your
organization’s message in front of
its target audience. Reach the leading decision-makers at the world’s
largest simulation, training and
modeling event of the year by advertising your products and services in
the Official Publications of I/ITSEC.
Advertise and invite the attendees to
visit your exhibit, product demonstration
and/or website. Then after the event has
ended, these publications are used by
many as desk-references, so your advertisement will reach the decision-makers
long after the conference is over.
The National Training and Simulation Association’s
Annual Simulation & Training Trends and Technology
Review – I/ITSEC Exhibitor Directory
This publication will be available to all the attendees,
exhibitors, and exhibit visitors at I/ITSEC. It will be placed
in the attendees’ conference bags, available at registration,
and other locations at the convention center. As an added
bonus, your ad will also appear in the December Issue of
National Defense Magazine — exposure beyond the walls
of the convention center. National Defense is sent to over
75,400 BPA audited readers, including the members of
NTSA. (Directory section will not appear in National Defense
Magazine).
The I/ITSEC Show Daily
Make sure everyone sees your organization’s advertisement
in this year’s daily. The I/ITSEC Show Daily informs the
simulation & training community on breaking events &
happenings on-site at I/ITSEC. It is printed overnight and
distributed daily at the conference center, choice hotels, and
uploaded to the I/ITSEC website. The daily has evolved into
a vital part of I/ITSEC; a “must read” while attending the
conference.
Use both to give your company Unequalled Exposure
Special packages have been created so your organization can
take advantage of both opportunities!
For more information on advertising in these publications,
contact Dino Pignotti at (703) 247-2541 or [email protected].
88
I/ITSEC Proceedings (Three ways to purchase)
ONLINE REPOSITORY (Papers from 1985 - 2012)
Try our online research library. This exciting feature provides a
valuable link to the I/ITSEC training, simulation and education
community. All Abstracts may be accessed. Papers available
for $10 each. Group subscriptions are also available. Go to
http://ntsa.metapress.com to review this exciting capability.
YEARLY Proceedings (Papers from 1995 - 2011)
Individual CDs for the years shown above are available for
$30.00 each. Each CD includes all accepted papers from that
year. Orders can be placed by calling (703) 247-9471. (2002
sold out)
I/ITSEC Compendium (Papers from 1966 - 2000)
Great news for students, librarians, researchers! The full record
of papers published from1966 through 2000 is available for
order (or at I/ITSEC) as a two-CD set for $300.00. You may
place an order through the NTSA office (703) 247-9471, or on
the I/ITSEC registration form. Papers from the pre-electronic
era have been reviewed, scanned and provided with keywords,
making ALL papers searchable electronically. Orders can be
placed by calling (703) 247-9471.
Stay in Touch
Free Wireless hot spots. E-mail/Internet Kiosks.
Free e-mail and Internet service in FedEx Office.
In various locations throughout the conference area, including
FedEx Office (C Lobby), I/ITSEC attendees will have
complimentary internet and e-mail. At FedEx Office you may
also print and copy at reduced I/ITSEC prices. Internet Access
is also available at the Connections Lounge and Grill located
inside West Exhibit Hall A1. (Additionally, all of OCCC is now
Wi-Fi enabled for a modest user fee.)
Achieving Maximum Media Exposure
I/ITSEC offers its exhibitors numerous and varied
opportunities to present their products to a national
and international media audience. Because I/ITSEC is
the premier annual event of its kind, attendance by the
mainstream and specialist trade press is heavy, resulting in
coverage that reaches your key marketing targets. Although
I/ITSEC attracts the media, you must get them to your
exhibit. Our media staff stands ready to assist you in this
process. Corporate representatives are invited to bring their
marketing materials to the Media Room for distribution
as early as possible after the opening of registration. The
Media Room area will also include a separate facility for
briefings/presentations with a capacity of approximately
30 persons. We strongly recommend early bookings for this
room, which will be in demand. Prior to the conference,
contact John Williams at (703) 362-7005 or jwilliams@ndia.
org; check out more details on the I/ITSEC News page of
http://www.iitsec.org. The I/ITSEC Media Room is W206,
phone (407) 685-4001.
Association Sponsors
The NTSA, an affiliate of NDIA, represents and promotes the
business interests of companies in the simulation, training,
mission planning/rehearsal, and support services industry.
Among the services NTSA provides to its approximately 225 corporate and 525
individual members are industry forums, business referrals, a bimonthly newsletter
(Training Industry News), and a comprehensive market survey/business forecast
(Training 2015). Regular and Sustaining Corporate Members receive early selection
and discounts for exhibit space at I/ITSEC. Individual memberships are also available.
For membership information, call (703) 247-9471 or visit the NTSA website: at
http://www.trainingsystems.org.
Exhibit Information
Debbie Dyson, CEM
Director of Exhibits, NTSA
Phone: (703) 247-9480
FAX: (703) 243-1659
E-mail: [email protected]
Visit http://exhibits.iitsec.org
to view the current floor plan,
TRAINING 2015 MARKET SURVEY
Training 2015 is a comprehensive report of training related issues. Published online
at trainingssystem.org/publications, the report represents a thorough assessment
of future training needs developed from personal interviews with representatives
from all the Military Services, Congress, Department of Homeland Security and
Joint commands. The report is available on the NTSA website, free of charge to all.
exhibitor list, and
sponsorship opportunities.
SAVE THE DATE FOR
I/ITSEC 2013!
The National Defense Industrial Association is the premier
December 2-5, 2013
association representing all facets of the defense and technology
Orange County Convention
base and serves all military services. More than 1,790 companies
Center • West Concourse
and nearly 98,000 individuals rely on this nonprofit, educational association
Orlando, FL
for information, access, and visibility. NDIA provides a legal, ethical forum for
exchanging ideas and information between government and industry and hosts
technical, policy, and war fighting symposia and exhibitions. It serves as an advocate
in legislative and regulatory arenas and conducts its mission through nationwide Women In Defense,
chapters, four affiliate associations, and divisions representing key defense elements. A National Security Organization
NDIA publishes the monthly magazine National Defense.
Cultivating and supportFor NDIA membership information visit www.ndia.org or contact Mike Kibler at
ing the advancement and
[email protected].
recognition of women
Earning the CMSP
designation will:
•D
emonstrate expertise in the field of M&S
to your employer and the larger M&S
community
To learn more about the
requirements and to apply, please visit
www.simprofessional.org
or contact Patrick Rowe at
[email protected].
• Provide opportunities for professional
advancement
Requirements include 3-8 years of work
experience (depending on level of highest
collegiate degree), 3 professional letters of
reference, and successful
in all aspects of national
security is the mission of
Women In Defense. An affiliate of NDIA,
this non-profit professional organization
provides women professional growth
through networking, education and
career development at both the national
and chapter levels. Members, including
men and women, have careers related to
the defense of the United States and national security. Details and membership:
http://wid.ndia.org.
New in 2012: Select between CMSP-Technical
89
Safety and Security
Security Hotline during I/ITSEC: (407) 685-4075
Medical Emergencies, dial 5-5119 from any Convention Center phone
Security Training Before The Conference
Technology collection directives contain mandates requiring exhibitors and presenters to receive a Counterintelligence (CI) briefing from their CI support staff prior to I/ITSEC. Contractors with classified contracts may contact
their Defense Security Service Special Agents. To avoid security breaches, I/ITSEC presenters and exhibitors should
ensure that the required briefing has been received. A list of CI support agencies follows. Please contact your security
officer/manager and ensure that an appropriate briefing for yourself and your colleagues is arranged. Providers of
the briefings are:
Navy, USMC, Coast Guard
Air Force
Army
Contractors
Naval Criminal Investigative Service
Air Force Office of Special Investigation
902 Military Intelligence
Defense Security Service
Personal Security
The most important thing to protect, of course, is yourself. Pay attention to your surroundings. Report suspicious
behavior or security breaches to a security person or NTSA staff. Familiarize yourself with emergency procedures
and exits at your hotel and the Convention Center. Conference Security Office will be located in the South Lobby
Registration Area and inside the Exhibit Hall.
Emergency Medical Services
EMT and/or Paramedics will be on-site during I/ITSEC (including hall build-up and tear-down). During
I/ITSEC 2012, they will be located on the same level as Registration, near the West A Lobby escalators.
See the layout on page 14 for the exact location. Within the Convention Center dial 5-9809 or contact any
security or I/ITSEC staff member with a radio. If outside the Center or on your cell, dial (407) 685-9809.
Bags and Briefcases
Bags and Briefcases may be carried in by those wearing Conference Attendee or Exhibitor badges. Exhibit
Visitors (those who are only visiting the exhibits) WILL NOT be allowed to carry in bags or briefcases.
A check room will be available in the main registration area. A small purse or fanny pack is allowed,
but is subject to search. Additional Security Restrictions may be posted on http://www.iitsec.org and on
signage at the conference. Conference Management reserves the right to adjust security levels as deemed
necessary during the conference.
Presentations
Recording devices will not be permitted in the presentation rooms, unless authorized by the conference
management. Presenters and Exhibitors should review their company’s policy documents and those
of the government agencies with whom you contract regarding open distribution, limited distribution,
restricted distribution and sharing limitations.
Cameras
Exhibitors have the right to limit photographs and videos of their displays. Please respect this right by
asking before photographing or videotaping. Participants found taking photos or videos without the
consent of the subject presentors or exhibitors will be dealt with according to security procedures, to
possibly include confiscation of materials and removal from the premises.
Inquiries (before the conference)
Registration (702) 798-8340 • Exhibit/Sponsorship (703) 247-9480 • All other inquiries (703) 247-2569
90
Golf Tournament
Central Florida Chapter
Scholarship* I/ITSEC Golf Tournament
Sunday, 2
December
or
Monday, 3
December
(A David Hartman Design)
Lunch Provided
Deadlines
Two-Day Sponsorships†:
Entry Fee
Sponsorship
†
18 November
18 November
Tournament Times
Day
Sunday Monday Sign-In
1100
0630
Shotgun
1230
0730
(The Par-Take Snack Stand is open at 0630)
Details available at www.iitsec.org
Tee Box
$400 ea.†
Putting Green or Driving Range $400 ea.†
GPS
$600 ea.†
Beverage Cart, Par-take or $2,500 ea.†
Hole-in-One
Need not be golfer to sponsor.
Payable in advance with on-line registration.
Sponsors
Point of Contact
Debbie Berry
407-306-4487
[email protected]
Cost
$90 per Player
(includes Green Fees, Cart, Range Balls, and Lunch)
Payable in advance with on-line registration.
Mulligans available onsite.
Send your logos (hi-res jpeg) via e-mail
to [email protected] (final will be
color, on white background) by close
of business 21 November. Do not bring
your own sign.
Cancellations
Cancellations must be received via
e-mail to [email protected] by
close of business (EST) 19 November to
receive 50% refund. No refunds after
26 November. Substitutions allowed
on-site, no extra charge.
Register and Pay On-Line!!
Cut-off date: 26 November
Register and pay for green fees and
sponsorships while registering for
I/ITSEC at www.iitsec.org. Through the
on-line form (www.iitsec.org), you may
register one to four players and select the
desired sponsor opportunity.
To complete the registration for your
group or team, be ready to provide each
player’s handicap, phone & e-mail.
*For full list of scholarships funded by
the Central Florida Chapter, please visit
http://www.ndia-cfl.org.
(Limit 1 per player)
Golf Format
From Orlando
International Airport:
Max Number of Players 144 per Start
Max Number of Teams 36
Min Team Handicap
48
Max Individual Handicap
36
West on Highway 528
(Beach Line) (toll road)
approx. 7 miles. Take exit
2, Universal Blvd. Right
on Universal to main
entrance on right.
Captain’s Choice/Scramble
Only one Player per team with less than 10 Handicap
Pairings & Starting Holes
Assignments and pairings will be made
by tournament coordinator. Priority is
based upon receipt of payment.
Requested team pairings can only be guaranteed if all
players are registered at the same time. Requests noted
under comments when registering will be considered but
cannot be guaranteed.
Prizes (For each start)
First Place Team
Second Place Team
Closest to Pin Longest Drive 50/50 Cash Jack Pot
Low Gross
Low Gross
(M/W)
(M/W)
From 1-4:
East on Highway 528
(Beach Line) (toll road)
past International Drive.
Take exit 2, Universal Blvd.
Right on Universal to main
entrance on right.
1/2 mile east of the Orange County Convention
Center (OCCC) North/South (New) Complex
From the Orange County Convention Center:
East (right) onto International Boulevard. North (left) onto Convention Way.
(Convention Way is the street that runs between the OCCC and the Rosen Centre.)
East (right) onto Universal Boulevard. Shingle Creek entrance will be on the left.
Shingle Creek Golf Course • 9939 Universal Blvd • Orlando, FL 32819
407-996-9933 or 866-996-9933 • www.ShingleCreekGolf.com
91
notes
92
See you next year!
I/ITSEC
Interservice/industry training,
simulation & education conference
Concepts and Technologies: Empowering an Agile Force
te!
Save the Da
December
2-5, 2013
SEC.ORG
wWW.IIT
December 2-5,
2013
u
u
Orlando, Florida
Call for Papers
and Tutorials
I/ITSEC 2013
Abstract Deadline: 24 February 2013
On-Line Abstract Submittal
Subcommittees/Categories
• Human System Engineering
The submission process for the
I/ITSEC Papers and Tutorials
coincide. Submittal details will
vary slightly, but the milestones
will match.
• Policy, Standards,
Management & Acquisition
Follow the
• Education
• Emerging Concepts &
Innovative Technologies
• Simulation
• Training
Tutorials
Information on core M&S,
training, and education topics
suitable for management and
technical personnel.
I/ITSEC 2013 Program Chair
Brent Smith
Engineering & Computer Simulations
Phone: 407-823-9991 x305
Dece m b e r
2 - 5 ,
2 0 1 3
Papers/Tutorials
Completion Process
for 2013 Abstract Submittal
which will be posted in
December.
http://www.iitsec.org/authors
I/ITSEC 2013 Tutorial Board Chair
Dr. Robert Richbourg
Institute for Defense Analyses
Phone: (703) 845-2158
u
u
Orla nd o,
Fl orida
Abstracts
The Power of
Innovation
Enabling the
Global Force
2012 I/ITSEC Abstracts
BEST PAPERS
CONVERGING SIMULATION AND C2: IMPROVING FOUNDATION DATA CONSISTENCY
AND AFFORDABILITY ............................................................................................................................. 8
A SUBSET OF MIXED SIMULATIONS: AUGMENTED PHYSICAL SIMULATIONS WITH
VIRTUAL UNDERLAYS ............................................................................................................................ 9
ARCHETYPAL PATTERNS OF LIFE FOR MILITARY TRAINING SIMULATIONS.................... 9
USING SIMULATORS TO MEASURE COMMUNICATION LATENCY EFFECTS
IN ROBOTIC TELESURGERY ................................................................................................................10
MAKING GOOD INSTRUCTORS GREAT: USMC COGNITIVE READINESS AND
INSTRUCTOR PROFESSIONALIZATION INITIATIVES .................................................................11
LEVERAGING TECHNOLOGIES TO REVERSE ENGINEER A HELICOPTER FOR
SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ..............................................................................................................11
EDUCATION
COME ON, LET’S START USING MOBILE LEARNING...................................................................12
MOBILE LEARNING: NOT JUST ANOTHER DELIVERY METHOD ............................................13
HOW DO YOU LIKE YOUR LEARNING? E, M OR C? ......................................................................13
THE SERIOUS GAMES SHOWCASE & CHALLENGE DISTILLED ...............................................14
SHARING LEARNING CONTENT: BEYOND THE TECHNOLOGY ...............................................15
SMARTPHONES, DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: LESSONS LEARNED FROM
PROFESSIONAL SPORTS........................................................................................................................15
FINDING AN EMPIRICAL BASIS FOR PERSONALIZING TRAINING .........................................16
LIVE OR VIRTUAL MILITARY TRAINING? DEVELOPING A DECISION ALGORITHM .......17
USE OF EVIDENCE-BASED STRATEGIES TO ENHANCE THE EXTENSIBILITY OF
ADAPTIVE TUTORING TECHNOLOGIES ..........................................................................................17
RETHINKING THE ROLE OF THE INSTRUCTOR: TEACHING 21ST CENTURY
LEARNERS .................................................................................................................................................18
TRANSMEDIA DESIGN FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING ..........................................................19
WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE? VIDEO-ANNOTATION WITH EXPERT-MODEL
FEEDBACK AS A METHOD OF ACCELERATING NOVICES’ SITUATION AWARENESS ......19
S’CAPE FROM FORMALITY: EMBEDDED AND AUTOMATIC ASSESSMENTS WITHIN
SIMULATION GAMES .............................................................................................................................20
PLANNING LOW BANDWIDTH ASSESSMENTS THAT SUPPORT CURRICULUM
COMPETENCIES .......................................................................................................................................21
SIMULATION2INSTRUCTION: USING SIMULATION IN ALL PHASES OF INSTRUCTION ..21
CAN ROLE-PLAY WITH VIRTUAL HUMANS TEACH INTERPERSONAL SKILLS? ................22
PERFORMANCE-BASED CROSS-CULTURAL COMPETENCE ASSESSMENT
AND TRAINING .........................................................................................................................................23
DESIGNING USEFUL VIRTUAL STANDARDIZED PATIENT ENCOUNTERS ............................23
Papers are available on the 2012 I/ITSEC CD ROM included in the Conference Attendee meeting bag, or visit the
I/ITSEC Website (www.iitsec.org) for ordering information. (Limited numbers of CDs from 1998-2011 are also
available.) All papers from 1966 through 2000 are available in the I/ITSEC Compendium. Individual papers from
1987 through 2012 may also be ordered through the www.iitsec.org portal.
1
T3 PURSUIT: TRIAGE, TRANSPORT, & TRACK COMBAT HEALTH SUPPORT BOARD
GAME ..........................................................................................................................................................24
TRAINING AND RETENTION OF MEDICAL SKILLS ......................................................................25
PROGRESSIVE TINNITUS MANAGEMENT TRAINING: A DEVELOPMENT MODEL FOR
CONTENT CURRENCY IN A FIELD IN FLUX ....................................................................................25
MEASURING DISTANCE LEARNING WORKLOAD: THE ARMY MODEL FOR DL
INSTRUCTOR HOURS .............................................................................................................................26
SETTING THE STAGE: PREPARATION FOR ADVANCED COMBAT PROFILING
TRAINING...................................................................................................................................................27
JOINT CONTINUUM OF ELEARNING: IMPLEMENTING ENGAGING, EFFECTIVE, AND
MEANINGFUL MILITARY E-LEARNING ...........................................................................................27
DEMONSTRATION OF THE POTENTIAL FOR SIMULATORS IN YOUNG DRIVER
TRAINING...................................................................................................................................................28
USER INTERFACE AS A LITERACY - IMPACT ON DESIGN .........................................................29
APPLICATION OF WORKED EXAMPLES TO UNMANNED VEHICLE ROUTE PLANNING ..29
EMERGING CONCEPTS & INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
IMPLEMENTATION OF AN AUGMENTED REALITY SYSTEM FOR TRAINING
DISMOUNTED WARFIGHTERS ............................................................................................................30
MULTI-KINECT TRACKING FOR DISMOUNTED SOLDIER TRAINING ....................................31
URBAN SHORT RANGE INTERACTION: AN LVC SOLUTION FOR URBAN OPERATION
TRAINING...................................................................................................................................................31
SIMULATION OF COOPERATIVE UNMANNED SYSTEMS MISSION EXECUTION USING
FUZZY LOGIC NETWORKS ...................................................................................................................32
SOCIAL NETWORKS TECHNOLOGY SUPPORTING CIVIL-MILITARY COOPERATION
“THE BENEFITS OF CROWDSOURCED INFORMATION” ................................................................33
APPLYING GAMING PRINCIPLES TO SUPPORT EVIDENCE-BASED INSTRUCTIONAL
DESIGN........................................................................................................................................................33
A MODULAR FRAMEWORK TO SUPPORT THE AUTHORING AND ASSESSMENT OF
ADAPTIVE COMPUTER-BASED TUTORING SYSTEMS (CBTS) ...................................................34
CREATING ADAPTIVE EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCE DURING VE TRAINING ..........................35
RADIS: REAL TIME AFFECTIVE STATE DETECTION AND INDUCTION SYSTEM ................35
SIDESLIP MISCONCEPTIONS IN HELICOPTER SIMULATORS...................................................36
BUDGET-CONSTRAINED SIMULATIONS USING A CONTEXT-INTERACTION MODEL AND
CROWDSOURCING ..................................................................................................................................37
FACT: AN M&S FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMS ENGINEERING...................................................37
EVALUATING EFFECTIVENESS IN VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS WITH MR SIMULATION .38
EFFECTIVE LEARNER MODELING FOR COMPUTER-BASED TUTORING OF COGNITIVE
AND AFFECTIVE TASKS ........................................................................................................................39
ADVANCED TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES FOR GATEWAY PERFORMANCE TESTING ..........39
CONSTANT RESOLUTION: A DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGY FOR SIMULATOR VISUAL
SYSTEM DESIGN ......................................................................................................................................40
2
Papers are available on the 2012 I/ITSEC CD ROM included in the Conference Attendee meeting bag, or visit
the I/ITSEC Website (www.iitsec.org) for ordering information. (Limited numbers of CDs from 1998-2011 are
also available.) All papers from 1966 through 2000 are available in the I/ITSEC Compendium. Individual papers
from 1987 through 2012 may also be ordered through the www.iitsec.org portal.
BEYOND HIGH DEFINITION: EMERGING DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE
WARFIGHTER ...........................................................................................................................................41
GLASS VERSUS FILM MIRRORS FOR WIDE FOV COLLIMATED VISUAL DISPLAYS ..........41
HIGH FIDELITY PHYSIOLOGICAL MODEL FOR IMMERSIVE SIMULATION AND
TRAINING...................................................................................................................................................42
A HAPTIC SIMULATOR FOR TRAINING FORCE SKILL IN LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY .....43
ADAPTIVE CYBER IMMUNITY USING A PRIVATE CLOUD .........................................................44
A VIRTUAL CYBER RANGE FOR CYBER WARFARE ANALYSIS AND TRAINING .................44
CLOUD SIMULATION INFRASTRUCTURE – DELIVERING SIMULATION FROM THE
CLOUD ........................................................................................................................................................45
REALISTIC WATER SIMULATION FOR TRAINING OF AMPHIBIOUS VEHICLE CREWS ...46
INNOVATIVE, RECONFIGURABLE UGV SIMULATOR TO SUPPORT ANTI-CRISIS
OPERATIONS.............................................................................................................................................46
BROADENING QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF DISTRIBUTED INTERACTIVE SIMULATION
WITH DATA MINING FUNCTIONALITIES ........................................................................................47
SIMULATION IN SUPPORT OF ARMY STRUCTURE ANALYSIS..................................................48
APPLYING SEMANTIC ANALYSIS TO TRAINING, EDUCATION, AND IMMERSIVE
LEARNING .................................................................................................................................................48
ADAPTIVE TRAINING FOR VISUAL SEARCH ..................................................................................49
GESTURE AND BRAIN COMPUTING INTERFACES: IMPACTS ON NEXT GENERATION
LEARNING .................................................................................................................................................50
THE NEXT GENERATION OF SCORM: INNOVATION FOR THE GLOBAL FORCE ................51
A GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR DEVELOPING TRAINING APPS ON ANDROID DEVICES 51
AUGMENTED REALITY ON TABLETS IN SUPPORT OF MRO PERFORMANCE .....................52
REAL-TIME FUSION OF SURVEILLANCE IMAGERIES IN URBAN SCENES ............................52
HUMAN PERFORMANCE
WHAT ARE THE MOST CRITICAL SKILLS FOR MANNED-UNMANNED TEAMING? ...........53
DIGITAL TRAINING AND INTERFACE LESSONS LEARNED FROM OPERATIONAL USE
PATTERNS ..................................................................................................................................................54
END-USER TOOLS FOR MULTIMEDIA ANNOTATION OF VIDEO TRAINING
DEMONSTRATIONS .................................................................................................................................54
THE IACE ASSESSMENT MODEL: AN APPROACH TO EVALUATING SIMULATION
SUITABILITY .............................................................................................................................................55
MODIFYING ACTION LEARNING TO INCREASE READINESS....................................................56
AUTOMATED HUMAN PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT: DATA AVAILABILITY AND
STANDARDS...............................................................................................................................................56
ON THE UTILITY OF STEREOSCOPIC DISPLAYS FOR SIMULATION TRAINING .................57
EFFECTS OF VISUAL INTERACTION METHODS ON SIMULATED UNMANNED AIRCRAFT
OPERATOR SITUATIONAL AWARENESS .........................................................................................58
IMPROVING NAVAL SHIPHANDLING TRAINING THROUGH GAME BASED LEARNING ...58
3
ENHANCING HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS THROUGH EMBEDDED VIRTUAL
SIMULATION .............................................................................................................................................59
QUANTIFICATION OF TRAINEE AFFECTIVE AND COGNITIVE STATE IN REAL-TIME.....60
MEASURING THE TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS OF COMBAT LIFESAVER SIMULATION
TRAINING SYSTEMS ...............................................................................................................................60
A PARADIGM SHIFT IN CULTURAL TRAINING: CULTURE-GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF CULTURALLY COMPETENT FORCES .........................................................................................61
USING VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS TO IMPROVE REAL WORLD PERFORMANCE IN
COMBAT IDENTIFICATION ..................................................................................................................62
NO COMPROMISE – AN INNOVATIVE SECTION 508 APPROACH SUPPORTING ALL
LEARNERS .................................................................................................................................................62
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MODERN TOOLS TO AUTHOR TUTORING SYSTEMS ..............63
IMPROVING TRAINING THROUGH HUMAN SYSTEMS DESIGN IN A MOBILE APPS
WORLD .......................................................................................................................................................63
POLICY, STANDARDS, MANAGEMENT & ACQUISITION
IMPROVING SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATION MODELS ..............................64
ROBBING PETER TO PAY PAUL – MODELING IRREGULAR WARFARE DEMAND
SIGNALS .....................................................................................................................................................65
RAISING THE BAR FOR THE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROCESS ......................................65
TRAINING DEVICE CERTIFICATION AND ACCREDITATION PROCESS .................................66
SUSTAINMENT OF MODELING AND SIMULATION TOOLS IN THE DEFENSE
ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................................................................67
FACE VALIDATION: FROM CONCEPT TO CONCRETE PROCESS .............................................67
CRACKING THE CODE: CONTRACTING FOR OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE ............................68
MAXIMIZING U.S. ARMY RETURN ON INVESTMENT UTILIZING SOFTWARE PRODUCTLINE APPROACH ......................................................................................................................................69
TRAINING SYSTEMS ACQUISITION FOR MAJOR DEFENSE PROGRAMS...............................69
ESTABLISHING A CLASSIFIED U.S. TRAINING NETWORK ENCLAVE IN AUSTRALIA ......70
SIMULATION IN HEALTHCARE - WHAT IS HOLDING US BACK? .............................................71
INTEGRATE VS. INTEROPERATE; AN ARMY TRAINING USE CASE ........................................72
COALITION BATTLE MANAGEMENT SERVICES (CBMS)............................................................72
INFORMATION ASSURANCE IMPACTS OF MOBILE ARCHITECTURE IN A TRAINING
SYSTEM ......................................................................................................................................................73
SIMULATION
DEVELOPING A COMPLEX SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT FOR EVALUATING CYBER
ATTACKS ....................................................................................................................................................74
SYNTHETIC CYBER ENVIRONMENTS FOR TRAINING AND EXERCISING
CYBERSPACE OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................74
ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) MODELING SUPPORT FOR RED FLAG EXERCISES ...........75
4
MISSIONLAND: THE CREATION OF A VIRTUAL CONTINENT FOR MISSION
SIMULATION .............................................................................................................................................76
EASY PATTERN-OF-LIFE GENERATION USING PHYSICAL AND HUMAN TERRAIN ..........76
DYNAMIC SYNTHETIC ENVIRONMENTS THROUGH RUN-TIME MODIFICATION
OF SOURCE DATA....................................................................................................................................77
TO BELIEVE OR NOT TO BELIEVE, FIDELITY IS THE QUESTION ...........................................78
COMBINING CONSTRUCTIVE MODELS WITH A 3D GAME FOR ENHANCED
IMMERSION...............................................................................................................................................78
VIRTUAL LOCOMOTION CONCEPTS AND METRICS STUDY: EXPERIMENTATION AND
RESULTS .....................................................................................................................................................79
MIGRATING PROCESSOR ARCHITECTURES FOR SIMULATION .............................................80
YOU CAN HANDLE THE TRUTH: SIMULATION ARCHITECTURE FOR MULTIPLE TRUTH
ENGINES .....................................................................................................................................................80
SERVICE ORIENTED ARCHITECTURE ROLE IN AIR FORCE AND NAVY COMMON
TRAINER INITIATIVES...........................................................................................................................81
BRIDGING LIVE AND VIRTUAL RADIOS WITHOUT SPECIALIZED CROSS-DOMAIN
SOLUTIONS ................................................................................................................................................82
MODELING AND SIMULATION FOR DYNAMIC SPECTRUM ACCESS ......................................82
“CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?” UNDERSTANDING THE COSITE INTERFERENCE
HURDLE ......................................................................................................................................................83
BUILDING TERRAIN UNDER THE TOWER OF BABEL ..................................................................84
GEOSPATIAL CORRELATION TESTING FRAMEWORK AND TOOLSET .................................84
THREADS….TYING INTEGRATION TOGETHER ............................................................................85
APPLYING PRACTICES FROM INSTRUCTOR APPLICATIONS TO CREATING SIMULATED
AVIONICS DISPLAYS ..............................................................................................................................86
LESSONS LEARNED DURING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AERIAL REFUELING DMO .....86
AUGMENTED REALITY TRAINING APPLICATION FOR C-130 AIRCREW TRAINING
SYSTEM ......................................................................................................................................................87
HUMAN ACTIVITY MODELING AND SIMULATION WITH HIGH BIOFIDELITY ...................88
NO MORE ZOMBIES! HIGH-FIDELITY CHARACTER AUTONOMY FOR VIRTUAL SMALLUNIT TRAINING........................................................................................................................................88
CUSTOMIZABLE SPEECH CENTERS FOR AUTOMATED ENTITIES WITHIN
SIMULATION .............................................................................................................................................89
DESIGN PATTERNS FOR THE CONFIGURATION OF UTILITY-BASED AI ...............................90
ACHIEVING MODULAR AI THROUGH CONCEPTUAL ABSTRACTIONS .................................90
MODELING CULTURAL BEHAVIOR FOR MILITARY VIRTUAL TRAINING ...........................91
DEVELOPING INTEROPERABLE SIMULATIONS THROUGH CONCEPTUAL MODELING
AND ONTOLOGICAL ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................................92
EMBEDDED LVC TRAINING: A DISTRIBUTED TRAINING ARCHITECTURE FOR LIVE
PLATFORMS ..............................................................................................................................................92
OMNISCRIBE – ENHANCING AAR IN AN LVC ENVIRONMENT .................................................93
5
TRAINING
IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATED LVC FOR NAVAL AVIATION TRAINING ..............................94
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE FLEET SYNTHETIC TRAINING (FST) AT SEA.......................94
COUNTERING A SWARM ATTACK .....................................................................................................95
EVALUATING IMMERSION IN TRAINING ENVIRONMENTS ......................................................96
COMPARING TRAINING TRANSFER OF SIMULATORS: DESKTOP VERSUS WEARABLE
INTERFACES .............................................................................................................................................96
ENHANCING REALISM IN DESKTOP INTERFACES FOR DISMOUNTED INFANTRY
SIMULATION .............................................................................................................................................97
NOT JUST FOR ANGRY BIRDS, PRACTICAL TRAINING WITH MOBILE DEVICES ..............98
AUTOMATED TREND ANALYSIS FOR NAVY-CARRIER LANDING ATTEMPTS ....................98
APPLYING SERVICE ORIENTATION TO THE U.S. ARMY’S COMMON TRAINING
INSTRUMENTATION ARCHITECTURE..............................................................................................99
A SITE SELECTION METHODOLOGY TO OPTIMIZE TASK TRAINING .................................100
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES TO SUPPORT RAPID SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT .......................100
TOWARDS ADAPTIVE SCENARIO MANAGEMENT (ASM) .........................................................101
CAN UAS TRAINING BE DONE WITHOUT LIVE FLIGHT? .........................................................102
A CAPABILITIES-BASED ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR USMC SQUAD IMMERSIVE
TRAINING.................................................................................................................................................102
FROM A SUBMARINE TO A VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT AND VICE VERSA ...........................103
THE EFFECTS ON PERFORMANCE AFTER COMBINING DRIVING AND JUDGMENT
SIMULATION ...........................................................................................................................................104
CROSSING THE BARRIER: A SCALABLE SIMULATOR FOR COURSE OF FIRE
TRAINING.................................................................................................................................................104
HIGH FIDELITY BALLISTICS AND GUNNER TRAINING AS A PART OF INTEGRATED
AIRCREW .................................................................................................................................................105
LEADER EMOTION MANAGEMENT: DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF A TRAINING
PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................................106
FUTURE TRAINING FOR JUNIOR NCOS IN GARRISON DURING EXPANDED DWELL
TIMES ........................................................................................................................................................106
SERIOUS GAME FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY EDUCATION IN THE NETHERLANDS ......107
FRAMEWORK FOR TRAINING ADAPTABLE AND STRESS-RESILIENT DECISION
MAKING....................................................................................................................................................108
THE DYNAMIC TEAM TRAINING EXPERIMENT: IMPROVING TACTICAL TEAM
DECISION MAKING ...............................................................................................................................108
CUTTING THE CORDS: TRAINING FOR MARSHALLING WITH GESTURE
TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................109
TRAINING CREDIBILITY IN CROSS DOMAIN EVENTS ..............................................................110
TOWARD A TRAINING ENTERPRISE CROSS DOMAIN INFORMATION SHARING
SOLUTION ................................................................................................................................................110
6
TABLE OF AUTHORS ............................................................................................................................112
PLEASE NOTE: TUTORIALS ARE INCLUDED ON THE CD
7
WEDNESDAY, 5 DECEMBER, 2012 ROOM W304A
BP-1 - PSMA, ECIT, Training
1030
Converging Simulation and C2:
Improving Foundation Data
Consistency and Affordability
(12326) (PSMA)
1100
A Subset of Mixed Simulations:
Augmented Physical Simulations
with Virtual Underlays (12077)
(ECIT)
1130
Archetypal Patterns of Life for
Military Training Simulations
(12193) (Training)
Notes
CONVERGING SIMULATION AND C2: IMPROVING FOUNDATION DATA CONSISTENCY
AND AFFORDABILITY
2012 IITSEC Paper No. 12326
Michael Hieb
C4I Center at George Mason University
Fairfax, VA
Daniel T. Maxwell
KaDsci , LLC
Fairfax, VA
Developing Modeling and Simulation (M&S) Terrain Data Bases for Army training events has been one of
the most perplexing issues in Army M&S. Generating the necessary terrain data for the supporting
Simulations, as well as Command and Control (C2) Systems, for training is extremely expensive and
requires extensive lead-time. Historically, there were significant differences in the resolution and type of
data that was required for military simulations and for operational decision support tools. For the last 10
years there has been an ongoing debate between the M&S and Operational Communities concerning which
community has the “better” standards. However, a value analysis of the problem shows that most of the
effort is put into obtaining and refining geospatial (and image) source data, and that this process can be the
same for both communities. This paper describes findings of a US Army Simulation to Mission Command
Interoperability Overarching Integrated Product Team (SIMCI OIPT) Geospatial Initiative focusing not on
the differences but on the similarities between the two communities. The implication is that the data
requirements for all these systems are converging and becoming more demanding. Unfortunately, the various
communities have, often for good reason, implemented different and inconsistent data related processes,
standards, and policies for representing the same things in the different domains. These inconsistencies
seriously limit the interoperability of systems, the reusability of geospatial data and ultimately the overall
effectiveness of our C2 systems. Achieving the interoperability and meeting the increased demand systems
users now demand requires that the M&S community increase its production efficiency and, critically, the
consistency of the data that is the lifeblood of all these systems. Special emphasis in the paper is given to
Co- Production of M&S and Operational geospatial data generation, which has been identified as a critical
part of the current SIMCI effort.
8
A SUBSET OF MIXED SIMULATIONS: AUGMENTED PHYSICAL SIMULATIONS WITH
VIRTUAL UNDERLAYS
Samsun Lampotang, Frank J. Bova, David E. Lizdas, Didier A. Rajon, William A. Friedman, Albert R. Robinson III,
Isaac Luria, Wilhelm K. Schwab, Nikolaus Gravenstein
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL
Most of us have appreciated Mixed Reality (MR) in the form of the virtual “yellow first down line” when
watching football on TV. However, MR technology was previously confined to a few pioneering groups
and was not readily available. Simply defined, MR integrates the virtual and physical worlds to generate
new environments where real and virtual objects are collocated (share the same space) while augmenting
our capabilities to interpret, understand, practice, learn, train or teach. MR technology is becoming
affordable and finding its way into simulation giving rise to a new field we call Mixed Simulation. We
present in this paper five new mixed simulators with physical exteriors and virtual underlays: central
venous access (CVA), ventriculostomy, radio frequency lesion, spinal instrument implantation and regional
anesthesia. We exploited advances in the capabilities, cost and/or sensor miniaturization in medical
imaging, tracking technology, 3D printing (rapid prototyping) and 3D graphic cards to develop and deploy
compact, inexpensive mixed simulators that are anatomically authentic, i.e., exact physical and/or virtual
replicas of the actual individuals used as models. Sub-millimeter accuracy, miniaturized tracking sensors
monitor and record every move, twist and turn of a tracked needle during the simulated procedures,
facilitating after action review or even self-debriefing (when instructors are unavailable) and automated
scoring algorithms (immune to inter-rater variability) that include tracking and grading of near misses.
Mixed simulators offer the potential for improved training and debriefing for military and civilian
applications; e.g., the CVA simulator improves learning outcome in residents and can provide civilian
reservists unfamiliar with subclavian venous access (common in military trauma medicine and combat
casualty care) training prior to frontline deployment to care for warfighters.
ARCHETYPAL PATTERNS OF LIFE FOR MILITARY TRAINING SIMULATIONS
Sae Schatz, Ph.D. Kathleen Bartlett, M.A. & David Solina, M.S.
MESH Solutions, LLC
a DSCI Company
J.T. Folsom-Kovarik, Ph.D &
Robert E. Wray, Ph.D.
Soar Technology
Across societies, cultures, and geographic regions, reoccurring patterns of generalizable human behavior
emerge, and within a given sociocultural context, recognizable and reasonably stable patterns of life can be
observed, enabling the mental creation of a “baseline” of normal activity. To operate effectively in
complex urban contexts, military personnel must be able to recognize local baselines and to use their
knowledge of both local and archetypal patterns of life to intuitively identify and respond to anomalies in
those baselines. Enabling personnel to develop these nuanced sociocultural perceptual skills presents
several science-and-technology challenges. For instance, available training products may effectively train
region-specific competencies or even general cultural awareness, but these programs rarely emphasize
archetypal patterns or strategies for identifying anomalies in operational settings. Also, additional work
must be conducted to construct appropriate constructive simulations in which to practice these skills; that
is, the community must define more computationally grounded principles for integrated, realistic
behaviors. In this paper, we will provide a synthesized overview of the research that informs theories on
“Patterns of Life. We also offer a construct definition for the phrase and outline initial thoughts about its
training. Then we describe the behavior-representation and behavior-generation gaps that must be resolved
before patterns-of-life training simulations can fully address the training need. Finally, we outline our
current effort to leverage the integrated academic findings, research-based military training strategies, and
next-generation behavioral models to develop a government-owned immersive simulator for training
Marines to recognize patterns of life and learn baselining skills.
9
BP-2 HP, Education, Simulation
1400
Using Simulators to Measure
Communication Latency
Effects in Robotic Telesurgery
(12237) (HP)
1430
Making Good Instructors Great:
USMC Cognitive Readiness
and Instructor Professionalization
Initiatives (12185) (Education)
1500
Leveraging Technologies to Reverse
Engineer a Helicopter
for Simulator Development (12431)
(Simulation)
Notes
USING SIMULATORS TO MEASURE COMMUNICATION LATENCY EFFECTS
IN ROBOTIC TELESURGERY
Roger Smith, PhD
Florida Hospital Nicholson Center
Celebration, FL
Sanket Chauhan, MD
University of Minneapolis Medical School
Minneapolis, MN
Robotic surgical technology was originally developed by the US Army and DARPA as a tool to enable
telesurgery at a distance. The Intuitive da Vinci system now provides a robotic surgical tool in a traditional
operating room. But research continues into the extension of this capability to patients that are remote from
the surgeon’s location. In this paper we describe the interim results of experiments into the effects of
communication latency in the safe execution of robotic telesurgeries. These experiments were carried out
with the Mimic dV-Trainer, a simulator of the da Vinci robot, which was configured to insert defined levels
of latency into the visual and command data streams between a surgeon and the operating field. Subjects
were asked to perform four basic robotic surgical exercises. They were allowed to rehearse these in a zero
latency environment and with a randomly assigned latency between 100ms and 1,000ms. Then each subject
performed each exercise for measurement and analysis in our research.
This experiment measured the degradation of human surgical performance across a range of latency
conditions. This paper reports on the comparison of the level of experience of the surgeons with their
performance in a latency-effected environment. The data collected thus far refutes our hypothesis that more
experienced surgeons would be more successful at managing the effects of latency and would perform better
than those with less experience. Subjects in our experiment show no correlation between experience and
successful performance under latency. The ability to manage latency in tele-operations may be shared
between remote surgery and the control of a remotely piloted UAV's and UGV's. The results of our
experiments may suggest that experience as a traditional pilot does not necessarily contribute to useful skills
in flying UAV's or driving UGV's when latency is present.
10
MAKING GOOD INSTRUCTORS GREAT: USMC COGNITIVE READINESS AND
INSTRUCTOR PROFESSIONALIZATION INITIATIVES
Sae Schatz, Ph.D. Kathleen Bartlett, M.A.
& Nicole Burley
MESH Solutions, LLC a DSCI Company
Capt David Dixon, M.S.
Policy Management
Branch, TECOM
Kenneth Knarr & LtCol Karl Gannon
Ground Combat Standards
Branch, TECOM
After a decade of waging unconventional conflicts, Defense stakeholders now generally accept that the US
military has entered a new era of warfare, distinguished from previous generations by its prevalence of insurgent
and terrorist tactics, frequency of non-kinetic tactical dilemmas, complexity of the sociocultural context, and
emphasis on operational decentralization. To excel under such conditions, each warfighter—down to the lowest
echelons—must possess a high degree of cognitive readiness, that is, the mental, emotional, and interpersonal
skills that allow him/her to rapidly decide and act in complex, dynamic, and ambiguous environments. Each of
the US Armed Services is addressing cognitive readiness training differently. The Marine Corps, for instance, has
embarked on two related, large-scale efforts. First, the USMC Training and Education Command (TECOM)
established the Small Unit Decision Making initiative in order to “improve the ability of small unit leaders across
the MAGTF to…assess, decide, and act while operating in a more decentralized manner” (Implementation
Planning Guidance, p. 9). To achieve this, TECOM personnel and academic advisors are translating advanced
instructional methods into actionable forms (e.g., militarized handbooks, instructor development seminars) and
launching a pilot course in spring 2012 for noncommissioned officers on decision making. Second, TECOM
personnel are examining instructor career progression, looking for strategies to enhance Marine Corps instructors,
writ large. In other words, TECOM is looking to take Marine instructors from good to great. In this presentation,
we will discuss the instructional principles in use by the Small Unit Decision Making and Instructor
Professionalization efforts. Specifically, we will describe key instructional strategies for engendering complex
cognitive skills and science-based recommendations for making good instructors even better. We will also outline
these efforts’ specific approaches and explain how the two plans build upon research-informed recommendations
in order to enhance Marine instructors and give them the techniques they need to better prepare their personnel.
LEVERAGING TECHNOLOGIES TO REVERSE ENGINEER A HELICOPTER FOR
SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT
Steven J. Smith & Brad Torgler
FlightSafety International
Broken Arrow, OK
Developing high fidelity Level D quality full flight training devices requires detailed data to accurately
simulate the cockpit, instruments, aircraft systems, Automatic Flight Control System (AFCS), power plants
and flight dynamics. In an ideal scenario, all the data needed for simulating the aircraft is provided by the
Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM). Without OEM data, the engineering challenges for developing
the simulator are greatly increased as new methods must be used to gather this information. Recently,
FlightSafety International developed a high fidelity helicopter training device without the support of the
OEM. The primary resource available for the design, development and validation of the simulator was
access to a production aircraft. The entire Level D simulator, from the electronic cockpit indications to the
high fidelity flight dynamics model, had to be reverse engineered from this aircraft.
This paper reports on the leveraging of several innovative technologies to reverse engineer a Eurocopter
EC-135 aircraft for the successful development of a full flight Level D simulator. An overview of the
aircraft as well as the standard simulation development process is given followed by details of how the EC135 simulator was developed. A comprehensive description is provided on the 3D scanning methods used to
noninvasively gather aircraft geometric information, from the smallest cockpit detail to the individual rotor
airfoil profiles. Further discussion is provided on the Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis applied
to the airfoil profiles to identify the 2D aerodynamic coefficients that were then used in the physics-based
blade element model to simulate the EC-135 main rotor and Fenestron. Finally, extensive flight testing,
system testing and parameter identification methods were used to further quantify the flight dynamics
model, power plant, aircraft systems, cockpit indications, mechanical flight control characteristics and the
complex AFCS control laws.
11
TUESDAY, 4 DECEMBER, 2012 ROOM W304H
ED-1 The Rest of the Story
1400
Come On, Let’s Start Using Mobile
Learning (12092)
1430
Mobile Learning: Not Just Another
Delivery Method (12079)
1500
How Do You Like Your Learning?
E, M, or C? (12424)
NOTES
COME ON, LET’S START USING MOBILE LEARNING
Geir Isaksen
Commander, Norwegian Defense University COlege
Oslo, Norway
Norwegian Defence University College (NoDUC) conducted a minor tablet computer experiment in
2011(presented at IITSEC 2011). Because of the promising results, NoDUC decided to begin the process of
implementing tablets at the University College. In December 2011 the NoD ADL office were given the task
to conduct another experiment and to deliver a report no later than May 2012, addressing the best way for
NoDUC to incorporate and use tablet computers. A second mobile learning experiment was conducted early
in 2012, this time with a larger number of participants (28) and with different types of tablet computers
(iPad™, Samsung Galaxy™ and Asus Transformer™).
The goal of the experiments was to get an even more detailed knowledge of the best way to utilize this kind
of technology, technical solutions, pedagogical tools and mobile learning strategies. Like the previous
experiment, the main focus was on how the student could increase their learning by adding a tablet
computer to their list of resources. But in addition they also tested different solutions like an in-house
developed semantic wiki, a wide range of apps, tailor-made learning apps and library services. This paper
addresses the planning, execution, evaluation of the experiment and on how NoDUC implemented tablets
computers together with their exciting learning management system and ICT network.
12
MOBILE LEARNING: NOT JUST ANOTHER DELIVERY METHOD
Peter Berking, Thomas Archibald, Marcus Birtwhistle
Serco, The Tolliver Group, Katmai Support Services
Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative
Alexandria, VA
Jason Haag
The Tolliver Group
Orlando, FL
This paper summarizes a review of literature and a state-of-the-art assessment of instructional design
principles, iterative process methodologies, and pedagogical models for mobile learning. The Advanced
Distributed Learning (ADL) Initiative conducted previous research on the effectiveness of mobile course
delivery. The implications from that research effort have led ADL to further explore which types of mobile
learning require specific pedagogical models and accompanying instructional systems design (ISD)
principles. The high level steps of the ISD analysis process may be applicable for specific types of mobile
learning such as mobile courses and some types of performance support. Intensive research is needed to
consider the ways in which mobile applications and pedagogical approaches can help improve military
readiness. Based on the findings from this research study, this paper will provide background learning
theory that will ultimately lead to new considerations for supporting mobile learning. Finally, this paper will
propose a new framework for supporting mobile learning content within any instructional design (ID)
model, but will use the traditional ADDIE model as a starting point.
HOW DO YOU LIKE YOUR LEARNING? E, M OR C?
Rebecca McKeown & Dr John Huddlestone
Cranfield University
Cranfield, Milton Keynes, MK43 0AL, UK
The British Army’s move towards blended learning delivery (a combination of classroom and technologybased learning) for Military Annual Training Tests (MATTs) instigated this research in order to evaluate the
effectiveness of e-learning and m-learning in delivering MATTs training content, alongside extant
classroom-based training. An evaluation of user reaction was assessed by way of questionnaires and
workshops. Evaluation of Learning effectiveness was addressed using an empirical controlled experimental
design. A pre and post-test assessment allowed comparison of the pre and post-training scores to determine
the effect of each training delivery method. The sample group comprised soldiers and officers from the
Field and Territorial Army and cohorts of soldier and officer recruits. A total of 425 participants were
recruited for the research and randomly allocated to one of the three methods.
The user reaction towards the concept of training using newer technologies was encouraging; the m-learning
package was considered the most popular. Participants reacted positively to having a choice of different
types of learning content, either “mixing things up bit” or working to their preferred modalities of learning.
Flexibility in terms of when and where learning was carried out was seen to be of benefit. The results from
the learning effectiveness evaluation revealed that that there were some improvements between pre and
post-test scores, and some of those improvements reached statistical significance. The newer technologies
(e-learning and m-learning) were as effective as classroom delivery.
It was recommended that further development of e-learning and m-learning packages needs to be usercentred and embrace instructional design principles. Consideration also needs to be given to using elearning and m-learning as part of a blended solution to delivering MATTs training, alongside instructor led
classroom sessions – particularly for emotive-based topics. It is also recommended that research on
knowledge retention of materials delivered by e-learning or m-learning be explored.
13
TUESDAY, 4 DECEMBER, 2012 ROOM W304H
ED-2 Get Smart: Reflect on the Past to Build a Better Future
1600
The Serious Games Showcase &
Challenge Distilled (12262)
1630
Sharing Learning Content: Beyond
the Technology (12293)
1700
Smartphones, Data Collection and
Analysis: Lessons Learned from
Professional Sports (12296)
Notes
THE SERIOUS GAMES SHOWCASE & CHALLENGE DISTILLED
Jennifer McNamara
BreakAway, Ltd.
Hunt Valley, MD
Peter Smith
Katmai Government Solutions in
support of the ADL Initiative
Orlando, FL
Brent Smith
Engineering and Computer
Simulations
Orlando, FL
Kent Gritton
Joint Training Integration
and Evaluation Center
Orlando, FL
Since 2006, the Serious Games Showcase & Challenge (SGS&C) has encouraged student, government and
commercial game developers to submit their serious games for review by a panel of military, academia and
industry gaming experts. For the SGS&C, an entry is considered a serious game if it incorporates game play
dynamics in a product to educate or train a learner at any stage of the learning continuum from K-20
through adult. Finalists are showcased, and winners announced annually in the I/ITSEC exhibit hall. A wide
range of information is collected when a product is submitted to the SGS&C and as each entry navigates
through the evaluation process. Previously, the rich data collected each year has only been shared with
individual entrants to help them learn from the process and possibly improve their games. The aggregate
data that has been collected has historically only been reviewed internally by the SGS&C Planning
Committee. The available data not only provide insight into what it takes to design a best-in-class serious
game but by analyzing data from games submitted across a series of dimensions we’ve identified industry
trends relevant to anyone interested in the application or development of serious learning games. This paper
provides context to the aggregated data that spans the serious games and maps finalist scoring to
instructional interventions, design principles and technologies being used.
14
SHARING LEARNING CONTENT: BEYOND THE TECHNOLOGY
Damon Regan, Ph.D.
Booz Allen Hamilton, in
support of the
Advanced Distributed
Learning Initiative
Orlando, FL
David Twitchell, Ph.D.
Department of Veterans
Affairs
Salt Lake City, Utah
Thomas Archibald, Ph.D.
The Tolliver Group, Inc.,
in support of the
Learning Initiative
Alexandria, VA
Dean Marvin
Katmai Support Services,
in support of the
Learning Initiative
Orlando, FL
The vision of the Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) Initiative is to, “Provide access to the highest
quality education and training, tailored to individual needs, delivered cost effectively, anywhere and
anytime.” The terms “Provide access” and “cost effectively” are a focus for ADL in helping to make
learning content more shareable. Reusing learning content has many obvious benefits (e.g., cost-savings,
less duplication of effort, faster development time, and greater access to excellent material). However, the
history of projects that reuse learning content is a mixed bag—some show great promise while others seem
to hinder sharing. The issues surrounding shared content are broad, but can be characterized by looking
more closely at human and technical hindrances. This paper reviews prior efforts within the DoD to share
learning content and proposes a practical way forward for the DoD.
SMARTPHONES, DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: LESSONS LEARNED FROM
PROFESSIONAL SPORTS
Jay F. Graser
Gemini Technologies
Gainesville, Virginia
Military training involving the evaluation of highly physical (psychomotor) learning objectives, such as
special operations forces training, can benefit from lessons learned in the sports industry. Similar to the
techniques illustrated in the book “Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game,” previously considered
subjective attributes of successful candidates can be converted to objective measures and used to drive
candidate selection, curriculum and budget allocation decisions. Evaluations by military trainers of highly
physical, psychomotor or particularly subjective exercises are often left up to their own judgment. In some
cases, due to the number of tasks, course throughput and a lack of available instructors, students may grade
one another, introducing additional variation in the data collected. Causes of this variation in the data can
come from the experience of the raters and their interpretation of the task requirements or learning
objective. However, subjective data collected at the point of performance in an objective way using devices
such as smartphones can be correlated with objective data and analyzed to produce relatively objective
predictors of successful candidates and even top performers.
This paper will explore: • Designing collection templates for smartphones and similar devices to make
subjective data more objective and consistent • How data collected from these devices and other sources can
be correlated and analyzed • Identifying and compensating for variations in evaluators, such as bias
• Professional sports examples and lessons learned that are analogous to highly physical military training
• How the data can be used to drive decisions to improve early identification of successful candidates and
reduce washout rates • How these techniques translate into savings and resources • How regression
analysis can be used to create a “Moneyball” effect, getting improved performance results from minimal
resources
15
WEDNESDAY, 5 DECEMBER, 2012 ROOM W304H
ED-3 Choosing Wisely
0830
Finding an Empirical Basis for
Personalizing Training
(12186)
0900
Live or Virtual Military Training?
Developing a Decision Algorithm
(12184)
0930
Use of Evidence-based Strategies to
Enhance the Extensibility of
Adaptive Tutoring Technologies
(12288)
Notes
FINDING AN EMPIRICAL BASIS FOR PERSONALIZING TRAINING
Sara Elizabeth Gehr, Bruce M. Perrin, Barbara J. Buck
The Boeing Company
St. Louis, MO
Personalization has often been described as the gold standard of training, but the research establishing a
basis for personalization is limited. In this paper, we report results from comparing six factors that appear in
current theories about personalization: generation; education; exposure to technology; knowledge pre-test;
skill pre-test; and skill testing during training. Participants in this study were randomly assigned to two
groups, allowing us to evaluate the hypothesis that younger, more technically sophisticated students will
benefit more from active, technology-based training. One group studied traditional multimedia instruction
(IMI) that explained the tasks; the second group received hands-on practice from an intelligent tutoring
system (ITS). Results from analysis of covariance indicated that differences in age, education, exposure to
technology, initial knowledge, and initial skill were not strongly related to final performance, when training
treatments were taken into account. Skill testing during training proved somewhat more consistently related.
None of the treatment by covariate interactions, however, yielded a statistically significant effect, so there
was no support for changing instructional methods based on any of the factors studied. Instead, the hands-on
practice provided by the ITS had a consistent, positive effect. The practical implications for personalized
training are discussed.
16
LIVE OR VIRTUAL MILITARY TRAINING? DEVELOPING A DECISION ALGORITHM
Christina K. Curnow
Arthur Paddock
Robert A. Wisher
Independent Consultant
ICF International
Frank C. DiGiovanni
Carl Rosengrant
Office of the Secretary of Defense
This paper describes the development of a decision algorithm for determining what military tasks can be taught
virtually (e.g., simulator, advanced distributed learning) and which tasks should only be taught in classroom or
field environment (live). The decision algorithm, based on a DoD study, addressed both individual and collective
tasks across the military Services. The goal was to develop a user-friendly system to aid military training
developers in making 'first-cut' decisions about training delivery methods, specifically live or virtual. To develop
the algorithm, we first examined thousands of military training tasks, reviewed the literature on training tasks and
developed a rating system to categorize tasks. The categorization scheme resulted in a variety of task classes with
each class encompassing common training characteristics (e.g., level of interactivity or availability of feedback).
We conducted an extensive review of the research literature and developed rating factors, which formed the basis
of the live vs. virtual decision model. We then drew a random sample of 302 military tasks, categorized the tasks
and then applied the rating factors to each task category. Next, using the rating factors we developed a decision
algorithm for determining whether each class of tasks can be adequately trained using virtual technologies (costs
withstanding) or whether it would be necessary to train the task in a live application. The algorithm is based on a
variety of elements from established, peer-reviewed research, current technology, and current military practices.
Finally, we applied the algorithm to the task categories developed earlier in the project and conducted an initial
validation of the algorithm with training developers. In addition to describing the development and validation
process, we will solicit feedback and comments from audience members for consideration during further
development, validation, and refinement of the algorithm.
USE OF EVIDENCE-BASED STRATEGIES TO ENHANCE THE EXTENSIBILITY OF
ADAPTIVE TUTORING TECHNOLOGIES
Benjamin Goldberg, Keith Brawner & Robert Sottilare
Army Research Laboratory
Orlando, FL
Ron Tarr, Deborah R. Billings & Naomi
Malone
Institute for Simulation & Training, UCF
Orlando, FL
Evolving technology continues to support increasingly advanced training systems that allow customization and
personalization of content to provide instruction tailored for individual learner needs. This paper will address the
identification of macro-adaptive instructional strategies for informing a generalized model of pedagogy to be
implemented in a domain-agnostic Computer-Based Tutoring System (CBTS) framework. Research indicates that
higher-order thinking skills are not acquired through didactic approaches but rather learner interaction with the
subject matter (Shute & Psotka, 1996). Consequently, it becomes necessary to research strategies that enhance
trainees’ learning within computer-based platforms that allow such interaction to occur. This requires prescriptive
pedagogy that tailors interaction and feedback based on trainee traits. Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITSs) are one
such application that monitors user interactions and uses Artificial Intelligence tools and methods to assess trainee
performance and apply pedagogical interventions to support learning. Here, pedagogical models are responsible
for informing adaptation in response to the knowledge state of users by implementing strategies intended to aid in
knowledge/skill acquisition. ITSs continue to be effective instructional tools across multiple domains, yet their
wide use is limited by associated development costs and lack of extensibility beyond specifically designed
applications. To address these constraints, a framework is under development to provide standardized processes
for authoring and applying ITS functionality across multiple training platforms and domains. Macro-adaption
focuses on using learner aptitude and trait variables, measured prior to training, to inform the system regarding
appropriate instructional strategies for achieving maximal learning outcomes. The intent is to utilize researchsupported strategies prescribed for specific learner, knowledge, and domain conditions. These parameters will be
used to construct a domain-independent pedagogical model for authoring and implementing macro-adaptive
functions based on the learner’s historical characteristics. The result will be a self-executing decision tree used to
inform and adapt instructional strategies based on known information about the learner.
17
ED-4 Moving Forward: Future Concepts
1030
Rethinking the Role of the
Instructor: Teaching 21st Century
Learners (12148)
1100
Transmedia Design for Education
and Training (12207)
1130
What’s Wrong with this Picture?
Video-Annotation with ExpertModel Feedback as a Method of
Accelerating Novices’ Situation
Awareness (12422)
Notes
RETHINKING THE ROLE OF THE INSTRUCTOR: TEACHING 21ST CENTURY LEARNERS
Linda McGurn
Dr. Mike Prevou
Dynamics Research Corporation
Strategic Knowledge Solutions
Leavenworth, Kansas
Lenexa, Kansas
A major paradigm shift is underway according to Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by
Technology (Office of Educational Technology, 2010), The Horizon Report – 2010 Edition (Johnson,
Levine, Smith, & Stone, 2010), and the recently published Army Learning Concept 2015 (U.S. Army
Training and Doctrine Command, 2011). Each describes a technology-enabled learning environment where
the individual creates and consumes learning content in a self-directed way. At the same time, the skills
required for the 21st century, particularly in a military context, emphasize applying critical thinking skills in
dynamic and ambiguous environments. How do we select, prepare, and coach the instructors who will be
responsible for managing this new learning environment? Implementing this learner-centric classroom goes
well beyond blended learning; it means instructors play a very different role and will need a different set of
knowledge, skills, and attributes to be successful. Our paper focuses on developing the instructor and
provides a roadmap that institutions can use to select and prepare teachers of the future. We begin with a
comprehensive literature review of both 21st century learner needs and current ways to prepare instructors to
teach and manage a complex and high-tech classroom. We provide a case study that stands as an example of
one group of innovative faculty who has changed the dynamics in its classroom and is achieving impressive
results. We provide a set of tools and approaches that can be replicated at any military or corporate
education center. Finally, we provide a matrix of tools and approaches that facility members may draw upon
to improve the hands-on experiential nature of their classrooms. Our research goal is to provide instructors
and those who teach and develop instructors a roadmap to effective 21st century teaching approaches and a
toolkit of resources that can be applied to achieve different levels of cognitive development.
18
TRANSMEDIA DESIGN FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Jennie Bottone
Katmai Government Services in support of the
Orlando, FL
Transmedia Storytelling, commonly referred to simply as Transmedia, is not a wholly new concept but
rather new terminology for the concept of communicating ideas across multiple media. Transmedia is the
act of taking a core concept and translating it across multiple platforms including current digital
technologies such as - but not limited to - movies, video games, television shows, web 2.0 and mobile, in
combination with traditional media such as comics, toys, print, etc. While Transmedia is primarily used in
entertainment, advertising and consumer-driven industries, this paper explores the potential usefulness in
education and training.
With so many new technology platforms available for today’s learners, it's difficult to decide which media
tools to use for development. Factors such as access, cost, availability and audience appeal become
important design considerations. Unfortunately, the mixture of media tools often results in a lack of
consistency, especially in military education and training. Developers need a way to create one synchronous
story that can be used across multiple platforms.
This concept paper will focus on the theoretical elements of digital technology that make a successful
Transmedia experience. Approaches such as effective interactive design, using social networking for
extension, and engaging the audience will be explored. These approaches align with the elements that are
used for enhancing cognitive memory. When used in a military classroom or training setting, the benefits
can include enticement (or motivation), engagement, emotional attachment and cultural social extensions.
By utilizing Transmedia more effectively, we can weave information into an engaging story to provide
students with an emotional and social experience within the educational environment. These students will be
more engaged, have deeper emotional connection to content, and be more likely to connect socially around
the curriculum.
WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE? VIDEO-ANNOTATION WITH EXPERT-MODEL
FEEDBACK AS A METHOD OF ACCELERATING NOVICES’ SITUATION AWARENESS
Peter J. Fadde
Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, Illinois
This paper describes a computer-based training method in which novice learners view video clips of
authentic performance situations and annotate the video clips by describing critical incidents that they
observe in the video clips and noting the time code where the incident occurs. Experts’ observations about
the same video clips are offered to learners as expert-model feedback. Learners work to align their
observations with those of experts. After annotating multiple video clips and comparing their observations
with those of experts, learners increasingly “see” situations more like experts do. This method of
videoannotation with expert-model feedback is a form of expertise-based training (XBT). The XBT
approach seeks to accelerate the development of expert-like schema using representative tasks that involve
recall, detection, categorization, and prediction—the cognitive sub-skills underlying the situation awareness
that is often associated with expert performance. XBT was first implemented in the context of high-speed
sports such as baseball, football, and tennis, but can also be applied in more traditionally cognitive domains.
The research study reported in this paper provides an example of the XBT method of video-annotation with
expert-model feedback being used to accelerate the classroom awareness of teacher education students. The
teacher education project is used both to demonstrate the feasibility of the method and also to reveal
instructional design issues related to video-annotation with expert-model feedback. The method potentially
provides a way to accelerate situation awareness in security, law enforcement, emergency response, and
other domains—especially those in which authentic situational video is available for instructional purposes.
19
ED-5 The Key to Assess
1400
S’cape from Formality: Embedded
and Automatic Assessments within
Simulation Games (12067)
1430
Planning Low Bandwidth
Assessments that Support
Curriculum Competencies (12130)
1500
Simulation2Instruction: Using
Simulation in All Phases of
Instruction (12328)
Notes
S’CAPE FROM FORMALITY: EMBEDDED AND AUTOMATIC ASSESSMENTS WITHIN
SIMULATION GAMES
Jeffrey A. Olsen & Brett E. Shelton
Utah State University
Logan, UT
Todd Campbell
University University of Massachusetts
Dartmouth, MA
Simulations provide an environment to experiment safely, openly, and repeatedly for learning mastery. However,
many simulation environments experienced within a classroom fail to include the assessment components
meaningful for instructor interpretations in a way that translate to standardized “scores”. Even when a measure of
standard assessments is included, often it fails to account for the unpredictable nature of decision-making within
the complex, 3D, open-ended simulation environment. Embedding assessments within a virtual simulation
environment poses several issues. First, the program must provide assessments that will fulfill educational
requirements that will not take the learner cognitively “away” from their activities. Second, the program must
provide an engaging game like experience for educational purposes. Third, it must provide assessments that
maximize the unique capability inherent within digital deliveries, that allows for geographically disparate and
asynchronous schedules between instructor and learner. This study addresses each of the above concerns through
an integration of the classroom requirements and simulation affordances. Through the inclusion of a “replay”
function for self-regulated after-action review, students answer questions about their understandings, but also
thoughtfully reflect on their process and the applications for those understandings in novel scenarios. Created
within an educational curriculum, S’cape is designed to function as a stand-alone module to teach and evaluate
understandings about core concepts. This platform was piloted as a first person explorer game addressing various
levels of complexity about chemical and physical properties of substances. Refined within gaming and technology
best practices, this novel architecture combines educational and gaming principles. Engaging learners through the
use of the automated assessment features (i.e., automated embedded assessments as after action review (AAR)
and a ‘replay’ function for metacognitive support), in this case, holds promise for military and corporate scenarios
to aid in the valid systemic needs of complex, open-ended assessments. The paper describes how automated
embedded assessments may provide a means for safe experimentation while supporting metacognitive practices
crucial for 3D training environments.
20
PLANNING LOW BANDWIDTH ASSESSMENTS THAT SUPPORT CURRICULUM
COMPETENCIES
Karen E. Marcellas, Dina Kurzweil
Concurrent Technologies Corporation / Uniformed Services
University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD
Joseph Lopreiato, Justin T. Woodson
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
Bethesda, MD
In an educational environment where increasing demands on network bandwidth and learners’ time and attention
prevail, blended and distributed curricula must focus on creative ways to ensure that learners are attaining the
necessary competencies with optimal efficiency and return on investment (ROI). Assessment is a critical
component of the learning process and, if deployed thoughtfully, can provide valuable information about
proficiency in specific learning competencies as the activities are completed. While traditional strategies for
student learning assessment focus on pre/post-tests, a strategy of integrating assessments throughout the course of
the learning experience provides an enhanced opportunity for learners to examine their own knowledge
development and tailor that experience to their individual needs. Simultaneously, these assessments, along with
additional evaluation, can provide faculty, department heads, or other decision makers with data that informs
curriculum decision making and extends the benefit beyond that of the individual student. By linking these
assessments directly with desired competencies, curriculum developers are able to ensure that they are
maximizing effectiveness while evolving the learning experience. This paper will present a research-based
approach to designing innovative high impact, low bandwidth assessments for a variety of competency types. It
will introduce a methodology for aligning assessment techniques to competencies and will also identify effective
low-bandwidth methods for assessment using illustrative examples from military medical student education at the
Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS). This paper will also provide a toolkit of
developmental questions, tips, and strategies to help participants analyze a variety of assessment situations for
distributed learning (DL) environments. This strategic approach to implementation of assessment has applicability
across a wide variety of military and governmental organizations and can enhance the effectiveness of education
and training in an environment focused on ROI.
SIMULATION2INSTRUCTION: USING SIMULATION IN ALL PHASES OF INSTRUCTION
Robert Wray. Ph.D
Ann Arbor, MI
Allen Munro, Ph.D.
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA
Today, significant use of simulation technologies is seen for all services within the US military, at almost all
echelons, and for most kinds of military roles and missions. Simulation’s primary role today is to provide
practice experiences that approach real world fidelity. Simulation enables more frequent and sustained
practice than the real world often allows and contributes to the transfer of training to operational
environments.
Using simulation for realistic practice should remain central to simulation’s role in training. However,
simulation can be applied throughout all phases of the training cycle. Historically, the primary bottleneck
for additional uses has been the time and resource cost of content development. We show how existing
simulation technologies can be readily exploited and extended to enable the use of simulated experience
across a much broader span of the cycle of instruction. We outline interworking technologies
(Simulation2Instruction) that, in combination, remove the primary bottleneck of content development by
automatically capturing all student (and instructor) activity in a simulation. These simulation recordings
then become “content” for demonstrations, assessments, and stand-alone instruction. Content development
activity shifts to search rather than construction. Search is both faster and simpler, which extends the
audience of content developers because less technological skill is required.
We illustrate Simulation2Instruction technologies with examples of demonstrations, assessments, and standalone instruction (used for remediation) in a simulation environment in use at a US Navy schoolhouse. We
also offer recommendations for modest requirements for existing and future simulation platforms that will
result in enabling similar uses and benefits to others wishing to exploit simulation for all phases of
instruction.
21
ED-6 Best Papers From Around the Globe
1600
Integrating a New Technology into a
Traditional Military
Organisation: How A 15th Century
Philosopher Helped
Change an Engineering Culture
(SimTecT 2012 Best Paper)
1630
Real Time Ray Tracing in Real
Simulation Systems
(Visualisation & Display
Technologies) (ITEC 2012
Excellence Award Winner)
1700
TNA is Dead; Long Live the
Training DLOD (Requirements
to Achieve V&V) (ITEC 2012
Excellence Award Winner)
ED-7 Virtually There
1600
Can Role-Play with Virtual Humans
Teach Interpersonal Skills? (12318)
1630
Performance-based Cross-cultural
Competence Assessment and
Training (12135)
1700
Designing Useful Virtual
Standardized Patient Encounters
(12354)
Notes
CAN ROLE-PLAY WITH VIRTUAL HUMANS TEACH INTERPERSONAL SKILLS?
Matthew Jensen Hays, Julia C. Campbell,
Joshua C. Poore,
Matthew A. Trimmer
Andrea K. Webb
University of Southern California Institute for
Charles Stark Draper
Creative Technologies
Laboratory
Playa Vista, CA
Cambridge, MA
Teresa K. King
Naval Service Training
Command
Great Lakes, IL
Interpersonal and counseling skills are essential to Officers’ ability to lead (Headquarters, Department of the
Army, 2006, 2008, 2011). We developed a cognitive framework and an immersive training experience—the
Immersive Naval Officer Training System (INOTS)—to help Officers learn and practice these skills
(Campbell et al., 2011). INOTS includes up-front instruction about the framework, vignette-based
demonstrations of its application, a roleplay session with a virtual human to practice the skills, and a guided
after-action review (AAR). A critical component of any training effort is the assessment process; we
conducted both formative and summative assessments of INOTS. Our formative assessments comprised
surveys as well as physiological sensor equipment. Data from these instruments were used to evaluate how
engaging the virtual-human based practice session was. We compared these data to a gold standard: a
practice session with a live human role-player. We found that the trainees took the virtual-human practice
session seriously—and that interacting with the virtual human was just as engaging as was interacting with
the live human role-player. Our summative assessments comprised surveys as well as behavioral measures.
We used these data to evaluate learning produced by the INOTS experience. In a pretest posttest design, we
found reliable gains in the participants’ understanding of and ability to apply interpersonal skills, although
the limited practice with the virtual human did not provide additional immediate benefits. This paper details
the development of our assessment approaches, the experimental procedures that yielded the data, and our
results. We also discuss the implications of our efforts for the future design of assessments and training
systems.
22
PERFORMANCE-BASED CROSS-CULTURAL COMPETENCE ASSESSMENT AND TRAINING
Edward M. Sims, Ph.D
Gerald Glover, PhD
Harris Friedman, PhD
Vcom3D, Inc.
Hawaii Pacific University
Orlando, FL
Ponte Vedra Beach, FL
LaBelle, Florida
Elizabeth Culhane, PhD, Michael Guest, PhD, Marinus Van Driel, PhD
Dr. Richard Oliver Hope Human Relations Research Center at DEOMI
Patrick AFB, FL
There is a widely recognized need to better conceptualize and measure cross-cultural competence (3C).
Unfortunately, the many theoretical frameworks that serve as a foundation for 3C lack integration and most
recent efforts to measure 3C have used only one research method (i.e., self-report). The objective of our
research is to address the need for a transdisciplinary, globally appropriate theoretical conceptualization of
3C and to provide a sound basis for developing methods for assessment and training. Rather than relying
solely on self-report, we draw upon a variety of disciplines, including anthropological, sociological, and
psychological measures. We consider socio-cultural encounters (SCEs) as the basis for 3C. We illustrate our
current approach to assessing 3C using cultural dilemmas based on universal dimensions involving how
values are expressed within SCEs. Using this approach, we have developed a database of cultural dilemmas
through survey of US military personnel with operational experience. We have used these dilemmas to build
an assessment instrument and have conducted pilottesting with a broad range of service personnel and DoD
civilian employees. We will present the results of these surveys and pilot-tests, as well as the on-going
development of interactive scenarios and simulations as training tools derived from these dilemmas. These
scenarios and simulations are being developed with commercial game technology to immerse the learner
within SCEs and require the learner to recognize culturally-influenced values, beliefs, and social protocols
and respond accordingly. Performance is measured by the learner’s ability to recognize socio-cultural
differences as evidenced in virtual stake-holders’ behaviors and to select a course of action adaptive to the
perceived context. Finally, we will present the results of pilot-testing these interactive scenarios and the
follow-on research planned to demonstrate our proposed theoretical framework for C3.
DESIGNING USEFUL VIRTUAL STANDARDIZED PATIENT ENCOUNTERS
Thomas B. Talbot, MD, Kenji Sagae, PhD, Bruce John, Albert A. Rizzo, PhD
University of Southern California Institute for Creative Technologies
Playa Vista, CA
Developers and educators have explored many different ways to create “Virtual Patients” as a method to
simulate a patient encounter. Some of these attempts have been educationally useful, yet no approach taken
to date has satisfac-torily replicated the Patient-Doctor encounter in a way that can be generalized nor have
the best developments to date been readily author-able by regular medical educators. The best simulator to
date is the human standardized patient actor, which has considerable disadvantages. The manner in which a
virtual standardized patient can be de-signed requires a breakdown of the clinical encounter into
components and a strategic approach to simulating each phase. These components are compared to find the
optimal approach for each part of the medical encounter. The paper proposes a blend of an artificially
intelligent statistical matching dialogue system with multiple choice state machine-based sub-conversations
as a way in which one may richly simulate the interview and counseling phases of the clinical encounter.
Also elucidated are the steps necessary for educator author-ability and approaches that will extract rich,
objective assessment data. If such integration proves to be successful, the result will be a rich conversational clinical simulation that closely approximates Patient-Doctor encounters.
23
THURSDAY, 6 DECEMBER, 2012 ROOM W304H
ED-8 Get Rid of the Boxes: Innovations in Medical Training
0830
T3 Pursuit: Triage, Transport, &
Track Combat Health Support Board
Game (12066)
0900
Training and Retention of Medical
Skills (12335)
0930
Progressive Tinnitus Management
Training: A Development Model for
Content Currency in a Field in Flux
(12169)
Notes
T3 PURSUIT: TRIAGE, TRANSPORT, & TRACK COMBAT HEALTH SUPPORT BOARD
GAME
Justin Woodson, MD, MPH & James Schwartz, MS
Uniformed Services University
Bethesda, Maryland
Dina M. Kurzweil, Karen E. Marcellas
Bethesda, Maryland
Medical officers in the US Department of Defense are required to develop facility with Health Service Support
(HSS) doctrine and medical planning for military operations. JP 4-02 Health Service Support provides basic
doctrine and guidance for HSS planning and traditional military education in this arena has done a fairly good job
of providing the basic knowledge outlined in this and other relevant publications through traditional lecture
format. Lecture based methods do not, however, do an adequate job of teaching the thought process involved in
regulating and moving casualties on the battlefield. Courses often include complex medical planning exercises
which help students apply this knowledge to realistic scenarios that replicate expected planning considerations in
actual operations. These exercises usually, however, are time consuming and suffer from complexity which often
interferes with student learning and still fail to impart the understanding of changing dynamics with patient
movement and placement on the battlefield.
The USU Combat Health Support Board Game is a low-cost table-top exercise (board game) that teaches realtime decision making in a medical regulating simulation of the battlefield. Students are required to process
randomly generated casualties through a representative Combat Health Support structure including fixed medical
facilities and patient movement assets as they apply the tenets of HSS and other critical learning objectives in this
interactive game. This paper will describe in detail the methodology, lessons learned, and initial outcomes
assessment of USU Combat Health Support Board Game for military medical student education at the Uniformed
Services University of the Health Sciences. This methodology has applicability across the full spectrum of
military, governmental, and civil organizations for training and preparation for medical and logistics disciplines
and is feasible approach to effective training in today’s cost-constrained training environment.
24
TRAINING AND RETENTION OF MEDICAL SKILLS
Anna Skinner, Corinna Lathan
AnthroTronix, Inc.
Silver Spring, MD
Margaret Meadors, Marc Sebrechts
The Catholic University of America
Washington, DC
Understanding the rate at which specific skills are acquired and the rate at which they decay is critical for
designing training curricula, simulation-based training, certification standards, and refresher training.
Retention rates of specialized medical skills are of particular interest and relevance to the military due to the
nature of military deployment cycles. For example, surgical skills such as those required for performance of
laparoscopic surgical procedures have been reported to decay during long military deployments as these
specialized skills are not utilized within deployed settings. In an effort to better understand the nature of
medical skills acquisition and decay, a study was conducted examining initial training and retention over
several weeks of standardized laparoscopic surgical psychomotor skills using the Fundamentals of
Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) manual skills training platform. Of particular interest in this study was the role
of skill acquisition and retention with the dominant versus the nondominant hand. Expert surgeons have
indicated that ambidexterity plays a significant role in surgical skill proficiency. The results of this study
indicate significant differences in performance between the dominant and nondominant hands during the
early stages of training, with ambidexterity increasing as trainees reach proficiency. This research lays the
groundwork for a longitudinal research study in which retention of the trained skills will be assessed
following a 6-month period of nonuse. Implications for objective assessment of medical skill acquisition,
proficiency, and retention are discussed, including implications for training and retention of a broad range of
medical skills involving psychomotor components using simulation-based training.
PROGRESSIVE TINNITUS MANAGEMENT TRAINING: A DEVELOPMENT MODEL FOR
CONTENT CURRENCY IN A FIELD IN FLUX
Paula Myers, PhD
CCC-A
James A Haley VA
Hospital,
Tampa, Florida
David G. Twitchell,
James A. Henry,
Russell L. Bennett,
PhD
PhD & Tara L.
BA, MBA
Zaugg, AuD
Department of
Department of
Department of
Veterans Affairs,
Veterans Affairs,
Veterans Affairs,
VHA/EES
VHA/EES
Long Beach,
NCRAR
Portland, Oregon
California
Caroline J. Schmidt,
PhD
VA Connecticut
Healthcare System
West Haven, CT
Developing high quality training for wide distribution with stable content is easy compared to content that is
rapidly evolving—it is like trying to paint a sports event while the event is taking place. Healthcare has
always had an abundance of content that is volatile to the press of research, best practice models, scientific
and technological discoveries and new medications, techniques and procedures. How do you keep the
content aligned with research discoveries and new best practice strategies? This paper explores the
techniques and technologies successfully used to keep critical clinical training up-to-date. While these
concepts and methodologies apply to any field we will illustrate the application of the design and
development techniques and technologies through the process used in Progressive Tinnitus Management
training in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). One in three Veterans returning from Iraq and
Afghanistan has some degree of disability related to tinnitus and/or hearing loss. The VA, in collaboration
with researchers and clinicians, using an innovative approach created a 12 hour On-Line Curriculum of
Progressive Tinnitus Management for clinicians to better help Veterans manage their reactions to tinnitus.
Developers and subject matter experts, using a collaborative Learning Content Management System
(LCMS), are able to rapidly prototype the content of training. This innovative development strategy allowed
content and development to adapt to new information in real-time. The authors outline what it takes for a
virtual interdisciplinary team to rapidly develop efficient and effective training for fields in flux.
25
THURSDAY, 6 DECEMBER, 2012 ROOM W304H
ED-9 Going the Distance
1030
Measuring Distance Learning
Workload: The Army Model for DL
Instructor Hours (12440)
1100
Setting the Stage: Preparation for
Advanced Combat Profiling
Training (12063)
1130
Joint Continuum of eLearning:
Implementing Engaging, Effective,
and Meaningful Military E-Learning
(12138)
Notes
MEASURING DISTANCE LEARNING WORKLOAD: THE ARMY MODEL FOR DL
INSTRUCTOR HOURS
Peggy L. Kenyon & Linda A. Summerlin
The Army Distributed Learning Program
Fort Eustis, Virginia
The vision of U.S. Army Training and Education is expressed in the new Army Learning Model, a paradigm shift
defined in the Army Learning Concept for 2015. Army Training and Education was traditionally defined as either
classroom or distance learning with a clear distinction in the use of instructor led activities. The new Army
Learning Model focused more attention on the blending of these two modalities.
For the Army, a major advantage of blending classroom with distance learning is efficiency of scale. On
classroom presentation for twenty can be made to reach a larger audience of 40 to 60. But how large is too large
and what are the effects in terms of teaching and learning effectiveness? Obviously, such a strategy has major
advantages in reducing the resources needed, but what are the tradeoffs?
The Army Distributed Learning Program has been producing asynchronous courseware for a number of years but
has failed to define a design strategy for using that same content in the classroom to supplement a synchronous
presentation. This strategy must include a method for resourcing the course with instructors in the classroom and
off-site if needed.
This talk will describe the process the Army is following in developing the Course Resource Model for Resident
and Non-resident Learning Activities such as collaborative learning to engage learners using digital learning
content, relevant operational scenarios, and blended learning approaches. Using a research based approach and a
quantitative model, the Army plan relooks the way in which distance learning is resourced by instructional
methodology. This approach provides a well documented structure for planning and staffing of instructors as well
as for developers of distance learning content.
26
SETTING THE STAGE: PREPARATION FOR ADVANCED COMBAT PROFILING TRAINING
Gian Colombo, Rhianon Dolletski-Lazar, Matt Coxe, Ron Tarr
Institute for Simulation and Training
Orlando, FL
Training advanced combat profiling skills presents a wide range of challenges in any setting, especially a
computer-based training environment. Specifically, these challenges surround training higher-order
perceptual–cognitive skills, such as interpreting subtle and often ambiguous cues in dynamic contexts
without the experiential framework of a real-world setting. The US Marine Corps’ Combat Hunter
curriculum was designed specifically to train these skills through advanced combat profiling and tracking
methods, along with the supporting perceptual–cognitive knowledge. The core curriculum has been
implemented into conventional face-to-face instruction across the US Marine Corps. In an effort to support
this training, a computer-based pre-training system was commissioned. Despite the widespread advantages
of computer-based training, the lack of real-time instructor facilitation presents a variety of challenges. This
paper discusses some of these challenges focusing primarily on one of the key components of Combat
Hunter, combat profiling. Also, it addresses issues such as how to present a variety of cues within a given
context, how to offer relevant feedback on the analysis of unclear indicators in a given environment, and
how to familiarize trainees with the importance of cultural context. This paper further discusses strategies,
that when implemented, take learners through a progression of cue detection and interpretation activities.
Ultimately, this computer-based training system is intended to enable preparation for training in advanced
combat profiling by focusing on the interpretation of cues within a given context and supporting key
prerequisite declarative knowledge. Trainees will have the core skills to excel in the practical application
and hands-on instruction of the corresponding face-to-face Combat Hunter course.
JOINT CONTINUUM OF ELEARNING: IMPLEMENTING ENGAGING, EFFECTIVE, AND
MEANINGFUL MILITARY E-LEARNING
David T. Fautua, Ph.D
Joint & Coalition Warfighting
J7 Joint Staff
Sae Schatz, Ph.D. & John Killilea
MESH Solutions, LLC
a DSCI Company
Emilie Reitz
General Dynamics
The potential benefits of e-learning are well established: It is available anytime/anywhere, boasts high
return-on investment, and offers a range of other practical advantages. Well-designed e-learning systems
also possess impressive training benefits, engaging students and enhancing their learning outcomes.
However, think back to your last e-learning experience: Was it inherently engaging, particularly efficient,
well-aligned with military training objectives, or truly meaningful? In many cases, the answer is probably
“no.” Unfortunately, in real-world practice, many online courses emphasize lower-order cognitive skills,
have limited interactivity, use primarily didactic training approaches, incorporate superficial metrics (e.g.,
recall tests), only offer one-size-fits-all training, and lack clear linkages to meaningful military training
objectives. Fortunately, the science and technology exists to correct these limitations; however, instructional
best-practices and interactive web applications need to be implemented in a practical, measurable, and
sustainable framework in order to realistically support online military instruction. The Continuum of
eLearning (CoL) intends to do this. The CoL is an individual, web-based training package that is being
designed to boost knowledge of joint mission relevant topics before, during, and after an exercise or
deployment. The CoL is intended to support a blended learning approach, emphasize (and measure) the
acquisition of deeper knowledge, be personalized to the needs of each trainee, and use historical vignettes
and video interviews to convey high-quality, relevant, and engaging content. The initial version of the CoL
is being developed, tested, and refined by Joint and Coalition Warfighting (JCW), J7 Joint Staff, in 2012,
and it will ultimately reside on Joint Knowledge Online (JKO) This paper describes the prototype CoL,
implemented for U.S. Southern Command’s PANAMAX 2012multinational training exercise. The paper
also articulates the ultimate vision for the CoL, including the research based foundations for the system’s
andragogical (adult-learning) instructional approaches, adaptive learning mechanisms, and higher-order
learning assessments. Finally, the paper offers lessons-learned for implementing nextgeneration e-learning,
like the CoL, in real-world contexts, such as JKO.
27
THURSDAY, 6 DECEMBER, 2012 ROOM W304
ED-10 Can You See Over the Dashboard?
1330
Demonstration of the Potential for
Simulators in Young Driver
Training (12009)
1400
User Interface as a Literacy – Impact
on Design (12057)
1430
Application of Worked Examples to
Unmanned Vehicle Route Planning
(12292)
Notes
DEMONSTRATION OF THE POTENTIAL FOR SIMULATORS IN YOUNG DRIVER TRAINING
Kevin F. Hulme, Ian Duncan, Anand Abraham, & Jacob Deutsch
NYSCEDII
University at Buffalo
Buffalo, NY
Roadway safety is a major public health, education, and safety concern. According to the CDC, motor vehicle crashes
are the LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH for U.S. teens, accounting for more than one in three deaths in this age group.
Teen driver and peer passenger deaths account for almost 25% of total teen deaths from any cause -- more than cancer,
homicide and suicide (NSF, 2011). Over time, the use of vehicle and classroom training as the sole mechanisms for
driver education has proven less than effective. As a result, supplementary approaches are being considered to better
promote teen driver safety. To date, simulators have become widespread in military training, but have been vastly
underutilized in civilian vehicle training. There seems to be great, underutilized potential in this regard, as the younger
demographic is easily engaged by the video game and amusement ride-like experiences that a typical simulation
environment has to offer.
In this research study, we incorporate simulation technology into an engaging educational program for high schoolaged
teenagers that will make them better prepared for the challenges of driving. Simulation-based training modules have
been designed specifically to help students with some of the primary documented causes of error associated with novice
drivers: speeding, distractions, and failure to heed right-of-way. The safe and repeatable immersive training
environment, modeled after local roadways, contains relevant real-world hazards, and provides valuable and much
needed additional "behind the wheel" experience. Two levels of motion fidelity are compared, using the same software
environment and analysis structures, to ensure objective training: Low Fidelity: (0-DOF, single-screen), and High
Fidelity (6-DOF, surround-screen). Data acquisition areas include: quantitative simulator driving performance, a written
exam for each training module, pre- and post- questionnaires to assess transfer knowledge, and qualitative instructor
evaluation. Ultimately, this research demonstrates the effectiveness of simulators in young driver training, and analyzes
the level of motion fidelity required to offer an authentic training experience. This could lead to the widespread
deployment of such simulators, for similar training programs, across the nation.
28
USER INTERFACE AS A LITERACY - IMPACT ON DESIGN
Andy Johnson
Problem Solutions, in support of the
Alexandria, VA
Experts focusing on New Literacy Studies, such as James Gee, have been focusing on learning in nontraditional environments. These environments consist of simulations, virtual worlds, and augmented reality,
among others. While these environments enable learning, the means by which we interact with them have a
literacy of their own, User-Interface (UI) Literacy. Humans have been interfacing with technology for
centuries, and typically design for this interface by “what is intuitive.”
This topic looks at how interfaces of all types – virtual worlds, software, websites, and even everyday
devices can benefit from looking at UI design as a form of literacy. Grounded in the work of literacy
experts, aspects of UI design were examined in literacy terms such as language, genre, Discourse, and
cultural model, and re-classified into a specification for UI implementation practices. The specification
maps user operations to various interface functions based on the user’s identity. These mappings can then be
scored and used in equations to find optimal UI sequences for each process or for each user-community.
Social networking is an ever-increasing part of our lives, making our identities more public and more
projected than ever before. Communities of practice and user feedback are more accessible to product and
service providers. This data should be used to make good design decisions for our technology.
This new perspective on UI design analyzes not only what is intuitive, but how designers, engineers, and
programmers can look at cultural models to make UI decisions. Some of these decisions can be user-specific
customizations, re-skinning/re-branding of interfaces to match specific user needs, marketing strategies, and
delivering competency-based instructions. Whether designing a flight simulator, a website, or a toaster, this
specification will provide a means to expand the scope of the data available for designing a UI while also
grounding it in pedagogy.
APPLICATION OF WORKED EXAMPLES TO UNMANNED VEHICLE ROUTE PLANNING
Patricia L. McDermott, Thomas F. Carolan, Mark R. Gronowski
Boulder, CO
This paper describes an experiment and results from a related meta-analysis that investigated the efficacy of
worked examples for improving learning and transfer performance. Worked examples are designed to
demonstrate the correct steps to take in a problem-solving process. Preventing errors during training can
reduce the difficulty of the task and the associated demands on the learner. Meta-analysis results suggest
that worked examples may benefit transfer effectiveness for lower complexity problems and near transfer
tasks. We present results from an experiment that used worked examples to train unmanned vehicle route
planning. This is an example of a complex decision making task coupled with procedural data entry on a
digital system. Transfer tasks were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the worked examples in supporting
1) transfer from structured training tasks to problems requiring more inferential reasoning and 2) transfer
from paper-based training to performance in a simulation environment. Results suggest that worked
examples did not provide a transfer benefit, either in terms of plan content or plan sophistication. The
implications of worked examples and training media are discussed as well as the use of the Tower of Hanoi
puzzle as a measure of problem-solving aptitude.
29
TUESDAY, 4 DECEMBER, 2012 ROOM W304B
EC-1 Who, What, Where; Dismounted Training Solutions
1400
Implementation of an Augmented
Reality System for Training
Dismounted Warfighters (12149)
1430
Multi-Kinect Tracking for
Dismounted Soldier Training
(12378)
1500
Urban Short Range Interaction: An
LVC Solution for Urban Operation
Training (12042)
Notes
IMPLEMENTATION OF AN AUGMENTED REALITY SYSTEM FOR TRAINING
DISMOUNTED WARFIGHTERS
Rakesh Kumar, S. Samarasekera, A. Chaudhry,
Eugene Ray Pursel
Zhiwei Zhu, Han-Pang Chiu, Taragay Oskiper,
Marine Corps Warfighting
Ryan Villamil, Vlad Branzoi, Raia Hadsell
Laboratory
SRI International Sarnoff
Quantico, VA
Princeton, NJ
Frank Dean, Pat Garrity
U.S. Army Research
Laboratory’s Simulation and
Training Technology Center
Orlando, FL
There is a need within the military to enhance its training capability to provide more realistic and timely
training, but without incurring excessive costs in time and infrastructure. This is especially true in preparing
for urban combat. Unfortunately the creation of facility based training centers that provide sufficient realism
is time consuming and costly. Many supporting actors are needed to provide opponent forces and civilians.
Elaborate infrastructure is needed to create a range of training scenarios, and record and review training
sessions. In this paper we describe the technical methods and experimental results on building an
Augmented Reality Training system for training dismounts doing maneuver operations that addresses the
above shortcomings. The augmented reality system uses computer graphics and special head mounted
displays to insert virtual actors and objects into the scene as viewed by each trainee wearing augmented
reality eyewear. The virtual actors respond in realistic ways to actions of the Warfighters, taking cover,
firing back, or milling as crowds.
Perhaps most importantly, the system is designed to be infrastructure free. The primary hardware needed to
implement augmented reality is worn by the individual trainees. The system worn by a trainee includes
helmet mounted sensors, see through eye-wear, and a compact computer in his backpack. The augmented
reality system tracks the actions, locations and head and weapon poses of each trainee in detail so the
system can appropriately position virtual objects in his field of view. Synthetic actors, objects and effects
are rendered by a game engine on the eyewear display. Stereo based 3D reasoning is used to occlude all or
parts of synthetic entities obscured by real world three dimensional structures based on the location of the
synthetic. We present implementation details for each of the modules and experimental results for both day
time and night time operations.
30
MULTI-KINECT TRACKING FOR DISMOUNTED SOLDIER TRAINING
Brian M. Williamson and Dr. Joseph J. LaViola Jr.
Tim Roberts and Pat Garrity
University of Central Florida
U.S. Army Research Laboratory
Orlando, FL
Orlando, FL
As low cost commercial video game sensors emerge, realistic full body interactions available in the
household can also be utilized to support low cost dismounted Soldier training applications. These sensors,
such as the Microsoft Kinect, are designed to work with users directly facing them. However, in an
environment designed to train a team, larger spaces are necessary along with the freedom to maneuver and
turn in all directions. These interactions are not reliably supported with the standard household video game
configuration. In this paper, the use of multiple Kinects configured around a large area is examined, giving
multiple Soldiers freedom of mobility and 360 degrees turning while wearing a Head Mounted Display.
Skeletal recognition algorithms are shown within the Microsoft Kinect Software Development Kit that can
be merged using commercially available tools and advanced fusion algorithms to produce better quality
representations of users in the real world within a virtual environment. While one Kinect will often lose
tracking of parts of a user, this paper shows that several Kinects coupled with inference algorithms can
produce a much better tracked representation as users move around. Furthermore, the use of depth images
along with the skeletal representations was examined to optimize fusion algorithms when bandwidth is
available. Finally, it is shown how these techniques are capable of taking several skeletal representations in
the virtual scene and merging them together to form a virtual representation of a single user. This system
expands the viability of low cost commercial solutions to Soldier training in complex virtual environments.
URBAN SHORT RANGE INTERACTION: AN LVC SOLUTION FOR URBAN OPERATION
TRAINING
Tijmen Muller, Robbert Krijnen, Gillian Visschedijk
TNO
Soesterberg, The Netherlands
Urban Operations are an increasingly important part of military operations, both nationally and during
expeditions. The complexity of the urban environment makes these operations difficult, and a key aspect of
this complexity is the presence of local population. The individual soldier needs to constantly analyze
unclear situations, predict civilians’ intentions and be able to rapidly make decisions in order to both ensure
their own safety and prevent lethal mistakes, which would endanger the goodwill of the population. Gaining
experience with civilians through training is essential for successful execution of urban operations.
In the Urban Training programs of the Royal Netherlands Army live training facilities are available, but a
varied group of well-trained role players is scarcely available and costly to use. This paper presents the
result of a three year research project into an innovative enhancement to live training for Urban Short Range
Interaction (USRI). In this concept, trainees enter a live, physical environment (a room) enriched with
virtual role players (projected on the wall) that respond directly to the user’s actions.
A technical demonstrator was developed that integrates commercial-off-the-shelf elements, such as a
gesture and a speech recognition system. We report on the user value analysis that was carried out with
various parties in the Defense and Safety domain, presenting the phases in the training programs where the
application of USRI has the most training value. Finally, we describe the system requirements that have
been evaluated with the intended users.
31
TUESDAY, 4 DECEMBER, 2012 ROOM W304B
EC-2 United We Game
1600
Simulation of Cooperative
Unmanned Systems Mission
Execution Using Fuzzy Logic
Networks (12213)
1630
Social Networks Technology
Supporting Civil-Military
Cooperation “The Benefits of
Crowdsourced Information” (12299)
1700
Applying Gaming Principles to
Support Evidence-based
Instructional Design (12203)
Notes
SIMULATION OF COOPERATIVE UNMANNED SYSTEMS MISSION EXECUTION USING
FUZZY LOGIC NETWORKS
Dr. R. Scott Starsman
Avineon, Inc.
Alexandria, Virginia
A fuzzy network approach to high-level autonomous vehicle mission execution is developed that builds
upon multiple machine intelligence concepts to deliver a simple and computationally conservative
mechanism capable of making decisions in support of autonomous vehicle mission execution. The proposed
mechanism, dubbed the fuzzy network, is a synthesis of a fuzzy logic and neural network approaches and
results in a system that can be built and tuned heuristically. The structure of the fuzzy network is discussed
as well as its implementation in a simulated environment. The simulated system demonstrates the ability of
the fuzzy network-powered automatons to effective interact with their environment and each other. The
system is also capable of performing basic autonomous vehicle mission execution tasks such as search,
hazard avoidance, intercept, and mission collaboration with other vehicles. Each of these tasks and the
implementation with a fuzzy network is discussed.
32
SOCIAL NETWORKS TECHNOLOGY SUPPORTING CIVIL-MILITARY COOPERATION
“THE BENEFITS OF CROWDSOURCED INFORMATION”
Marco Biagini
University of Genoa
Genoa, Italy
Bruce Joy
Vastpark Pty Ltd
Melbourne, Australia
We cannot train for all future disasters and challenges, but we must be able to respond to them. Organizations need agile
Command, Control and Coordination frameworks that support a rising real-time flow of information and visualization.
Decision makers and their teams are increasingly likely to be geographically distributed and composed of members of
different organizations. One inherent problem is the limitation on sharing and visualizing time-critical information due
to current informational boundaries. A new approach to emergency and incident management would enable members of
allied and distributed organizations (such as police, army, firefighters, etc) and even civilians to provide geo-tagged
streams of video, images and data on-demand from wherever it's needed, gathering timely and filtering information
while the system maintains existing informational boundaries. The authors' research focuses on the design of an Edge
Decision Support Framework (EDSF) and a Common Synthetic Environment Service (CSES) that provides shared
awareness to a distributed group of users who operate as a team in a “synthetic” Command Center. The situational
awareness provided by the CSES can be updated in near-real time using existing intelligence sources supplemented by
the EDSF's additional crowdsourced information and media sourced from a wider network of people. Social networking
has demonstrated both benefits and limits to crowdsourced information. This paper addresses various issues including
security, bandwidth and network reliability challenges and illustrates the potential for an approach that enables civilian
and defense services to cooperate through web and mobile applications. Shared real-time situational awareness can be
accelerated by supporting a wider network of people on the ground gathering timely information and then controlling
the bandwidth used in obtaining it. The outcome of this approach is to gather and aggregate more data and relevant
media faster to enable organizations to respond and co-operate in an agile manner.The authors' research also focuses on
the concept, design and development of an integrated platform that can be used for training through operations and is
suited to supporting Civil-Military Cooperation through its mechanisms for crowdsourced situational awareness and
Command and Control supporting remote collaboration. The intent is to improve the readiness, speed and level of an
agile response to critical events needed to enable a more effective global force.
APPLYING GAMING PRINCIPLES TO SUPPORT EVIDENCE-BASED INSTRUCTIONAL
DESIGN
Robert Wray. Ph.D., Angela Woods
Heather Priest, Ph.D.
U.S. Army Research Institute
Ann Arbor, MI
Orlando, FL
There are a number of presumed benefits to using games for training including greater portability, improved
training effectiveness, increased student motivation, and overall cost effectiveness. Unfortunately, not all of these
presumed benefits have proven to be true; for others, experimental evidence has yet to confirm them. On the other
hand, evidence so far suggests that current approaches to game-based training are not a cost effective replacement
for direct instruction. We hypothesize the gaps between evidence-based instructional design and game-based
technologies can be bridged, with the goal to provide engaging and effective learning via Instructional Games.
The paper describes two complementary research and development thrusts: 1. Content-design principles that
place relatively greater emphasis on iterative development of skills and capabilities via direct instruction, guided
practice, and on-going assessment, while also maintaining central elements of gaming experience such as
interactivity and positive feedback. 2. Technologies that organize and constrain student experience to follow
proven instructional design methods and fill functional gaps. Examples include a Lesson Designer that enables
rapid authoring and integrated presentation of instructional content within a game-based practice environment; an
Instructional Game State Manager software component that integrates instructional design principles and the
user-experience managers used in computer games; and contextual feedback delivery that provides learner
support and feedback during practice. The integrated toolset gives students and instructors the ability to capture
and annotate game sessions for use in presentation (e.g., after action review briefings) and instruction
(demonstrations of concepts or skills). We illustrate the principles and supporting tools with existing examples
of an instructional game focused on the US Army Military Decision Making Process. The instructional game
prototype was developed using the tool suite. However, the tool suite is general purpose and can be applied to
future instructional games in other domains.
33
WEDNESDAY, 5 DECEMBER, 2012 ROOM W304B
EC-3 Effective Computer Based Modeling
0830
A Modular Framework to Support
the Authoring and Assessment of
Adaptive Computer-Based Tutoring
Systems (CBTS) (12017)
0900
Creating Adaptive Emotional
Experience during VE Training
(12101)
0930
RADIS: Real Time Affective State
Detection and Induction System
(12196)
Notes
A MODULAR FRAMEWORK TO SUPPORT THE AUTHORING AND ASSESSMENT OF
ADAPTIVE COMPUTER-BASED TUTORING SYSTEMS (CBTS)
Robert A. Sottilare, Benjamin S. Goldberg, Keith W. Brawner and Heather K. Holden
U.S. Army Research Laboratory – Human Research and Engineering Directorate
Orlando, Florida
An emphasis on self-development in the military community has highlighted the need for adaptive
computer-based tutoring systems (CBTS) to support point-of-need training in environments where human
tutors are either unavailable or impractical. Effective human tutors ask questions, tailor feedback, provide
opportunities for reflection, and change the content, direction, pace, and challenge level of instruction to
optimize learning (e.g., acquisition of knowledge or skills). Adaptive CBTS also attempt to select optimal
instructional strategies to meet the specific learning needs of individuals or teams. To make these optimal
instructional strategy decisions, the adaptive CBTS assesses trainee attributes (e.g., progress, behaviors or
physiology), uses these attributes to classify states and predict learning outcomes (e.g., performance, skill
acquisition, retention), and then adapts the instruction to influence learning. A truly adaptive CBTS must
have a suitable trainee model, a repertoire of instructional strategies, and a methodology for selecting the
best strategy. Significant challenges in the design and development of adaptive CBTS include
methodologies to: assess the influence of trainee attributes that inform positive/ negative learning states
(e.g., confusion, boredom, frustration, and pleasure); and assess the influence of specific instructional
strategies on learning given the learner’s state and the training context (e.g., tasks, conditions, and learning
objectives). This paper considers a modular tutoring system framework to support the authoring and
assessment of adaptive tutoring capabilities. The Generalized Intelligent Framework for Tutoring (GIFT)
supports authoring standards and allows users to manipulate models, libraries, and domain-specific content
to empirically determine the influence of variables of interest (e.g., learning style, sensor data, feedback
modes, and stress) on learning. The framework supports a variety of experimental views, including ablative
tutor studies, tutor vs. traditional classroom training comparisons; evaluation of intervention vs. nonintervention strategies; pedagogical model comparisons; and tutor vs. tutor comparisons.
34
CREATING ADAPTIVE EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCE DURING VE TRAINING
David Jones, Kelly Hale, Sara Dechmerowski
Design Interactive, Inc
Oviedo, Florida
Hesham Fouad
VRSon ic, Inc.
Arlington , Virginia
Warfighters are required to effectively perform under intense negative emotional states, and military training
programs should be designed to prepare them for those conditions. Virtual Environment (VE) training is being
leveraged to support this goal because it allows access to complex or dangerous environments. Although VE
systems have successfully been used to enhance the affective experience (Insko, 2001), due to the individualized
nature of emotional responses, it remains difficult to create training conditions that elicit a targeted emotional
response across a wide range of trainees. To address this limitation, a series of emotional induction techniques
(EITs) have been identified and consolidated into a framework, which also captures when and how each EIT
should be employed in a VE to optimize training, both for individuals as well as teams. The Adaptive Framework
For Emotionally Charged Training – Design and eXecution (AFFECT-D/X) framework uses these EITs to
generate an appropriate lesson plan based on participant’s real-time performance and emotional states to drive a
desired emotional state while not overwhelming trainees. This paper outlines the challenges associated with
influencing emotional state during VE training, outlines the advantages of leveraging an adaptive framework that
takes into account emotional state and performance, and presents the results of two studies that demonstrate the
effectiveness of leveraging EITs to create negative emotional states during VE training. In Study 1, 52
participants were evaluated to determine the effects of EITs on the presence and intensity of targeted emotions.
The results demonstrated that EITs are effective at eliciting targeted emotional responses within VEs. Leveraging
these validated EITs, a use case study was completed that demonstrated enhanced training transfer to a live
exercise when EITs were used to create an adaptive, emotionally charged simulated training environment. Results
presented are applicable to designers, developers and instructors focused on creating emotionally charged VE
training.
RADIS: REAL TIME AFFECTIVE STATE DETECTION AND INDUCTION SYSTEM
Hesham Fouad
VR Sonic Inc.
Arlington, VA
Ge Jin
Purdue University Calumet
Hammond, IN
Virtual Environment (VE) based immersive training systems have been widely adopted by US military as an
alternative to costly and time consuming live training exercises. Current VE based training systems lack an
affective state detection component, which may lead to decrements in training outcomes. In this paper, we
introduce the Realtime Affective State Detection and Induction System (RADIS); a novel system that
incorporates affective state detection and induction capabilities into existing training and simulation
frameworks. RADIS is capable of: 1) dynamically monitoring a trainee’s facial and speech features through
visual and auditory channels, 2) detecting the trainee’s affective state based on multimodal information
fusion at the decision level, and 3) driving the trainee’s affective state towards a target affective state
specified in the structured lesson plan. RADIS currently uses human facial expression and speech sound for
affective state detection. The visual and auditory signals are non-intrusive and provide higher prediction and
recognition accuracy compared with physiological and motion signals. We extracted pitch, energy,
formants, Mel-Frequency Cepstral Coefficients (MFCC), and speech rate from the speech signal and
geometric and holistic features from the real time video input. The extracted feature vector was classified by
the Support Vector Machine (SVM) to detect the trainee’s affective state. RADIS was designed using a
datadriven approach to support training domain independence. It follows the Sharable Content Object
Reference Model (SCORM) eLearning standard and isolates all domain specific information in data so that
a single code base can be successfully reused across multiple domains. By encoding all of the information
required for a training session within the Structured Lesson Plan (SLP) the code base remains independent
of the training domain and can be used in multiple training scenarios. RADIS will enhance the VE based
training systems to better approximate the realworld experiences for the trainees.
35
WEDNESDAY, 5 DECEMBER, 2012 ROOM W304G
EC-4 You Can Have All Three (Faster, Better, Cheaper)
0830
Sideslip Misconceptions in
Helicopter Simulators (12432)
0900
Budget-Constrained Simulations
Using a Context- Interaction Model
and Crowdsourcing (12020)
0930
FACT: An M&S Framework for
Systems Engineering (12115)
Notes
SIDESLIP MISCONCEPTIONS IN HELICOPTER SIMULATORS
Steven J. Smith
FlightSafety International Simulation
Broken Arrow, OK
Single rotor helicopters must have a means to balance the side force generated by the tail rotor. In hover, a
slight roll attitude tilts the main rotor thrust sideways to counteract the tail rotor translating tendency. But in
forward flight, a sideslip angle acting on the fuselage and vertical fin is commonly used to counteract the
tail rotor effects. A nonzero sideslip biases aircraft heading from the course and since there usually is no
other frame of reference, pilots assume this bias is instead due to a crosswind. Regardless, the net result is
the same and pilots simply adjust heading accordingly to track a course. High fidelity training devices are
designed to exhibit the same performance, handling qualities and instrumentation as the aircraft. Therefore,
as in the aircraft, non-zero sideslip angles in the simulator can result in pilots assuming it is due to a
crosswind. Unlike the aircraft, however, pilots (or instructors) in the simulator have direct control over the
winds and readily notice the difference between the wind effects they perceive and the simulated
atmospheric winds.
This paper describes how in the U.S. Army Flight School XXI UH-60L OFT simulator, this difference
between perceived and programmed winds was misinterpreted by pilots as a programming or instrument
error in the device. This perception resulted in the pilots rejecting the credibility of the simulator fearing it
would result in negative training habits. Many technical solutions were explored to unsuccessfully address a
pilot perception problem. To prove this concept, this paper presents flight test data from a fully
instrumented UH-60M demonstrating the real world difference between pilot perceived winds in the cockpit
vs. ground based wind measurements.
36
BUDGET-CONSTRAINED SIMULATIONS USING A CONTEXT-INTERACTION MODEL AND
CROWDSOURCING
Jonathan Kaye, PhD
Equipment Simulations LLC
Philadelphia, PA
Will Thalheimer, PhD
Work-Learning Research, Inc.
Somerville, MA
Virtual simulations to augment instructor-led learning have shown promise in many fields. Unfortunately,
"the process to create [simulations] today is too long and too expensive for most organizations to use them
beyond the 5% to 10% of their high value/mission critical and external facing courses today" (Aldrich,
2010). Two additional factors beyond time and cost--often overlooked--contribute to the difficulty of
developing budget-constrained simulations. First, would-be simulation developers often don’t have enough
expertise in learning-and-cognition to build the most effective context-based simulation experiences--in
spite of the fact that many situations across the country (and even world) are very similar in fundamental
characteristics, just lacking in specific situational cues (e.g., geographic, cultural, organizational). Second,
for network safety concerns, organizations put up IT roadblocks, impeding the installation of simulation
development and playback software. To overcome these obstacles, a new approach is needed.
This paper introduces two tools that together express a methodologically-sound and practical way to design
and deploy simulations. The first tool is a research-based, yet simple, framework for conceptualizing and
simulating the cognitive interactions that people have within their workplace performance contexts. It
provides a model that helps developers design scenarios aligned with the research on context-aligned
learning--scenarios that can have a maximum impact in triggering on-the-job application of the learning.
The second tool is an architecture for crowdsourcing the development of simulations. The use of
crowdsourcing enables budget-conscious developers to take advantage of economies of scale, while also
circumventing many IT roadblocks by having the software reside in the cloud. This architecture will be
discussed in the context of emergency-response training. In short, these two solutions enable cognitive
fidelity and physical fidelity—utilizing practical, simple, and cost-effective approaches.
FACT: AN M&S FRAMEWORK FOR SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
Tommer R. Ender and Daniel C. Browne
Georgia Tech Research Institute
Atlanta, GA
William W. Yates and Michael O’Neal
Marine Corps Systems Command
Quantico, VA
The ability to leverage models within a broader application of systems engineering has been limited in many
cases due to lack of capability for distributed simulations to concurrently model multiple attributes of a
system. Military performance models typically emphasize one area such as mobility or survivability, and are
rarely connected to models for reliability, maintainability, and availability or procurement and lifecycle
sustainment cost. Federations of training simulations to support the requirements of the training community
are numerous and well-studied, but leveraged far less during the early phases of systems analysis. The
Framework for Assessing Cost and Technology (FACT) is an open architecture web services based
environment that enables the interconnecting of models to provide a rapid exploration of the design
tradespace in support of systems engineering analysis. FACT is government owned, model agnostic, and
capable of linking disparate models and simulations of both government and commercial origin through the
application of community established data interoperability standards. This paper describes the utility of
using FACT to achieve near real-time analysis for exploring the design parameter trades that affect the
overall performance, reliability, and cost of a system design. FACT provides decision support tools to the
acquisition program IPT to manage risks of cost, schedule, and performance through a rapid analysis of
alternative technology and materiel using surrogate models, or equation regression representations of more
complex M&S tools, as illustrated through several successful implementations discussed in this paper.
FACT will ultimately reduce program development and life cycle costs, both of which are tenets of effective
“should-cost” management.
37
EC-5 New Ways of Looking at Existing Capabilities
1030
Evaluating Effectiveness in Virtual
Environments with MR Simulation
(12075)
1100
Effective Learner Modeling for
Computer-Based Tutoring of
Cognitive and Affective Tasks
(12032)
1130
Advanced Tools and Techniques for
Gateway Performance Testing
(12016)
Notes
EVALUATING EFFECTIVENESS IN VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS WITH MR SIMULATION
Doug A. Bowman, Cheryl
Stinson, Eric D. Ragan,
Siroberto Scerbo
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, Virginia
Tobias Höllerer, Cha Lee
Ryan P. McMahan
University of California,
University of Texas at
Santa Barbara
Dallas
Santa Barbara, California
Dallas, Texas
Regis Kopper
Gainesville, Florida
Both virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) systems have achieved some success and offer further
potential to be used in military training. However, the use of high-end VR and AR remains costly and
cumbersome, and the most advanced technologies are not widely deployed in actual training systems.
Decision makers need evidence for the effectiveness of such systems in order to justify their use. In
particular, it is important to know which display systems (e.g., head-mounted display, CAVE) will provide
the best cost/benefit ratio for training, and what display characteristics (e.g., field of view, stereoscopy) are
most critical in determining the effectiveness of a VR or AR training system.
The answers to these questions depend on an understanding of the effects of display parameters on task
performance and training transfer. Obtaining this knowledge requires empirical studies, but such studies
pose significant challenges. Direct comparisons of different displays do not produce generalizable results
because the displays differ in many ways. AR studies face the additional issues of unreliable hardware that
lacks desirable features and a lack of control of the real-world environment.
Our research addressing these issues is based on two key insights. First, systematically studying the effects
of display fidelity using a display simulator, rather than studying actual display technologies, results in more
useful and general knowledge. Second, a single simulator, based on a high-end VR system, can be used for
displays spanning the mixed reality (MR) continuum, including both VR and AR. In this paper, we discuss
the concept of MR simulation, an innovative evaluation methodology that allows for controlled experiments
and allows the evaluation of individual components of display fidelity rather than whole systems. We
describe our work to validate this methodology and illustrate the use of MR simulation through a number of
example experiments.
38
EFFECTIVE LEARNER MODELING FOR COMPUTER-BASED TUTORING OF COGNITIVE
AND AFFECTIVE TASKS
Heather K. Holden, Robert A. Sottilare, Benjamin S. Goldberg, Keith W. Brawner
U.S. Army Research Laboratory – Human Research and Engineering Directorate
Orlando, Florida
One-to-one human tutoring has been shown to produce the highest levels of learning effectiveness. Expert human tutors
have the natural ability to assess and adapt to a learner‟s state (e.g., cognition and affect). As the tutor-learner
relationship increases, human tutors are ultimately able to predict the learners
‟ performance and behavior in future
instruction. This natural sensing is hard to represent computationally. Although equipping computer-based tutoring
systems (CBTSs) with such capabilities is an extremely complex problem, it is achievable. According to VanLehn
(2011), the performance effect size (Cohen‟s d = 0.76) of simple, step -based CBTSs is as nearly as effective as expert
human tutoring (d = 0.79). However, the performance gap widens as the level of instructional granularity increases
(substep-based CBTSs: d = 0.40). There is a strong motivation (as outlined in the Army Learning Concept for 2015) for
CBTSs and other adaptive training technologies to emulate the same benefits that can be produced on a one-to-one
basis. Current computer-based training technologies, although distributed and available worldwide, cannot interpret the
readiness of a Warfighter to receive instruction. By assessing learner‟s state throughout training, multiple aspects of a
learner‟s readiness and performance can be explained and the system can adapt instruction accordingly. Such analyses
can increase the explanation of future learner state predictions. The purpose of this paper is to explore the elements of a
multifaceted learner model that can be expanded beyond well-defined educational objectives and inclusive of ill-defined
objectives, which are usually portrayed in military and other job-related training. This paper will focus on the following:
(1) key components of such a model (including an outline of individual differences that are potentially most beneficial
to learning and determinants of learners cognitive and affective states); (2) primary challenges of this type of learner
modeling approach; and (3) benefits and practical implications for users of learner models.
ADVANCED TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES FOR GATEWAY PERFORMANCE TESTING
Michael J. O’Connor,
Kurt Lessmann, Jim Chase
Trideum Corporation
Huntsville, AL
Robert Lutz, David Drake
The Johns Hopkins University
Applied Physics Laboratory
Laurel, MD
Dannie Cutts
AEgis Technologies
Huntsville, AL
Modern Live, Virtual, and Constructive (LVC) simulation environments are highly complex systems. The integration of
numerous heterogeneous simulation components and supporting utilities (e.g., viewers, loggers) into a coherent,
logically unified, and internally consistent test or training environment is extremely challenging. Additional
complexities may also include the need to reconcile differences in the way individual LVC components exchange data
at runtime and the need to adjudicate across dissimilar simulation services when multiple simulation architectures are
employed in the same LVC environment.
Gateways are intelligent translators that are widely used in the simulation community to translate among the different
simulation protocols and data formats that may be present within a given LVC environment, enabling operation across
dissimilar architectures. Although gateways are commonplace in LVC events and have a history of effectively
accomplishing their stated purpose, there are also a number of well-documented gateway issues that increase both cost
and schedule risk for LVC applications and can also adversely affect technical quality. The LVC Architecture Roadmap
Implementation (LVCAR-I) is addressing these challenges via a set of new products that allow LVC developers to make
better, more informed choices on the gateway that best aligns with their application requirements while also
streamlining the process of defining all necessary gateway translations and configuring the gateway for runtime
operation. This paper focuses on the need for gateway performance testing. A Gateway Performance Benchmarks
(GPB) Specification was developed to define formal measures for gateway performance along with explicit use cases in
which the benchmarks could be applied. The next phase focused on the development of supporting test methodologies, a
gateway performance test harness design, and an initial instantiation of the test harness design. These products
collectively define an integrated mechanism for measuring gateway performance that allows for direct comparisons of
performance characteristics across multiple gateway products.
39
EC-6 Display Technologies
1400
Constant Resolution: A Disruptive
Technology for Simulator Visual
System Design (12030)
1430
Beyond High Definition: Emerging
Display Technologies for the
Warfighter (12127)
1500
Glass versus Film Mirrors for Wide
FOV Collimated Visual Displays
(12204)
Notes
CONSTANT RESOLUTION: A DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGY FOR SIMULATOR VISUAL
SYSTEM DESIGN
Carl Vorst and Harry Streid
Boeing Training Systems and Government Services
St Louis, MO
The visual system is the heart of a simulator requiring an immersive environment. Although many of today’s
visual systems have quantum leaps in performance over those of just ten years ago, there are still technology
enhancements that will increase the transfer of training from the aircraft to the simulator. Traditional rearprojected simulator displays, consisting of a dome or a tessellation of flat screens, have an inherent variation in
resolution from center to edge of a projected image. The growth path in digital projection is around wide aspect
ratios such as the HD format. For these formats, resolution variation is far higher than for the traditional 4:3
aspect ratio of traditional CRT projectors. In a training environment, non-uniform resolution creates a change in
image fidelity as a function of where the student is looking. This means that target detection and identification
ranges can vary greatly, resulting in inconsistent training. This paper describes a method of achieving constant
resolution, eliminating the resolution non-uniformity found with flat and domed displays. It does this through a
simple geometric relationship, requiring no expensive custom optics. This paper will show that the principle of
constant resolution converts the disadvantage of the HD format, when used in legacy displays, into a significant
increase in efficiency. Higher efficiency means fewer projectors, reducing acquisition and maintenance costs.
40
BEYOND HIGH DEFINITION: EMERGING DISPLAY TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE
WARFIGHTER
Harry Streid and Carl Vorst
Boeing Training Systems and Government Services
St Louis, MO
Rod Sterling
JVC Technology Center
Long Beach, CA
Now that image generator hardware has become a Commercial Off –The-Shelf (COTS) commodity, visual
system designers have been liberated to incorporate more and more realistic visual effects into their
software Image Generators (IGs) and databases using the massively parallel architectures that modern
Graphics Processing Units (GPU) platforms can provide. Display systems have not kept up the same pace of
innovation, however. Although high definition television (HDTV) has revolutionized the consumer viewing
experience, most training systems today are have projectors barely more resolution than the 1000 line
custom built analog CRT projectors of a generation ago. The consumer world has now leapfrogged the
simulation and training market and projectors approaching four times HD image content are now operating
in many home theaters. This paper will focus on how these emerging technologies are being adopted to
provide immersive visual training environments with up to eye-limited resolution and exhibiting
affordability/reliability driven by the demands of the consumer marketplace and international broadcast
standards. Analysis and test results will be presented to demonstrate that these new display methods greatly
enhance the warfighter’s ability to train critical visual tasks at incremental increases in life cycle cost.
GLASS VERSUS FILM MIRRORS FOR WIDE FOV COLLIMATED VISUAL DISPLAYS
Marty Quire
CAE USA, Inc.
Tampa, FL
Andrew Fernie
CAE Inc.
Montreal, Quebec, CA
The development and deployment of wide field-of-view collimated visual display systems for simulators
poses many challenges. Optical performance is the primary factor used when evaluating the display
solutions, but other factors such as size, weight, strength, adjustability, reliability and maintainability are
also critical for providing an integrated, compliant and sustainable system. Mechanical and electrical
compatibility with the simulator, motion system and facility must also be taken into account. The industry
has offered two major technical approaches for fielding these systems: Segmented Glass-Mirrors and
Vacuum-Drawn Continuous Film Mirrors. Each of these approaches has its own strengths and weaknesses
along with unique integration issues.
This paper reports on the developmental progress of two similar U. S. Navy Operational Flight Trainers:
one using a Segmented Glass-Mirror and the other using a Continuous Film Mirror. It discusses the
strengths and weaknesses of each, relative to the optical performance factors and other evaluation criteria
mentioned above. Further, the mechanical and electrical integration challenges encountered with both
approaches will be reviewed. Both quantitative and qualitative assessments are offered using currently
available information. The paper concludes with a discussion of lessons learned and suggested areas for
research.
41
WEDNESDAY, 5 DECEMBER, 2012 ROOM W304F
EC-7 Innovative Medical Simulations: Reforming Training & Treatment
1400
High Fidelity Physiological Model for Immersive
Simulation and Training (12097)
1430
A Haptic Simulator for Training Force Skill in
Laparoscopic Surgery (12228)
Notes
HIGH FIDELITY PHYSIOLOGICAL MODEL FOR IMMERSIVE SIMULATION AND
TRAINING
Dr. Teresita M. Sotomayor
U.S. Army Research
Orlando, Florida
Benjamin Quintero & James Sherrill
ECS
Orlando, Florida
Angela M. Salva
SIMETRI, Inc.
Orlando, Florida
The U.S. Army began evaluating the current state of computer models for physiological processes to
determine the feasibility of their use in a range of medical simulation training systems that rely on
physiology models. After researching potential models, the Quantitative Human Physiology
(QHP)/HumMod model of human physiology seemed to be the most robust and compatible. This opensource physiology model simulated many organ systems of the body and the interplay among the organ
systems. The model’s structure was based on documented physiological responses within the peer-reviewed
literature, but the framework communication protocol was not compatible with real time simulation systems
due to performance limitations. Further, QHP incorporated over 5000 variables into its model and not all of
this information is needed by a particular simulation. As a result, the Physiology Abstraction Model (PAM)
was developed using simple physiological data to create a standalone “plugin” model that offered a standard
interface and communication protocol between different components of a physiology model and any
medical simulation using the model. The intent of this research was to reduce the complexity of
incorporating these high fidelity models into real time systems. This paper documents the initial efforts of
integrating HumMod with PAM on hemorrhage control scenarios. It will provide a detailed understanding
of the complexities and issues associated with doing this and will provide significant data to demonstrate the
computational benefits of utilizing physiology models in this fashion. Finally, this paper will also discuss
how the resulting lessons learned have been applied to future research and design considerations.
42
A HAPTIC SIMULATOR FOR TRAINING FORCE SKILL IN LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY
Lindsay Long, Ravikiran Singapogu, Sarah DuBose, Giovannina Arcese, Bliss Altenhoff,
Timothy Burg & Christopher Pagano
Clemson University
Clemson, South Carolina
The number and complexity of laparoscopic procedures have seen a continual increase in the last few
decades as more patients and practitioners seek innovative methods of minimally invasive surgical
procedures in both civilian and non-civilian practice. Consequently, there is a pressing need to devise
training systems and curricula that enable faster and more efficient skills training for novice laparoscopists.
Though several simulators and training methods are available that emphasize hand-eye coordination using
visual and haptic feedback, few have addressed force-based skills. A proficient understanding of forces
would include accurately perceiving tools coming into contact with different types of substances, grasping
and manipulating materials, and applying the precise amount of force without damaging tissue. The current
research assesses a novel training simulator that renders haptic skills training for three different common
laparoscopic procedures: grasping, probing, and sweeping. Novices learned the stiffness of simulated
“tissues” on one of the three procedural tasks using a combination of visual and force-based haptic
feedback, and training effectiveness was evaluated as novices replicated different levels of applied
penetration forces using the simulator. Post-training assessment indicated that novices perceived and applied
forces more accurately in all three procedural tasks (grasping, probing and sweeping), demonstrating
significant learning of force application during training. The correct perception of material stiffness and the
application of the appropriate amount of tissue force are crucial skills in laparoscopic surgery. Findings
from this study indicate that force-based haptic skills can be trained using a simulator. Therefore, use of the
simulator can augment existing civilian and non-civilian surgical training and maintenance curricula, which
currently do not employ a force-based haptic skill component.
EC-8 Cyber
1600
Adaptive Cyber Immunity Using a
Private Cloud (12065)
1630
A Virtual Cyber Range for Cyber
Warfare Analysis and Training
(12211)
1700
Cloud Simulation Infrastructure –
Delivering Simulation from the
Cloud (12343)
Notes
43
ADAPTIVE CYBER IMMUNITY USING A PRIVATE CLOUD
John W. Graham
Raytheon
Orlando, Florida
Characterizing cyber threats, tracing threat propagation and developing adaptive immunity against known or
emerging threats is a critical yet frequently deficient component in any organization’s infrastructure defense
strategy. Using commonalities between the rates and modes of propagation of viral and informational
vectors in the sociology and epidemiology domains, insight can be gained into recognizing cyber threats,
recovering from successful threats and preventing the spread of threats through an infrastructure.
Furthermore, by juxtaposing human immunological response with cyber defense, an antigen based
immunological memory mechanism can be developed to prevent or greatly reduce future instances of the
same cyber attack.
The notion of developing a resilient infrastructure autonomously resisting attack, adapting to attacks and
repairing their effects is ambitious and mainly applicable to carefully constructed new infrastructures. With
ever-shrinking budgets, existing infrastructures are left to ensure threat reduction through reactionary
measures. Fortunately, a cloud based approach to adaptive cyber immunity provides a realistic approach to
proactive cyber threat risk mitigation. Using metaphors derived from immunology and sociology, a
mechanism is presented by which cyber threats can be represented mathematically and tracked through the
use of dynamic strategies realized by centralized cloud based resources. Creation of a cloud-based cyber
adaptive immune system exhibiting acceptable performance characteristics as part of a converged
infrastructure is made possible by using a lightweight desktop cloud client application which accesses
Immunity as a Service software. This paper explores an approach using a private cloud to recognize clientside cyber threats, predict their replication through an infrastructure, prevent their effects and formulate
immunity against them.
A VIRTUAL CYBER RANGE FOR CYBER WARFARE ANALYSIS AND TRAINING
Lloyd Wihl & Maneesh Varshney
SCALABLE Network Technologies
Los Angeles, CA
There is a need to accurately model the effects of cyber weapons for analysis, system testing and hardening,
and training. Current simulations of the Net-Centric Battlespace do not adequately recreate the impact of
cyber warfare due to a lack of realistic cyber threat and defense representations.
Hardware-based cyber ranges are limited in scale, costly, and time-consuming to configure. Moreover, they
have no capability to simulate the inherent vulnerabilities endemic to wireless tactical networks. They also
do not effectively model the overall effect of a cyber attack on a mission and are therefore unsuitable for
mission analysis or training.
In this paper, we present a new approach, the Virtual Cyber Range, a portable modeling and simulation
framework that provides a real-time, hardware-in-the-loop capability for simulation of cyber threats to the
entire net-centric infrastructure. It also provides the ability to evaluate the effectiveness of the threats in
disrupting communications via key performance indicators. The range provides models for accurate cyber
threat simulation at all layers of the networking stack to include passive, active, coordinated and adaptive
attacks on networks with hundreds to thousands of wired and wireless components. The range enables
interoperability with Live-Virtual- Constructive (LVC) simulations providing assessment of human-in-theloop performance, and can stimulate physical networked systems with simulated cyber threats for real-time
testing.
Utilizing this framework, the authors present findings for a targeting mission regarding the adequacy of
defenses against cyber attacks that attempt data exfiltration and disruption of situational awareness.
44
CLOUD SIMULATION INFRASTRUCTURE – DELIVERING SIMULATION FROM THE
CLOUD
Michael R. Macedonia, PhD, Christina Bouwens, James Shiflett
SAIC
Orlando, Fla., USA
This paper discusses the practical aspects of architecting a Semi-Automated Forces (SAF) system for a
cloud computing environment and describes some of our recent experiments with SAF technology in the
context of a cloud-enabled environment. The rapid transitioning of traditional computer applications such as
email to cloud computing is beginning to extend to military simulation. The ubiquity of the global Internet
and advances in mobile computing are allowing the military to reexamine its business model for
constructive simulation. Distributing exercises has been common for over a decade; however, the model has
been based on scheduled, dedicated and often temporary infrastructure. Cloud solutions offer the potential
of “anytime, anywhere,” on-demand simulation and training capabilities. The primary challenge has been in
architecting simulations for virtualization and providing the requisite security for military operations.
Solutions to these problems are being vigorously addressed. This paper explores some potential
implementations of a Cloud Simulation Infrastructure (CSI) concept – how a simulations system could be
hosted and accessed via the cloud. Although not the same as cloud computing, high performance computing
(HPC) has some useful similarities to cloud computing and may offer an alternative delivery infrastructure
for simulation services. We offer results from our work in HPC and SAF systems as a partial contribution to
understanding and defining the CSI concept. In addition, we present results from our work with a web-based
interface for managing and deploying SAF resources. Combining the results of these two bodies of work,
the HPC and the web-based interface, we have developed prototypical model of SAF computing in the
cloud. From this vantage point, we also examine the benefits of the CSI concept, such as ubiquitous access,
common (across Services) content, technical and operational standards for training, and potential for tactical
mission planning.
THURSDAY, 6 DECEMBER, 2012 ROOM W304B
EC-9 Improving Training Realization through Innovative Technologies
0830
Realistic Water Simulation for Training Amphibious
Vehicle Crews (12167)
0900
Innovative, Reconfigurable UGV Simulator to Support
Anti-crisis Operations (12173)
Notes
45
REALISTIC WATER SIMULATION FOR TRAINING OF AMPHIBIOUS VEHICLE CREWS
Martin Schwarz
Krauss-Maffei Wegmann
Munich, Germany
Scott Arbuthnot
Acron
Ottawa, Canada
Don Kemper
Wegmann USA, Inc.
Orlando, USA
Highly effective simulator based training of fording and amphibious vehicle operation requires realistic
physics-based modeling and visual presentation of water surfaces. Using current COTS technology it is very
challenging to achieve a highly realistic simulation of water, at the physics level due to the extremely
dynamic nature of water. This paper describes new technologies directly affecting critical components of a
distributed simulation environment utilizing physics-based water. It begins with the preparation of the
terrain database defining key parameters such as flow direction and speed for water surfaces. Based on this
information and additional parameters, such as wind speed and direction, non-interactive waves are
simulated. Additionally multi-way interactions between the water, objects in the water and rising shorelines, create local waves. The wave effects are distributed via network (DIS / HLA) to all participating
simulators. At this point, global and local waves are combined and fed into the vehicle dynamics algorithms.
These algorithms take into account buoyancy forces, vehicle propulsion, drift caused by water flow and
water penetration. Finally, the image generator makes extensive use of advanced GPU (Graphics Processing
Unit) features, especially the tessellation shader stage, to reproduce the water surface geometrically with
very high level of detail and accuracy. The interaction of light and water is simulated by additional
sophisticated GPU rendering technologies including reflection, refraction and caustics. Altogether, the
technologies presented in this paper can be combined to create virtual environments with very realistic
water surfaces. This applies to offshore areas, lakes, shallow water regions, littoral areas and rivers to
provide effective and efficient simulator based training of amphibious vehicle crews.
INNOVATIVE, RECONFIGURABLE UGV SIMULATOR TO SUPPORT ANTI-CRISIS
OPERATIONS
Maciej Zasuwa
The Institute of Aeronautics and Applied Mechanics, Warsaw University of Technology
Warsaw, Poland
The paper presents an innovative, reconfigurable Unattended Ground Vehicle (UGV) simulator. The simulator
development is a part of the project, which has a goal to design and test a system supporting anti-crisis operations.
The anti-crisis operation system contains several integrated components: set of UGVs and Unattended Air
Vehicles (UAVs) used to support the evacuation of people, removal or neutralization of dangerous/hazardous
materials, or overpower attackers; an integrated command center for effective intervention management with an
efficient telecommunication network; and sensors for detection and monitoring of threats. Results of this
innovative project respond to the new challenges faced by the services responsible for public security in Poland.
As the system is developed, the simulator of a single UGV is constructed. The majority of the UGV simulators
developed worldwide are intended to simulate specific vehicles and to be used for various applications of
particular vehicles. The simulator developed in this project is reconfigurable in order to be capable of simulating
the operation of different vehicles, both ground and air vehicles in various environmental conditions and
scenarios. It has an open, modular architecture allowing for the modification, extension, and enrichment of the
software. Due to its flexibility, it is used to verify the design of UGVs (as the project develops and after its
completion), and after the system development, it will be used for training of the operators of UGVs and
validation of the system elements.
In this paper, the requirements, architecture, and usability of the simulator are discussed, showing the novelty of
the solution (both in terms of hardware and software).
46
EC-10 Analytics in Training; Input or Output
1030
Broadening Quantitative Analysis of
Distributed Interactive Simulation
with Data Mining Functionalities
(12039)
1100
Simulation in Support of Army
Structure Analysis (12088)
1130
Applying Semantic Analysis to
Training, Education, and
Immersive Learning (12151)
Notes
BROADENING QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF DISTRIBUTED
INTERACTIVE SIMULATION WITH DATA MINING FUNCTIONALITIES
Daniel Dor, Yaniv Minkov
Ground Forces Command of the Israeli Defense Forces
Tel-Aviv, Israel
A novel approach is proposed in order to get better utilization of the current method for quantitative analysis
of military simulated situations during simulation-based combat systems R&D. We argue that this approach
increases the usability of the data that is being collected from the simulation, and enables the simulation
researchers to find unrevealed data that hardly could be found using trivial methods. For example, the
unrevealed information could be recognizing hidden human factors (behavioral patterns) and recognizing
irregular events occurring during the simulation. This paper describes the present analysis method, the need
for better analysis tools and methods, the proposed broadened method for experiment data analysis, the
challenges in using this approach, and the phases that should be added to the current methodology.
47
SIMULATION IN SUPPORT OF ARMY STRUCTURE ANALYSIS
Erlend Øby Hoff, Per-Idar Evensen, Helene Rødal Holhjem, Ingvild Bore Øyan, Helena Kvamme Nygård
Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI)
Kjeller, Norway
In Norway, analysis of the Army structure has previously been done through traditional wargaming in
combination with a variety of computer models covering parts of the spectrum from duel situations to the
operational level. Through this method, the important combined arms effects are generally a model input
based on military experts.
This paper describes recent work that has been done at the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment
(FFI), where we have introduced interactive simulation as an additional tool for the Army structure analysis.
Our objective has been to gain a better understanding of the often complex combined effects of different
types of forces. Such forces include direct and indirect fire units, engineering resources, sensor units, C2,
and naval and air force units. We have used the lightweight simulation platform Mōsbē from BreakAway as
a tool for computer aided wargaming. This simulation platform supports brigade level operations where the
participants act as military leaders. With a user interface like a real-time strategy game, military experts
have been directly involved in planning, gaming and post-evaluation.
Through a series of experiments we have been testing the performance of five fundamentally different land
force structures in a set of chosen scenarios. The goal has been to rank these structures based on their
performance. For each scenario we logged data and recorded video from the simulation, and the participants
completed questionnaires about the performance of the tested Army structure. The experiments revealed
pros and cons of the tested structures both on operational and tactical levels. Further, the data output from
the simulation series has been fed into a quadratic Lanchester model. This has served both as means to
validate results from the experiments, and as a model to search for an optimal Army structure.
APPLYING SEMANTIC ANALYSIS TO TRAINING, EDUCATION, AND IMMERSIVE
LEARNING
Robby Robson & Fritz Ray
Eduworks Corporation
Corvallis, OR
The last decade has seen major advances in the areas of natural language processing and semantic analysis.
Theoretical advances and increased computational power have resulted in applications that detect topics and
sentiments in communications, automatically classify unstructured data in enterprise settings, and win
Jeopardy contests. This paper surveys how these same methods apply to a variety of problems in education
and training. Applications include automatic grading and question generation, guiding the behavior of
intelligent tutoring systems, aligning content to competencies and educational standards, and improving
search in digital repositories. This paper describes the methods, explains how they are applied and
evaluated, and discusses their potential for use virtual worlds and immersive learning environments.
48
EC-11 Practice Makes Perfect
1330
Adaptive Training for Visual Search (12144)
1400
Gesture and Brain Computing Interfaces: Impacts on
Next Generation Learning (12028)
Notes
ADAPTIVE TRAINING FOR VISUAL SEARCH
Kelly S. Hale, Angela Carpenter, Matthew Johnston, Jing-Jing Costello, Jesse Flint
Oviedo, FL
Stephen M. Fiore
Orlando, FL
Effective training is a vital foundation for transportation security officers required to learn strategies for
identifying anomalies within X-ray images that may indicate a potential threat. Past research has shown that
adaptive training is a powerful tool to increase detection performance, however, adaptive training strategies in this
domain have typically utilized exposure training techniques exclusively. This paper outlines the science behind
adaptive training for anomaly detection, including (1) real-time advanced performance measures associated with
visual search tasks and (2) training strategies to target identified root cause(s) of error. Specific strategies
discussed in this paper include exposure training and discrimination training to optimize training within the
baggage screening domain. A proposed adaptive training framework and resulting system is presented.
Empirical results from a preliminary investigation into the benefits of adaptive training are presented. Thirty
novice participants completed a mixed between and within design, where independent variables were training
strategy (Traditional or Adaptive) and test session (Session 1, Session 2, Session 3), and dependent variables were
sensitivity (d′), response criterion (c), hit ra te, false alarm rate, miss rate, response time, and gaze data. In
addition, eye tracking data from 4 experts was collected to evaluate differences in scan patterns and visual search
strategies between novices and experts. Results showed repeated training in either group improved performance
in terms of a decrease in the number of threat items missed and response time. Traditional training resulted in
greater sensitivity and fewer false alarms in early training sessions. Gaze data showed that overall dwell time is
positively related to the clutter density for the expert group. Analyses are ongoing to examine additional search
strategy data (e.g., saccade distance, direction, changes in visual search direction, etc.) to further quantify distinct
patterns in eye scan behavior to define novice versus expert performance. Future research will include further
investigation into Exposure and Discrimination training to quantify benefits of each training strategy, which can
better inform when and how to adapt training over time to target individualized deficiencies/inefficiencies and
increase training effectiveness and efficiency. Additionally, future research should consider a longer training
period, as current results did not show performance stabilization, indicating that learning may still be occurring.
49
GESTURE AND BRAIN COMPUTING INTERFACES: IMPACTS ON NEXT GENERATION
LEARNING
Dr. Sridhar Natarajan, Schawn E. Thropp, Zachary Weaver, Jesse Davis, Alan Hoberney
Johnstown, PA
The next generation of Learning and Human Performance Solutions (L&HPS) are being driven by end-user
needs for highly personalized, adaptive, and ubiquitous systems that can be easily and intuitively used via
modern computing and communication device platforms. However, shrinking Federal budgets and
upcoming Federal acquisition reforms are requiring that these systems also be low cost – both in terms of
the cost of component technologies, and the human capital costs required throughout the systems
engineering lifecycle.
This paper describes our research efforts in examining and combining Neuro-Technology with synergistic
technologies such as Gesture Recognition, Haptics, Facial Expression Recognition, Voice Recognition and
Advanced Data Visualization to identify and evaluate new paradigms of advanced "Human-Machine"
command/control and feedback interfaces for future training/learning applications. The paper describes our
findings in areas such as Neurofeedback, Adaptive Peak Performance Training, Thought Pattern
Recognition, etc. The paper also outlines our findings in regards to a set of challenges that lie ahead.
Significantly, our research indicates the strong viability of using low cost, intuitive, stable, and
commercially available component technologies that are characterized by active open source software
“ecosystems”. Further, these components require low cost human capital skills during systems integration.
In our current research, we describe Gesture-based Computing and Brain Computer Interface technologies
and examine their viability for enabling low-cost, high value applications to accelerate progress towards
achieving the next generation Learning & Human Performance Solutions.
THURSDAY, 6 DECEMBER, 2012 ROOM W304F
EC-12 Little Apps That Can
1330
The Next Generation of SCORM:
Innovation for the Global Force
(12114)
1400
A General Framework for
Developing Training Apps on
Android Devices (12006)
1430
Augmented Reality on Tablets in
Support of MRO Performance
(12358)
Notes
50
THE NEXT GENERATION OF SCORM: INNOVATION FOR THE GLOBAL FORCE
Jonathan Poltrack, Nikolaus Hruska, Andy Johnson
The Tolliver Group, Inc.
Alexandria, VA
Jason Haag
Problem Solutions
Alexandria, VA
This paper summarizes the current progress and future direction of a research effort on the next generation
of the Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM). While the SCORM was successful in
addressing high-level requirements to solve the challenges within military training systems, it was
engineered prior to the widespread use of mobile devices, intelligent tutors, virtual worlds, games, and other
new technologies that augment today’s learner beyond formal training scenarios.
The DoD training community now requires support of a next generation solution to allow for the delivery
and tracking of digital learning content on any device or platform. The approach detailed in this paper uses
Activity Streams, a technology widely used in social media. Activity Streams are composed of three
elements: an actor, a verb, and an activity, such as “[email protected] completed Information Assurance
101”.
This paper will reveal research findings for a future capability to support the tracking and delivery of digital
learning content on any device or platform. This capability is not simply a replacement for SCORM, but it
will further enhance the other types of learning opportunities that can be made available for the military
training and education community.
A GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR DEVELOPING TRAINING APPS ON ANDROID DEVICES
Jeremy Ludwig, Robert Richards, Bart Presnell, Dan Fu
Stottler Henke Associates, Inc.
San Mateo, CA
Handheld applications (apps), such as those run on Android and iPhone devices, hold the possibility of
revolutionizing military training by increasing the availability and engagement of training material. This
paper describes progress on software design and development towards a general framework for deploying
Android training apps. A primary objective is to allow nonprogrammers to reuse existing content to create
training apps that make full use of the capabilities offered by mobile devices. The described prototype
implementation includes a web page where the end user fills out a form, uploads content, and receives an
email with a link that they can follow (and share with others) to download their app directly to their device.
The main contributions of this paper are: The requirements that led to the framework design, the description
of the implemented framework, and a summary of qualitative feedback received from targeted
demonstrations. While this framework has been developed with a focus on military training, it is broadly
applicable in a civilian educational setting as well.
51
AUGMENTED REALITY ON TABLETS IN SUPPORT OF MRO PERFORMANCE
Andrew Woo, Billy Yuen, Tim Hayes
NGRAIN (Canada) Corporation
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Carl Byers
Logres Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Eugene Fiume
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Tablet computers have recently become ubiquitous, and 3D simulation technologies are now starting to be
available on them. This presents new opportunities for the deployment of Augmented Reality (AR)
solutions in support of Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MRO) performance. In this paper, we elaborate
on the choice of the tablet platform for AR, and list the capabilities that are possible using the combination
of tablet and AR to enhance MRO performance. A significant advantage of these capabilities on the tablet is
that only a single data representation is necessary, for use in AR as well as virtual environments, enabling
the technician to choose, on the fly, which environment is best suited for his or her needs.
EMERGING CONCEPTS & INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES PUBLISH ONLY
REAL-TIME FUSION OF SURVEILLANCE IMAGERIES IN URBAN SCENES
Ling Ling Sik & Sumanta Pattanaik
Orlando, Florida
Advances in surveillance technology have greatly enhanced social control and time critical tasks such as
monitoring criminal activities, threats, tactical military situations, disaster responses, and search and rescue
works. The imageries acquired by these surveillance sensors beaming in real time, though informative, often
yield “soda straw” views of the situation due to the cameras' narrow field of views. The effect is aggravated
in urban environments due to scene complexity and inter-object occlusions. To enable timely exploitation of
these images by commanders, decision makers, image analysts, and responders, an approach is to fuse and
visualize multi-view imageries spatially in three-dimensional (3D) space. Such an approach provides the
ability to explore and navigate interactively or to play out hypothetical scenarios using virtual terrains or
two-dimensional (2D) street maps as backdrops augmented with real-time imageries, and thus allows one to
gain novel insights from the captured imageries.
This paper presents a novel approach to visualize and fuse spatial imageries, acquired by disparate
surveillance devices planted in urban environments, at interactive rates. The approach utilizes an integrated
environment that considers inter-object occlusions. This is accomplished by harnessing graphics rendering
techniques and exploiting Graphics-Processing-Unit (GPU) programmability. The approach updates terrain
textures with geo-referenced imageries using the assumption that acquired images are coupled with
corresponding camera parameters, and terrain geometrical information are available. This assumption is
coherent with the advent of ubiquitous Global-Positioning-System (GPS)-enabled devices, advances in 3D
reconstructions, and related technologies. The paper commences with challenges faced in presenting
situational picture for urban scene using real-time surveillance video imageries. The proposed approach is
then delineated. The efficiency of the fusing technique for enhanced situational awareness for ground
surveillance is demonstrated in a simulated environment.
52
TUESDAY, 4 DECEMBER, 2012 ROOM W304F
HP-1 Training: HP Style
1400
What are the Most Critical Skills for
Manned-Unmanned Teaming?
(12202)
1430
Digital Training and Interface
Lessons Learned from
Operational Use Patterns (12084)
1500
End-User Tools for Multimedia
Annotation of Video Training
Demonstrations (12418)
Notes
WHAT ARE THE MOST CRITICAL SKILLS FOR MANNED-UNMANNED TEAMING?
John E. Stewart
Fort Rucker, AL
Paul J. Sticha
Human Resources Research Organization
Alexandria, VA
William R. Howse
Independent Consultant
Dothan, AL
With the transfer of U.S. Army unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) from Military Intelligence to the Aviation
Branch in 2003, the role of UAS changed from intelligence gathering to scout-reconnaissance (SR). SR
requires close coordination between UAS and manned aircraft, necessitating that UAS operators acquire
new communication and coordination skills. The objective of this research was to (a) identify mannedunmanned teaming (MUM-T) skills required for UAS operators, (b) define/prioritize training-critical
MUM-T skills, and (c) determine benchmarks for assessing MUM-T performance for RQ-7B Shadow and
other Army UAS. We first reviewed Army doctrinal material and regulations to identify (a) missions in
which UAS operators must coordinate with helicopter pilots, (b) tasks required to perform these missions,
and (c) UAS operator skills required to execute these tasks. Results of the review and analyses were
confirmed by subject matter experts (SME), comprising senior Army UAS operators, SR helicopter pilots,
and doctrine developers. SMEs identified training-critical SR skills for which (a) inadequate performance
would jeopardize the mission, and (b) UAS operators graduating advanced individual training (AIT)
performed poorly. Skills were rated for performance and training criticality, for attack and SR missions.
Ratings were rank ordered for 25 skills critical to SR mission success. Perceived current performance levels
varied greatly, indicating that many skills were not addressed in AIT, while others were adequately trained.
Next, SMEs from manned and UAS communities proposed performance indicators for 20 of these skills
deemed most relevant to MUM-T. For these skills a total of 140 prototype indicators were identified. Future
research will refine these indicators into valid, reliable, and usable benchmark performance measures to
assess proficiencies of UAS operators on MUM-T skills. These findings were briefed to project sponsors for
UAS and Reconnaissance-Attack, for use in pinpointing the most critical MUM-T skills to train UAS
operators.
53
DIGITAL TRAINING AND INTERFACE LESSONS LEARNED FROM OPERATIONAL USE
PATTERNS
Gregory A. Goodwin
Orlando, FL
In prior research, Soldiers deployed between 2005 and 2007 were administered an FBCB2 operational use
survey. The survey revealed clear benefits of operator training. Those who received the training used
significantly more functions and perceived the system as significantly more critical to mission success.
Unfortunately only 19% of system operators had completed the operator course. This means that the vast
majority of operators were underutilizing this system. We predicted that improvements in training rates
and/or experience levels of service members in the years since the prior survey may have rendered the
earlier survey results obsolete. Increases in training rates may have resulted in a much larger percentage of
Soldiers using more system functions. Increases in experience may have been incorporated into unit training
more effectively making operator training unnecessary. Finally, examining the training and use of FBCB2 is
important as the Army begins to develop the next generation of this system by helping system designers
improve the usability of the software. Data were collected from 393 Soldiers across six brigades who used
FBCB2 while deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in 2008-2010. The prediction that that there would be
substantial improvement in the training rates of Soldiers was not confirmed. In the present sample only 28%
of all participants had received the operator course. Furthermore, the prediction that other forms of training
(e.g., unit training) would have replaced the need for formal operator training was not supported. Those
without operator training use significantly fewer functions than those with the training. Despite the clear
benefits of training, the Army continues to inadequately train its FBCB2 operators with only one in three
receiving training. Fortunately, the operational use data suggest ways to tailor the interface and training
which may help to significantly improve the training throughput challenges for this system.
END-USER TOOLS FOR MULTIMEDIA ANNOTATION OF VIDEO TRAINING
DEMONSTRATIONS
Rachael Dubin & Benjamin Bell
CHI Systems, Inc
Fort Washington, PA
Allison Dyrlund
US Army Research Institute
Ft. Hood, TX
Bernice Willis
MTS Technologies, Inc.
San Antonio, TX
Christina Curnow
ICF International
Fairfax, VA
Soldiers in theater are confronted daily with complex, novel and uncertain conditions. This continual learning
environment can be leveraged to quickly incorporate lessons learned into institutional training. The widespread
availability of helmet-mounted and handheld cameras transforms this environment into a tremendous source of raw
material from which to develop current, relevant training content. To fully leverage the training effectiveness of such
content, Soldiers and Leaders must be equipped to create engaging and effective video training for just-in-time learning.
This paper reports on the front-end analysis, skill and content selection, development, and empirical analysis of a
framework for end-user production of video-based training. We describe a methodology through which the content of
recorded task demonstrations can be augmented using annotations. We investigate this methodology by developing
exemplar training products representative of the types of annotated videos that Soldiers and Leaders could produce, in
domains selected during focus groups with Army Leaders including Counter-IED and Tactical Combat Casualty Care.
Video content is annotated with narration, explanatory text, and images that serve to highlight essential features of task
performance, contextualized with stories told by experienced Soldiers. Such “expert stories” provide novices with
relevant cases to learn from and serve as an innovative form of annotation. Our empirical evaluation employs pre- and
post-assessments using Soldiers (E1-E4) with varying backgrounds and experiences to assess the effects of different
types of annotated training videos on subject matter expertise and situational judgment. Describing the process of
producing these videos serves to illustrate the manner in which this technique might be used by Soldiers and illuminates
issues associated with existing training needs and this mode of satisfying them.
54
TUESDAY, 4 DECEMBER, 2012 ROOM W304F
HP-2 Ready, Aim, Assess
1600
The IACE Assessment Model: An
Approach to Evaluating Simulation
Suitability (12035)
1630
Modifying Action Learning to
Increase Readiness (12311)
1700
Automated Human Performance
Measurement: Data Availability and
Standards (12302)
Notes
THE IACE ASSESSMENT MODEL: AN APPROACH TO EVALUATING SIMULATION
SUITABILITY
Dr. Christopher John Huffam
Department of National Defence Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
A common problem faced by training establishments is that of determining when a training technique or
tool no longer meets the evolving needs of the teaching practice it was intended to support. Directly related,
and especially important in an environment challenged by dwindling budgets and increasing need to justify
expenditure is the issue of how to select appropriate replacements. This process of evaluation is itself
fraught with risk for purchasers of virtual reality or physical simulation applications, as the core interests of
vendor and purchaser are by nature in direct conflict. Use of an impartial approach to assessing verifiable
requirements and capability of specified simulation based approaches to training and assessment would
inform purchasers and assist vendors in selecting “best fit” solutions. The Introduction, Action,
Consequences and Exit (IACE) Model discussed here provides an example of a procedural structure for
assessing the suitability of existing applications of simulation, or those under consideration as possible
options.
55
MODIFYING ACTION LEARNING TO INCREASE READINESS
Commander Kevin A. Jones
United States Coast Guard
San Diego, California
The paper investigates the relationships between independent crew variables, training methodology shift,
and the dependent variable of final readiness scores. An action research study was conducted to explore
ways to improve and standardize the United States Coast Guard's shipboard material readiness, training
practices and methodologies, and define advanced team performance metrics for cutters. Using
benchmarking, the relationships between key training methodology models, and ship and crew readiness
performance as measured by United States Navy Tailored Shipboard Training Availability model versus the
USCG Special Emergency Operations and Procedures were compared. The best practice findings suggest
that incorporating action learning into the model will increase unit readiness. To validate the research, a
crew maturity and training potential model was devised to test the theory. The results provide a more
comprehensive view of readiness by including personnel variables into the process, and led to increased
readiness scores.
AUTOMATED HUMAN PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT: DATA AVAILABILITY AND
STANDARDS
Emily Wiese, Matthew Roberts,
Jeanine Ayers
Aptima, Inc., Woburn, MA
Beth F. Atkinson
Naval Air Warfare Center Training
Systems Division, Orlando, FL
Delonna M. Ramoutar
Kaegan Corporation
Orlando, FL
As Human Performance Measurement (HPM) continues to advance, developers are facing unique
challenges in emerging environments due to a lack of availability to the right data―information specific to
measuring and assessing human performance. Additionally, while simulation-based training utilizes a
number of standards and protocols, there is limited guidance for making HPM data available and consistent
across devices. This paper discusses on-going efforts that demonstrate the impacts of data availability on
trainee assessment capabilities, thereby presenting a data driven case for the importance of HPM data.
Additionally, the authors present lessons learned for increasing HPM data availability, including defining
performance measures early in the training system development lifecycle and establishing HPM standards.
56
HP-3 Seeing is Believing
0830
On the Utility of Stereoscopic
Displays for Simulation
Training (12301)
0900
Effects of Visual Interaction
Methods on Simulated Unmanned
Aircraft Operator Situational
Awareness (12435)
0930
Improving Naval Shiphandling
Training through Game Based
Learning (12271)
Notes
ON THE UTILITY OF STEREOSCOPIC DISPLAYS FOR SIMULATION TRAINING
Charles J. Lloyd
Visual Performance LLC
In 1990 Tidwell declared “Stereopsis Takes Off in Flight Simulation” and he and his contemporaries
asserted stereoscopic displays were required for a range of training tasks including air refueling, formation
flight, and low level missions. But, some 22 years later, we find stereoscopic displays in a small fraction of
simulation trainers in current use. A stakeholder survey revealed some experienced display system
engineers do not believe the stereopsis cue would provide a benefit for the working distances required in the
air refueling task. This belief is consistent with the conclusions published in several papers in the virtual
reality and head mounted display literatures.
While developing requirements for air refueling trainers, we noticed a correlation between the
recommended working distance of the stereopsis cue and the use of electronic displays. The results of many
vision science evaluations set the threshold for depth discrimination at 3 to 10 arcsec, corresponding to 4 to
12 inches at the working distance of the KC-10 boom operator. In none of these evaluations were spatially
sampled electronic displays used. In contrast, those authors who concluded stereopsis is not useful at longer
distances used low resolution, spatially sampled displays and made no mention of antialiasing.
This paper describes an evaluation of the effects of antialiasing and pixel pitch on stereoscopic disparity
thresholds
and ratings of viewing comfort. The evaluation replicated our finding that eye limited stereoscopic disparity
thresholds are attainable on electronic displays with a pixel pitch as coarse as 2 arcmin, but only if sufficient
antialiasing is applied. This paper provides a quantitative model of the design trade space for these practical
design variables. Our results imply the utility of the stereopsis cue in simulation training applications has
been substantially underestimated due to inattention to the antialiasing function.
57
EFFECTS OF VISUAL INTERACTION METHODS ON SIMULATED UNMANNED AIRCRAFT
OPERATOR SITUATIONAL AWARENESS
Brent A. Terwilliger, Ph.D.
Rockwell Collins STS
Orlando, FL
The limited field of view of static egocentric visual displays employed in unmanned aircraft controls
introduces the soda straw effect on operators, which significantly affects their ability to capture and
maintain situational awareness by not depicting peripheral visual data. The problem with insufficient
operator situational awareness is the resulting increased potential for error and oversight during operation of
unmanned aircraft, leading to accidents and mishaps costing United States taxpayers between $4 million to
$54 million per year. The purpose of this quantitative experimental completely randomized design study
was to examine and compare use of dynamic eyepoint to static visual interaction in a simulated stationary
egocentric environment to determine which, if any, resulted in higher situational awareness. The theoretical
framework for the study established the premise that the amount of visual information available could affect
the situational awareness of an operator and that increasing visual information through dynamic eyepoint
manipulation may result in higher situational awareness than static visualization. Four experimental
dynamic visual interaction methods were examined (analog joystick, head tracker, uninterrupted hat/point of
view switch, and incremental hat/point of view switch) and compared to a single static method (the control
treatment). The five methods were used in experimental testing with 150 participants to determine if the use
of a dynamic eyepoint significantly increased the situational awareness of a user within a stationary
egocentric environment, indicating that employing dynamic control would reduce the occurrence or
consequences of the soda straw effect. The primary difference between the four dynamic visual interaction
methods was their unique manipulation approaches to control the pitch and yaw of the simulated eyepoint.
The identification of dynamic visual interaction increasing user SA may lead to the further refinement of
human-machine-interface (HMI), teleoperation, and unmanned aircraft control principles, with the pursuit
and performance of related research.
IMPROVING NAVAL SHIPHANDLING TRAINING THROUGH GAME BASED LEARNING
LTs. Ethan A. Reber & Benjamin Bernard, USN
Perry McDowell, CDR & Joseph Sullivan, USN
Surface Warfare Officers Schools
Command The MOVES Institute
Newport, RI
Monterey, California
Currently, a gap exists between seminar style shiphandling training and higher fidelity simulations available
to the U.S. Navy Surface Warfare Officer (SWO). There is currently no individually accessible, low cost,
intermediate level, interactive modality, shiphandling resource which would allow SWOs to practice
shiphandling skills without requiring instructor oversight. A student research team from the Naval
Postgraduate School's MOVES Institute exposed newly commissioned SWO students at the Surface
Warfare Officers School to basic task scenarios designed to be complementary to material covered in their
introductory course of instruction utilizing VSTEP’s “Ship Simulator Extremes” game. The students
completed the treatment task trainer protocol utilizing a Coast Guard High Endurance Cutter model and
continued with the standard introductory course curriculum where they utilized the fully immersive Conning
Officer Virtual Environment (COVE) shiphandling trainer. Each student was later evaluated in COVE on
his ability to maneuver a Guided Missile Destroyer, a similarly configured but larger ship, underway from a
San Diego pier. The students exposed to the game based scenarios performed at a statistically significantly
higher level in the categories of "Standard Commands" and "Margins of Safety Maintained," two key
indicators of shiphandling proficiency, following their normal course of instruction than the control. Also of
note, the novice level students encountered difficulty in unlearning the handling characteristics of one model
and learning a new one through the course of their instruction. Our findings suggest that an individually
accessible, game based, shiphandling task trainer with ship models matching those found in the COVE and
Full Mission Bridge would benefit newly commissioned SWOs by reinforcing classroom instruction and
could potentially be used by SWOs of all skill levels as a self study tool prior to participation in high level,
fully immersive, and manpower intensive, naval shiphandling simulators.
58
HP-4 Increasing Readiness through Training Effectiveness
1030
Enhancing Human Effectiveness
through Embedded Virtual
Simulation (12404)
1100
Quantification of Trainee Affective
and Cognitive State in Real-time
(12064)
1130
Measuring the Training
Effectiveness of Combat Lifesaver
Simulation Training Systems
(12098)
Notes
ENHANCING HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS THROUGH EMBEDDED VIRTUAL SIMULATION
Thomas Alexander
Fraunhofer-FKIE
Wachtberg, Germany
Dee Andrews
Mesa, Az, USA
Robert Sottilare
Stephen Goldberg
UCF, Institute for Simulation and Training
Orlando, FL
Orlando, FL
Lochlan Magee
Jan Joris Roessingh
DRDC Toronto
National Aerospace Laboratory (NLR)
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Present and anticipated military missions require highly trained and capable military personnel. Military
personnel have to be well prepared to effectively and efficiently use state-of-the-art technology under highly
complex battlefield conditions. A number of factors are influencing training policies, procedures and
technologies. An important factor is the need for units to deploy. This places them in locations where they do not
have the facilities and infrastructure needed to optimally plan and rehearse complex missions. Recent advances in
computer and display technologies make embedding training and embedded virtual simulation in highly mobile
military hardware both practical and effective. Embedded training is a well-known concept, which tightly
integrates training functionality into operational equipment. It allows military personnel to train and rehearse
while deployed to an operational area. Embedding training allows skills to be maintained and developed close to
the battlefield or during transit. In the past, embedded training has been successfully applied by armed forces
primarily for large computer controlled systems such as air defense, and ships. The recent development in areas
like Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR), technologies for virtual simulation and intelligent
tutoring systems significantly enlarges the area of application to ground and air forces. The human-centered
design and integration of embedded virtual simulation (EVS) technologies covers a broad spectrum, which
includes questions in operational user requirements, in training management as well as innovative technologies
for the human interface and a possible application of intelligent agents. This paper will present some new
successful applications of embedded virtual simulation in ground and air applications. It will refer to relevant
aspects of the topic from a training perspective and summarize the results that were achieved during the three year
operation of a NATO research study group (HFM-165) on enhancing human effectiveness though embedded
virtual simulation. Based on these findings future directions towards the future development of EVS will be
presented.
59
QUANTIFICATION OF TRAINEE AFFECTIVE AND COGNITIVE STATE IN REAL-TIME
Christina Kokini, Meredith Carroll, Ruben RamirezPadron, Kelly Hale
Oviedo, FL
Robert Sottilare, Benjamin Goldberg
Human Research and Engineering Directorate
Orlando, FL
Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) have yet to reach training effectiveness levels rivaling those of human
tutors, partially due to their inability to recognize and adapt to trainee cognitive and affective states. While
many studies have examined expensive sensor suites to capture physiological indicators of cognitive and
affective states, the authors’ previous work presented an innovative conceptual framework for utilizing lowcost sensors to capture specific states in real-time. Such measures are expected to improve an ITS’s ability
to automatically adapt to a trainee’s readiness to learn. The current set of two experiments aimed to develop
real-time classifiers for six distinct affective and cognitive states (anger, fear, boredom, workload,
engagement, distraction) utilizing low-cost, non-invasive (neuro)physiological and behavioral sensors. In
the first experiment, participants completed a within-subjects, repeated-measures study in which the
independent variable was task type - each task was designed to induce a subset of the targeted states.
Dependent variables theorized to indicate targeted states included heart rate, postural sway, pupil diameter,
and electroencephalography (EEG) band activity. Each metric was captured via low-cost sensor technology.
Validated, ground-truth measures of targeted cognitive and affective states were captured via a 10-channel
EEG headset and associated algorithms, and a subjective emotional rating tool, respectively. Several
challenges were encountered with the low-cost sensors, including limitations in sensitivity to physiological
changes and reliability of data collection. Small design and procedural changes were made for the second
experiment, and good logistic regression classifiers for the affective states of boredom and fear were
obtained. Additionally, logistic model trees showed good generalization capability when validated as
classifiers for the cognitive states. This paper presents study results, lessons learned and implications for
future research.
MEASURING THE TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS OF COMBAT LIFESAVER SIMULATION
TRAINING SYSTEMS
2012 IITSEC Paper No.12098
Dr. Teresita M. Sotomayor
U.S. Army Research Laboratory STTC
Orlando, Florida
Angela M. Salva
SIMETRI, Inc.
Orlando, Florida
Brent W. York
ArtSimMagic, Inc.
Oviedo, Florida
The Army’s increasing reliance on simulation to train Warfighters can be challenged given current
budgetary constraints. Under these circumstances, focus has turned to ensuring that there is sufficient return
on investment for new and novel training methodologies. It is imperative to meaningfully determine the
effectiveness of new training technologies with an effective “control” or comparison metric to measure the
perceived effectiveness of a training methodology and the efficacy as compared to alternative means.
Two recently developed training systems, Trauma Connect (TraumaCon™) and the Virtual Medical
Simulation Training Center (VMSTC), are intended to augment the Combat Lifesaver training currently
provided to U.S. Army Soldiers in a classroom setting. Before fielding these systems and incorporating
them into standard training syllabi, it is crucial to conduct an assessment of their true effectiveness in
achieving the goal of producing trained personnel. Further, an understanding of the efficacy of the
underlying technologies and methodologies is critical in determining the direction of follow-on research and
development initiatives. A Training Effectiveness Evaluation (TEE) using Kirkpatrick’s model was
conducted at Fort Drum with the participation of over 150 Soldiers to compare each of these two new
training systems to traditional classroom instruction. The purpose of the evaluation was to quantify the real,
tangible benefits associated with the use of these technologies in the program of instruction. The experiment
showed that VMSTC has a measurable effect on knowledge scores, TraumaCon did not have a significant
effect on knowledge scores under the conditions tested, and Soldier reactions to the two training methods
were positive.
60
HP-5 Expanding Human Performance Horizons
0830
A Paradigm Shift in Cultural
Training: Culture-General
Characteristics of Culturally
Competent Forces (12011)
0900
Using Virtual Environments to
Improve Real World Performance in
Combat Identification (12136)
0930
No Compromise – An Innovative
Section 508 Approach Supporting
All Learners (12154)
Notes
A PARADIGM SHIFT IN CULTURAL TRAINING: CULTURE-GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF CULTURALLY COMPETENT FORCES
Jessica L. Wildman, Thomas Skiba, Brigitte Armon, Rana Moukarzel
Florida Institute of Technology & Institute for Cross-Cultural Management
Melbourne, FL
U.S. Armed Forces conduct operations in diverse international settings. These forces interact not only with the
populations of the host county, but also with cooperating military from other national backgrounds. U.S. Forces are
likely to operate in multiple different cultural settings over the course of their careers. Working with a respect of these
cultures, as opposed to against them, or in ignorance of them, is conducive to mission success. Fortunately, there has
been a recent increase in focus on cultural training within the military. Unfortunately, a majority of the existing training
is culture-specific (i.e., focused on one country or region) and can only partially prepare individuals for numerous
multicultural interactions. In fact, the specific knowledge learned about one culture can be rendered ineffective or even
offensive when applied in another culture. Although culture-specific knowledge is conducive to mission success,
effective performance across a variety of cultural settings also requires an emphasis on on-the-spot cultural learning and
adaptation. Recent research suggests that cultural success is just as much about general adaptability within ambiguous,
complex settings as it is about specific knowledge of a culture. This paper presents a framework distilled from the
scientific literature that can be used to build training to develop the culture-general (i.e., not dependent on particular
cultures or cultural dimensions) skills of our Armed Forces. The framework draws from the multidisciplinary cultural
competence literature to suggest that individuals who possess a set of basic cognitive, behavioral, and motivational
characteristics will demonstrate stronger on-the-spot cultural learning. This learning, in turn, will allow individuals to
adapt to new cultural situations and make better use of their culture-specific knowledge. In sum, the presented
framework suggests that training individuals’ self-awareness, social awareness, flexibility, self-management, openness
to experience, and multiculturalism will lead to more intercultural success, improving the chances for mission success.
61
USING VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS TO IMPROVE REAL WORLD PERFORMANCE IN
COMBAT IDENTIFICATION
Emilie A. Reitz
Kevin P. Seavey
General Dynamics Information Technology
Suffolk, VA
Suffolk, VA
There is an increased understanding that training in virtual environments will play a key role in future force
development (Department of Defense, 2010) – but there is still a need to better understand the interaction between
classroom-based learning, virtual exercises to reinforce those skills and force-on-force field training. There is now
a widening body of research on virtual environment performance as an effective preparation for force-on-force
field training (Roman & Brown, 2009; De Leo, Sechrist, Radici, & Mastaglio, 2010). The question remains how
to best use virtual environments to bridge classroom-based learning and the application of classroom acquired
knowledge during tactical military execution. An opportunity to explore virtual infantry training transfer came
during Bold Quest 2011 (BQ11), a coalition combat identification event. Four infantry squads received five days
of instructor-led Advanced Situational Awareness Training (ASAT) that focused on increasing their situational
awareness and improving decision making; a fifth squad did not. Three of the squads who underwent ASAT
training and the one squad that did not then conducted two days of virtual environment scenarios focused on
training situational awareness and decision making skills in a combat identification environment. All five squads
then performed two different, measured and observed force-on-force field scenarios. Our hypothesis was that
initial practice in a virtual environment prior to the force on force scenarios would greatly enhance squad
exhibition of the knowledge, skills and attitudes (KSAs) associated with the instructor-led ASAT class, as
compared to those trainees who did not conduct the virtual missions. This paper is a follow on to Reitz and Reist,
2010, providing the results of the then proposed experiment. It will discuss squad performance throughout the
BQ11 training event; provide the results of an analysis of the training transfer between classroom, virtual and
field training environments; and propose broad requirements to improve the effectiveness of the virtual
environment to support combat identification training.
NO COMPROMISE – AN INNOVATIVE SECTION 508 APPROACH SUPPORTING ALL
LEARNERS
David Twitchell, Ph.D.
Bill Bandrowski, M.Ed., Craig Clark
Department of Veterans Affairs, VHA/EES
Bremerton, Washington
The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the Nation’s largest integrated health care system. The
Employee Education System (EES) maintains and advances VHA’s state-of-the-art learning delivery
models and fosters innovative training opportunities such as virtual and self-directed learning. Ensuring that
online and on-the-job training is accessible to all learners, including those with disabilities, is missioncritical for EES. Designing online training that is accessible to all learners can pose a dilemma for
instructional designers. In the case of compliance with accessibility regulations—spelled out in Section 508
of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794d)—designers have sometimes abandoned optimal instructional
strategies in favor of those that will support accessibility, particularly for vision-impaired learners who use
assistive technologies like screen readers. An on-going collaborative effort between EES and a non-profit
research and development team takes the position that instructional designers should have the freedom to
design engaging training, regardless of audience constraints, by enlisting technology that transforms the
final product to meet the needs of all learners. The authors present a case study of innovative Section 508compliant training recently implemented in support of the VHA Office of Telehealth Services. The groundbreaking approach focuses on innovation, not compromise—dynamically transforming interactive training
content to an accessible format on-demand. The content transformation process reformats the original
multimedia training content, displaying it as rich-media interactive, 508-compliant HTML5 for learners who
choose this view. The multimedia and accessible display formats are both generated from a single-source
content file, which is built from a library of instructional interaction templates. The authors provide detailed
information on the design and development of the Telehealth training and present lessons learned and
recommendations. In addition, thoughts on next steps will focus on enhancements to ensure training is
effective and accessible across both desktop and mobile display formats.
62
HP PUBLISH ONLY
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MODERN TOOLS TO AUTHOR TUTORING SYSTEMS
Keith Brawner, Heather Holden, Benjamin Goldberg, Robert Sottilare
Orlando, FL
The functional components of any tutor, be it human or computer, can be broken down by process:
presenting content to the learner, assessing the performance of the learner, making an instructional strategy
decision, implementing this strategy, and determining the impact. While an ideal Intelligent Tutoring
System (ITS) can perform all of these actions, the construction of such a system poses its own problem:
authoring these functions. This is part of the reason that ITSs are frequently built as monolithic single-topic
systems, rather than modular, open-architecture frameworks. An ideal authoring tool would allow a user to
create, or have automatically created, all the elements of an ITS with little interaction. While this goal is far
reaching, there has been significant effort in the creation and evaluation of tools to support at least one
function of tutoring. The creation of adaptive training is likely to take longer than traditional training for the
foreseeable future. This is for one simple reason: more content is required. Due to the corresponding
increase in effort, each organization must decide individually whether the performance improvement is
worth the cost. However, developmental costs are declining due to the utilization of user tools and
automated computer tools to develop the content and function of the intelligent tutor. Research in this area
focuses on streamlining the process of authoring adaptive content. This paper discusses the issues and
successes in the development of authoring tools used to generate adaptive training content and functionality.
This includes automated tools, such as those for unobtrusively capturing Subject Matter Expert (SME)
performance for the purpose of student assessment. This also includes human user tools, such as cognitive
model authoring via SME input. The authors conclude with recommendations, based on current research,
providing direction to the tasks of creating adaptive content and function.
IMPROVING TRAINING THROUGH HUMAN SYSTEMS DESIGN IN A MOBILE APPS
WORLD
Susan Archer – Alion Science and Technology
Kevin Roney – Sysergi LLC
The majority of Americans of US Military age own mobile devices such as smartphones. The small
footprint applications on these mobile devices, commonly called “digital apps” or “mobile apps,” are widely
available and enable users to access information, play games, communicate with their friends and
colleagues, purchase goods, and pay bills. As mobile apps continue to expand their presence in everyday
life, the connection to military training is also taking hold.
This paper discusses the learning value of mobile devices and their ability to support learning and practice
anytime and anywhere. By enabling learners to access instructional material in many forms (audio, visual),
to remediate and practice skills independently and to support access to updated information immediately,
these devices are revolutionizing education in our school systems. However; as with all revolutions, this one
may come with a cost. This paper leverages recent research in learning and retention for specific militarilyrelevant skill types to recommend the most effective way to integrate these devices and the mobile apps into
instructional and practice programs for the military user. Additionally, this paper will discuss the trade-offs
between enabling users to personalize applications and devices and the complications this introduces into
instructional design. Finally, this paper will recommend a way forward for how best to implement the
potential these devices offer in military training.
63
TUESDAY, 4 DECEMBER, 2012 ROOM W304A
P-1 Process This!
1400
Improving Software Development
Cost Estimation Models (12222)
1430
Robbing Peter to Pay Paul –
Modeling Irregular Warfare Demand
Signals (12272)
1500
Raising the Bar for the Military
Construction Process (12367)
Notes
IMPROVING SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATION MODELS
Rodney Figaroa, Scott Nelson, Karen Williams
PEO STRI
Orlando, FL
Charles Stroup
SAIC
Orlando, FL
Arlene Minkiewicz, Bob Koury
Price Systems
Mt. Laurel, NJ
Program Executive Office Simulation, Training and Instrumentation (PEO STRI) is utilizing a new code
counting methodology to estimate future cost for software development products. In 2011, PEO STRI
awarded two contracts in support of the One Semi-Automated Forces (OneSAF) program valued at more
than $90M. For the first time ever, a requirement for the delivery of a Software Resources Report (SRR)
was placed on each contract. The SRR is expected to be used to obtain the estimated characteristics of a
software product and its development process. The intent of the SRR process is to collect objective
measurable data commonly used by industry and Department of Defense (DoD) cost analysts. These data
are used to compile a repository of estimated software product sizes, schedules, and effort that Government
analysts can draw upon to build credible size, cost, and schedule estimates of future software-intensive
systems. Information to be acquired through these data will include descriptive information about the
product and developer and estimates of software product size, development schedule, peak staff, and direct
labor hours. The paper will describe the Government‟s intent for use of the SRR, and describe the current
state of this pilot program. The paper will detail the processes, the tool, participants, OneSAF unique
challenges, methodologies and data. In conclusion, we will present the findings, lessons learned and
recommendation for the future implementation of this product.
64
ROBBING PETER TO PAY PAUL – MODELING IRREGULAR WARFARE DEMAND SIGNALS
Britt Bray & Paul O’Meara
Dynamics Research Corporation
Lima, Ohio & Andover, Massachusetts
Irregular Warfare (IW) operations such as those conducted over the last ten years often drive the creation of
temporarily organized Force Packages, hereafter referred to as Non Standard Units (NSUs), to provide unique
capabilities required for security force assistance, advisory, detention, nation building and other missions. NSUs
compete for manpower and equipment from the same pool as Army units with approved authorization documents.
Resourcing NSUs requires diverting resources needed to produce trained and ready forces via the Army Force
Generation (ARFORGEN) process. IW demand signals represent the demands for manpower and equipment that
result from requirements to fill positions in NSUs. They typically originate from taskings to fill positions in
approved Joint Manning Documents (JMDs). This un-programmed demand may have many impacts. One
example involves certain low density occupational specialties needed to support theater requirements resulting in
shortages for distribution to deployable Army units. The Army is interested in tools to help answer questions
about the potential impact of IW demand signals across a range of vignettes and contingencies. A recent study
produced an analytical tool using non-proprietary tools and techniques to measure the impact of IW demand
signals for manpower and equipment. The model can help project how changes in demand and supply can impact
the ability to meet manning and equipping target levels for operational units. Target levels are mapped to training,
readiness and modernization timelines so that potential shortfalls and mismatches can be applied to inform
strategic resourcing decisions. Tracking violations of Military Occupation Specialty (MOS) “Dwell” time will
help assess impact on professional military education and identify potential force structure imbalances.
Eventually supply and demand for facilities and resources needed to support mobilization, training and
deployment can be added. This model can be adapted for all services that generate trained and ready forces by
enabling parametric analysis of policy changes, contingencies, and changes in the operating environment.
RAISING THE BAR FOR THE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROCESS
Susan D. Nachtigall, AIA
Nadia Abou-El-Seoud
US Army Corps of Engineers,
US Army Corps of Engineers,
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory
Fort Worth District-SWF
Champaign, IL
Fort Worth, TX
The evolution of policies, processes and procedures for developing and fielding Army standards for facilities and
installations has increased to maintain an appropriate pace to support Army Transformation. The cost
effectiveness and on-time construction of facilities, installations and infrastructure is a critical focus point in the
Engineering and Construction community and can only be completed through a synchronized and advanced
review, decision tracking, management, and communication system. An ongoing process to decrease gaps in
performance and successful transfer of knowledge between the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Districts who execute military construction (MILCON), the Army Staff that validates requirements, and USACE
Centers of Standardization who develop facility standards has emerged. As the MILCON process needed to keep
pace with the magnitude of change resulting from Transformation and the technology adoption it employed, a
more effective decision management process and tool was required to support it. Both the MILCON process and
its support tool (MILCON Requirements & Standardization Integration (MRSI) Suite) were developed to
synchronize decisions and requirements between the materiel acquisition and the engineer communities. Ensuring
facilities supporting materiel systems and their enabling training systems were tightly wrapped into a cohesive
decision package is one of the major objectives for the MRSI Suite synchronizing and managing decisions
between USACE and the Army throughout the DOTMLPF (Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leader
Development/Education, Personnel, and Facilities) decision domains. MRSI provides one access location for
information regarding Army Standards, applications used to enhance and ease the MILCON process and
information regarding the review, award and delivering of MILCON projects. This paper will discuss the
necessity and importance of the MRSI system, impacts it and lessons learned during the creation of the MRSI
Suite and examples for how the US Army Corps of Engineers plays a significant role in the emerging field of
policies for simulation and training related advancements.
65
TUESDAY, 4 DECEMBER, 2012 ROOM W304A
P-2 Aspects of Validation
1600
Training Device Certification and
Accreditation Process (12360)
1630
Sustainment of Modeling and
Simulation Tools in the Defense
Environment (12323)
1700
Face Validation: From Concept to
Concrete Process (12218)
Notes
TRAINING DEVICE CERTIFICATION AND ACCREDITATION PROCESS
John Owen
Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division
Orlando, FL
John Meyers
Patuxent River, MD
Given the constrained fiscal environment now and in the foreseeable future, the use of aircraft flight hours
for training and skill qualification is a costly solution to maintain. Thus, the use of simulation is becoming
an even more attractive alternative to aircraft training flight hours. Because of this, a process to assess the
capacity of a training device or system to provide Training and Readiness (T&R) is needed. Currently, the
processes that evaluate and approve a training device for use fall short of applying a rigorous evaluation
process to ensure T&R can be achieved. In addition, the current acquisition process for training devices
focuses more on the verification of contract requirements such as the Statement of Work (SOW) and the
Specification, but falls short in the assessment and validation of the training device’s ability to meet learning
objectives and T&R events.
If the expectation is that a certain level of T&R is required from a training device or system, then a process
must be established to methodically and quantitatively assess the capability of the training device or system.
The process must yield the quantitative data to support the certification and accreditation of the T&R
capability for that device. This paper discusses a process that provides a path to certification and
accreditation of T&R for training devices. It summarizes the processes applied to Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles (UAVs), H-53K, and Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).
66
SUSTAINMENT OF MODELING AND SIMULATION TOOLS IN THE DEFENSE
ENVIRONMENT
James E. Coolahan, Ph.D.
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
Laurel, MD
For several decades, significant investments have been made in developing models, simulations, and
modeling and simulation (M&S) tools for defense applications. Commercial companies have developed
some using internal resources, selling copies and maintenance agreements to users, not unlike commercial
non-M&S software applications. However, many have been developed using U.S. Department of Defense
(DoD) funds. Those with limited utility have been disposed of after satisfying their original intended use.
However, quite a number, representing a significant DoD development investment, have been adapted for
reuse beyond their initial intended use and user organization. Such “broadly-used” tools have often evolved
into “broadly-needed” tools because of their credibility and reputation in particular application domains.
The defense marketplace for M&S tools is unlike the commercial marketplace, however. A tool “owned” by
a government agency cannot be “sold” for a price to another government agency to use, with the proceeds
used to sustain it over the entire user base. Thus, commercial business models for sustainment do not
directly apply, raising the question as to how DoD might manage such sustainment. The first part of this
paper summarizes the results of a study conducted for the U.S. Office of the Secretary of Defense on the
management of broadly-needed M&S tools, noting six management approaches observed in the defense
M&S business environment, and citing some best management practices identified by soliciting information
from over two dozen M&S tool managers. That study also revealed a number of common sustainment
issues. The second part of the paper discusses these issues, commenting on the degree to which they remain
for both the tools studied and emerging defense M&S capabilities, and suggesting some options for
management practices that could aid in sustaining “common-good” M&S tools that serve multiple defense
organizations.
FACE VALIDATION: FROM CONCEPT TO CONCRETE PROCESS
Cindy Dunn
SAIC, Maneuver Battle Lab (MBL)
Experiment Environments Branch (EEB)
Fort Benning, GA
Verification and validation of a simulation is essential to its value as a model of a real-world system. Users
must have confidence that the model’s performance will produce accurate and reliable results, and need to
be aware of any inconsistencies related to using the simulation for a specific objective. The concept of
validation is easy to understand, but to develop and execute a detailed and quantifiably reliable validation of
a simulation model is a daunting task. Most organizations are never required to conduct a full face
validation with analytical data to support outcomes, leaving the credibility of simulation results in question.
The purpose of this paper is to provide a step-by-step guide for organizations or individuals who are
executing a thorough face validation for the first time, or looking for ways to improve their own validation
procedures. The steps that are outlined can also be used for organizations that are asked to review a
prospective model and provide feedback.
The Army’s Maneuver Battle Lab (MBL) has developed and refined a tried-and-true face validation process
during the course of a dozen constructive experiments over the last several years. This paper will include: -‐ Examples of input lists and templates, illustrating the validation preparation, process and analysis and what
to do with the results --‐ Samples of a Validation Report, used by MBL and submitted as part of the overall
Experiment Report, that readers will be able to tailor to their own needs --‐ A discussion of personnel and
hardware requirements that readers can use for their own planning and
budgeting purposes. The result is a systematic and efficient approach that can be applied to any simulation
and easily adapted for usefrom one experiment to the next.
67
P-3 The Ends, Ways, and Means of Software Development: Cost Estimating to
Achieve ROI
0830
Cracking the Code: Contracting for
Open Source Software (12104)
0900
Maximizing U.S. Army Return on
Investment Utilizing Software
Product-Line Approach (12109)
0930
Training Systems Acquisition for
Major Defense Programs (12147)
Notes
CRACKING THE CODE: CONTRACTING FOR OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE
Randy Saunders
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab Joint
Laurel, MD
Dr. Gary Allen
Training Integratio n & Evaluation Center
Orlando, FL
Open source software licenses provide government programs with excellent opportunities to reuse software
without paying license fees or incurring annual software maintenance fees. From Linux to simulation tools,
many programs take advantage of existing open source licenses. Simulation developers have long been free
to spend their investment money on a piece of software they give away through open source. Contractors
don't have that capability with software developed with government funds, unless they receive special
direction. The government, on the whole, endorses the use open source software, but is often hindered by
conflicting policies on how to proceed.
What happens when you can't find a piece of open source software to fit your requirements? How can you
avoid intellectual property claims that force you to use the original developers for future software
modifications? You may be able to solve these problems by paying for a simulation developer to produce an
open source software product. The product is made widely available, so any competent developer can
enhance it. If the community benefits enough to maintain it, you might be able share your support costs.
This paper describes how JHU/APL was directed to produce a tool as open source software, including the
contractual language needed to specify required license terms and accommodate DFARS 252.204-7000,
Disclosure of Information. The license selection results are provided and we describe the process for
establishing the open source repository. The tool itself was produced and is available as free, open source
software today.
68
MAXIMIZING U.S. ARMY RETURN ON INVESTMENT UTILIZING SOFTWARE PRODUCTLINE APPROACH
Michael Dillon
US Army PEO STRI
Orlando, Florida
Jorge Rivera, Rowland Darbin
General Dynamics C4 Systems
Orlando, Florida
Barry Clinger
Riptide Software
Orlando, Florida
The Live Training Transformation (LT2) Software Product Line (SPL) team established a mature live training
SPL within the U.S. Army’s Project Manager Training Devices (PM TRADE), allowing for the realization of
significant improvements in cost savings and cost avoidance in development and sustainment of live training
systems. Through sustained commitment and determination, the LT2 SPL team, worked with the live training
acquisition leadership and training product teams to transform the PM TRADE organization from a collection of
mostly stovepipe products into an SPL-oriented organization focused on systemic software reuse, standards,
common solutions, processes, tools, and governance. This continuing transformation has generated a significant
return-on-investment to date within PM TRADE’s live training system acquisition portfolio generating over three
hundred million dollars in cost avoidance across the development of live training systems to include Combat
Training Centers Instrumentation Systems, Home Station Instrumentation Systems, Instrumented Ranges, and
Targetry.
The LT2 SPL strategy maintains the combat edge and builds resilience in our forces by providing state-of-the-art
training systems to the Warfighter using common reusable software components, architectural infrastructure,
interfaces, standards, processes, and assets. With over 150 systems fielded globally, LT2 successfully employs
technical and acquisition strategies that significantly reduce fielding time, minimize acquisition costs, enable total
ownership cost reductions across the Live Training domain and Live, Virtual, Constructive-Integrated Training
Environment (LVC-ITE), and enhance training benefits afforded to the Warfighter. This paper provides an
overview and lessons learned from the LT2 SPL accomplishments and benefits of the holistic approach that the
LT2 SPL team has achieved. Furthermore, key historical, on-going, and future challenges in managing a
successful SPL within the Department of Defense acquisition environment will be addressed.
TRAINING SYSTEMS ACQUISITION FOR MAJOR DEFENSE PROGRAMS
Fred Hartman
Lori Frumkin
Alion Science & Technology
Alexandria, VA
Alexandria, VA
The Office of the Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), Training Readiness and Strategy
sponsored the Training Systems Acquisition for Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs) study to
determine the impact of incorporating training systems considerations earlier in the acquisition process. This
paper discusses details and provides findings and observations from the study completed in July 2012. The
research effort, which was conducted in two phases, supports recent changes to the Defense Requirements
Process that include requirements for training. It gathers and organizes data from new equipment programs
that require significant human interaction, analyzes them for gaps and trends, and documents how training
affects the system’s total cost and effectiveness. Although Department of Defense regulations regarding
MDAPs traditionally have addressed training in the context of human-systems integration and personnel
issues, with document completion and delivery dates just prior to Milestone C, emerging Phase II results
indicate that training system planning can and should begin prior to Milestone A, in the concept definition
and analysis phases, and extend through the system’s life cycle. The Phase II methodology includes analysis
of specific case study systems to provide detailed evidence regarding the impact of training systems
planning with corroborating details from multiple sources. This early systems training planning for operator,
maintainer, and leadership, employing methodologies such as modeling and simulation, may be shown to
provide opportunities to avoid later potential problems such as cost overruns and schedule delays and enable
the full design capabilities of the new system. Test reports and other program-specific documents are
included to extend the systems training information found in the training-related program documents. This
work contributes to understanding of systems training planning in the acquisition process by providing
compelling evidence documented from multiple accredited sources. Study results will inform and influence
changes to the acquisition process and support a strengthened training role in the capabilities of MDAPs.
69
THURSDAY, 6 DECEMBER, 2012 ROOM W304A
P-4 Breaking Global Boundaries
0830
Establishing a Classified U.S. Training Network Enclave
in Australia (12201)
0900
Simulation in Healthcare – What is Holding Us Back?
(12405)
Notes
ESTABLISHING A CLASSIFIED U.S. TRAINING NETWORK ENCLAVE IN AUSTRALIA
Gerald McGowan
Joint Staff, DDJ7 JCW
Suffolk, Virginia, USA
Allan Deacon
Joint Combined Training Capability
Fyshwick, ACT, Australia
In July 2011, the newly appointed Australian Chief of Joint Operations (CJOPS) requested Joint Staff, J7,
Director, Joint Force Development to assist in extending the Combined Enterprise Regional Information
Exchange System (CENTRIXS) International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) Training Federation (CX-I
TF) to Australian combat training centers to support Australian Forces pre-deployment training. CX-I is the
U.S. Secret releasable to ISAF national network that connects into the Afghanistan Mission Network
(AMN). CX-I TF is the associated U.S. releasable to ISAF training network. U.S. and Australia forces share
command in Afghanistan and CX-I provides the common network for command, control, communications,
computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) as well as U.S. and Australian access into
AMN. This paper provides the background evolution of the AMN, CX-I, and CX-I TF. We will then discuss
the initial obstacles faced when presented the CJOPS request, including policy, logistics and security
concerns. The paper describes the processes used and the policies and procedures developed during Use
Case #1, extending CX-I TF for a demonstration event in November 2011. It will then describe the approach
taken by the team for Use Case #2 to extend CX-I TF in support of Australian pre-deployment training in
May 2012. The paper discusses policy, procedures, and goals for Use Case #3 that will be in place by
August 2012 making the extension a permanent U.S. – Australia training capability. The paper closes with a
presentation of lessons learned that can be applied to similar extensions to partner enclaves quickly and
securely meeting emerging requirements.
70
SIMULATION IN HEALTHCARE - WHAT IS HOLDING US BACK?
Richard J Severinghaus, CMSP
The AEgis Technologies Group, Inc.
Huntsville, AL
While great progress has been made in the past decade to incorporate Modeling & Simulation into
healthcare education, training, research, and testing, there remain a number of significant obstacles to more
robust adoption of the M&S technologies, methods, and capabilities available for use in the practice of
healthcare. The question to ask is, “what is holding us back?” This paper will discuss a number of issues
constraining more robust and focused applications of M&S technologies and processes to address healthcare
problems – in medical practice, in disease diagnosis, in nursing, and in allied healthcare practice. While
there are many technological issues to address, the focus of this paper will be on constraints founded in
current policy, law, and regulatory issues, and offer recommendations for actions that can lead to more
effective and cost efficient implementation of M&S in the practice of healthcare. The issues and
recommendations to be discussed in this paper will be addressed from the viewpoint of the need to integrate
healthcare practice and business practice. As healthcare spending is projected to reach $4 trillion, 20% of
GDP, by 2015, there is clear and urgent need to modify policy, standards, and governance of healthcare to
yield more cost effective practice. Two broad issues exemplify opportunities for significant expansion of
M&S in the healthcare domain. First, coordination of medical care services across the continuum of care,
particularly in the area of prevention, monitoring, diagnostics, treatment optimization, personalized
medicine, and disease management, is clearly an issue to explore. Second, and just as clearly, more robust
application of M&S to the education, certification, and continuing licensure of healthcare providers can be
of significant benefit to healthcare practice. Why progress in adoption of M&S has not been more robust is
the question addressed in this paper.
THURSDAY, 6 DECEMBER, 2012 ROOM W304A
P-5 Bringing It All Together
1030
Integrate vs. Interoperate; an Army
Training Use Case (12099)
1100
Coalition Battle Management
Services (CBMS) (12257)
1130
Information Assurance Impacts of
Mobile Architecture in a Training
System (12096)
Notes
71
INTEGRATE VS. INTEROPERATE; AN ARMY TRAINING USE CASE
Paul Dumanoir
U.S. Army PEO STRI
Orlando, Florida
The Joint Vision 2020, which guides the continuing transformation of America
‟s armed forces, states
“Interoperability is the foundation of effective joint, multinational, and interagency operations.” Most of us
have our own ideas on the difference between the terms interoperability and integration when it comes to
systems, and probably tend to use them interchangeably and incorrectly. This paper explores the difference
between the two terms within the context of an Army System of Systems (SoS) training product called the
Live, Virtual, Constructive Integrated Training Environment (LVC ITE), and its integrating architecture and
infrastructure. The Live, Virtual, Constructive – Integrating Architecture (LVC-IA) is a U.S. Army Program
Of Record (POR) intended to provide a two-way network-centric linkage between models, simulations,
instrumentation, and Mission Command (MC) systems supporting collective and battle staff training and
mission rehearsals for a Brigade Combat Team (BCT). This paper examines how the systems, or
components, within the LVC ITE SoS domain exchange information and how that information is used. The
paper also describes how the LVC-IA POR performs the act of integration by coordinating and blending
disparate pieces into a functioning and unified system. Key pieces of this integration and interoperability
use case include simulations such as the Joint Land Component Constructive Training Capability (JLCCTC)
Entity Resolution Federation (ERF), the Homestation Instrumentation Training System (HITS), the Close
Combat Tactical Trainer (CCTT), and the Aviation Combined Arms Tactical Trainer (AVCATT). The
paper will also examine how pieces of the LVC-IA POR, such as Cross Domain Solution (CDS), Gateways,
Agile Development Methodology (ADM), and product-line engineering approach, are integrated to meet an
architectural objective. Lastly, lessons learned from a SoS Engineering perspective are presented in addition
to a way ahead on LVC-IA compliance with the Army Common Operating Environment (COE).
COALITION BATTLE MANAGEMENT SERVICES (CBMS)
Dr. Saikou Y. Diallo
VMASC
Suffolk, VA
W. D. Scott Wood, Warren W. Bizub
JCS DD J7 JCW
Suffolk, VA
The Command and Control (C2) Community has a set of systems, standards and protocols that it uses to solve its main
interoperability challenge which is to communicate a consistent common operational picture (COP) of the real battle
space. Similarly, the modeling and simulation (M&S) community has evolved its own standards and protocols to deal
with its main interoperability challenge which is to accurately model and simulate the synthetic battle space using one or
more systems. However, as we move towards a system of system environment where live, virtual and constructive
(LVC) systems are connected and the line between real and simulated entities is purposefully obscured, we are facing a
new set of system of system interoperability challenges that cut across communities. In this new environment where
information sharing is key, standardized metadata takes prevalence over standardized interfaces, which means that we
need to look at standards as a set of interoperability enablers that must be coherently organized in a “system of
standards.”
In this paper, we present the coalition battle management services (CBMS) as a system of system approach to dealing
with system of system interoperability in general and C2 to simulation interoperability in particular. We distinguish
between the CBMS approach, which is based on the observation that an interoperability system must be developed
following interoperability requirements; the CBMS architecture based on the design pattern of the World Wide Web
(WWW); and the CBMS implementation based on standards and open source tools. We describe how systems can use
CBMS in support of interoperability and present a CBMS use case of C2 to simulation interoperability in a coalition
environment using the Coalition Battle Management Language (C-BML) and the Military Scenario Definition Language
(MSDL). Finally, we discuss the implications of CBMS on M&S standards and system of system interoperability.
72
INFORMATION ASSURANCE IMPACTS OF MOBILE ARCHITECTURE IN A TRAINING
SYSTEM
Graham Fleener
U.S. Army PEO STRI
Orlando, FL
Andrew Maxon
Cybernet Systems Corporation
Orlando, FL
Training systems can benefit enormously with the integration of mobile architecture into the accreditation
boundary as Warfighters are immediately familiar with the user interface. This enables the system developer to
tap into a wealth of built-in functionality that would otherwise take years to develop. One of the latest Information
Assurance (IA) challenges training systems face in today’s continually evolving cyber threat environment is the
secure integration of mobile architecture to ensure the continued protection of data and adherence with constantly
evolving regulations. Our paper will discuss the significant issues Government Project Managers (PM) now face
integrating mobile architecture into their initial system designs, as well as Configuration Management and
Information Assurance Vulnerability Management (IAVM) processes.
We will address the many IA issues to integrating a mobile architecture in a training system to include technical
security challenges, current and expanding IA requirements, industry best practices and using a risk management
approach to ensure the system successfully completes the Certification and Accreditation (C&A) process and
receives an Authorization to Operate (ATO). We will outline the numerous IA requirements currently governing
mobile architecture, and the upcoming requirements DoD is proposing for the future.
To better train the Warfighter, industry and Government are rapidly progressing with the innovation that mobile
architecture facilitates, enabling solutions that previously would never be possible. IA requirements and solutions
must keep pace with innovation to ensure the way in which we train and fight is protected and secure. Finally, we
will discuss a number of use cases within training and simulation systems that are currently undergoing the
process of integrating mobile architecture into their accreditation boundary and lessons learned from those use
cases.
TUESDAY, 4 DECEMBER, 2012 ROOM W304E
S-1 Electronic Attack: Cyber and Countermeasures
1400
Developing a Complex Simulation
Environment for Evaluating Cyber
Attacks (12248)
1430
Synthetic Cyber Environments for
Training and Exercising Cyberspace
Operations (12408)
1500
Electronic Warfare (EW) Modeling
Support for RED FLAG Exercises
(12093)
NOTES
73
DEVELOPING A COMPLEX SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT FOR EVALUATING CYBER
ATTACKS
Alexandre B. Barreto, Michael Hieb
C4I Center at George Mason University
Fairfax, VA
Edgar Yano
Instituto Tecnológi co de Aeronáutica
São José dos Campos, SP
The management of oil exploration is among the most important strategic tasks that a nation has. In Brazil, the
Campos Basin is a petroleum rich area compassing oceanic fields that accounts for 80% of Brazil's oil production.
Because the Campos Basin is offshore, there is a high volume of helicopter traffic in the area. Currently, the
Department of Airspace Control, that manages the Brazilian Air Traffic System, is developing a plan to improve
Air Traffic Control Operations in this area using ADS-B technology (Automatic Dependent SurveillanceBroadcast). ADS-B will be used in a restricted oceanic airspace to supplement radar coverage to provide better
service. As ADS-B technology is new and has vulnerabilities (unencrypted messages in a broadcast transmission
mode), understanding the impact of a cyber-attack on the safety and security of Air Traffic Control Operations is a
major challenge. This paper provides a case study in the evaluation and assessment of cyber-attacks to critical
infrastructure using Simulation Tools. An analysis of the Simulation Environment used and its suitability for its
purpose will be presented as a key finding. This environment consists of: 1) a cyber-attack generator; 2) an entity
level simulation to provide the dynamic behaviors of entities (helicopters and ATS infrastructure); 3) a network
simulation that will include modeling ADS-B; and 4) a 3D visualization tool. The HLA protocol will be used to
integrate selected components of the testbed. To provide information about the impact to the Campos Basin Air
Traffic System, an external tool will be used to export the information to a Log System, for analysis by a cyber
assessment tool. This testbed will be used for developing an impact assessment framework that is applicable to a
wide range of military and civilian missions.
SYNTHETIC CYBER ENVIRONMENTS FOR TRAINING AND EXERCISING CYBERSPACE
OPERATIONS
Stephanie D. Harwell & Christopher M. Gore
Camber Corporation
O’Fallon, IL
To combat the cyberspace threat facing the nation, an integrated combination of technology, education,
training, and exercising is needed. The Air Force cyber simulator journey began in 2001 with a small
exercise. Today syntheticlive environments (cyber simulators) are in use for training and exercises, mission
rehearsal, and tool development for cyberspace operations. The Air Force has 78 simulators at 3 locations in
Illinois, Mississippi, and Florida. Solutions similar to the Air Force are also in use by the Navy (Navy Cyber
Operations Range (NCOR) in Norfolk, US Strategic Command (STRATCOM), STRATCOM Cyber
Operations Range (SCOR) in Nebraska, and the National Guard, Army Guard Enterprise Network Training
Simulator (ARGENTS) in Arkansas and seven other States. In all, there are over 100 active simulators in
the US. Evolving over time, the requirements of the cyber simulator have grown from just replicating the
operational day-to-day environment of the blue force to modeling the environment of the red threat. The
environment now encompasses a world-wide routable gray space and is interoperable with other synthetic
environments. Cyber simulators expose operators to various network situations and threats and advance
their technical skills. They are used in validating solutions and the development of innovative approaches
enhancing operational competencies. The risk-free environment of a cyber-simulator and scenario based
stimuli allow crews to experience and conduct aggressive activities to: disrupt, obstruct, and destroy the
integrity of the network; infiltrate a simulated computer network for intelligence collection; and train on
procedures and tactics to defend and protect the network. Fidelity and realism throughout the physical and
virtualized platform, appliances, and applications is paramount and must also be present in traffic
generation, data, and the synthetic Internet. While these key factors are critical to an immersive experience,
the simulator must be constructed within a rapidly reconstitutable environment with the capability to start,
stop, and re-roll scenarios from a requisite state.
74
ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) MODELING SUPPORT FOR RED FLAG EXERCISES
Amanda Cinnamon
Wyle
Dayton, Ohio
John E. Farrier
Booz Allen Hamilton
Dayton, Ohio
Models and simulations developed for live test range and training exercises such as Red Flag are typically
designed for fast execution and ease of use by a non-specialist. As a result, these models often lack the level
of fidelity necessary to provide a meaningful Electronic Warfare (EW) environment. By contrast,
engineering level models used for research and design focus on fidelity and cannot be verifiably configured
and executed by a novice user. Configuring a single scenario requires a technical understanding of the
constituent radars, jammers, and how each system is represented in the model. As the battlefield becomes
increasingly complex, however, the role of EW becomes critical. To address this issue, the Enhanced
Surface to Air Missile Simulation (ESAMS) was integrated into the live Nellis Test and Training Range
(NTTR) environment using the Hybrid Integration and Visualization Environment (HIVE). The integration
of EW modeling into the Surface to Air Missile (SAM) assessment process of Red Flag Live Virtual
Constructive (LVC) training exercises improved the effectiveness and accuracy of aircrew training. This
paper discusses a method of packaging the capabilities of a high fidelity radar simulation into an application
built to make advanced EW modeling available to a novice user. In addition to insights on the model
integration process, precautions taken to mitigate technical risk will be presented. This paper will also
discuss how lessons learned from the project are positively impacting current efforts to incorporate EW
models into other testing, training, and acquisition scenarios.
TUESDAY, 4 DECEMBER, 2012 ROOM W304E
S-2 This Land is Your Land, This Land is My Land
1600
Missionland: The Creation of a
Virtual Continent for Mission
Simulation (12087)
1630
Easy Pattern-of-Life Generation
using Physical and
Human Terrain (12180)
1700
Dynamic Synthetic Environments
Through Run-Time Modification of
Source Data (12050)
Notes
75
MISSIONLAND: THE CREATION OF A VIRTUAL CONTINENT FOR MISSION SIMULATION
Arjan Lemmers, Arno Gerretsen
National Aerospace Laboratory NLR
Edward Jones
Dstl
Portsdown West, United Kingdom
Simon Skinner
XPI Simulation Ltd.
Chessington, United Kingdom
Training via distributed mission simulation has the potential to enhance force readiness and operational
effectiveness in coalition operations. An essential condition for an effective mission simulation environment
is correlated representation of the real-world natural and cultural environment in the distributed simulation.
Correlating existing geospecific environmental databases is costly, both in effort and in money, and the end
result will always be hampered by technical incompatibilities. A generic and non-geospecific, widely
available simulation environment could overcome these problems.
In 2008 the NATO RTO task group MSG-071 Missionland started. Its prime objective is to construct a
coherent dataset of a static environment, from which databases can be constructed for a wide range of
simulators. Based on inputs from military end users the task group has identified the user needs and
requirements for a dataset of a virtual continent, named Missionland. The task group has created a design
for Missionland and set it in the North Atlantic. Missionland covers multiple climate zones and various
elevation regions. The Missionland dataset provides the users with terrain elevation data, vector data,
imagery, 3D models, and textures. The users can generate with this dataset the databases they need for their
visual out-of-the-window and sensor views, terrain servers and computer generated forces applications.
This paper outlines the approach the task group has undertaken in developing the dataset. It starts with an
overview of the user needs, followed by the design of Missionland. The data generation process and the
dataset elements are discussed, emphasizing the necessary deviations from standard real-world database
development techniques. It explains the tools, technology and data sources used for data generation. Finally
the paper describes the deployment of the Missionland dataset for end user applications.
EASY PATTERN-OF-LIFE GENERATION USING PHYSICAL AND HUMAN TERRAIN
Philip Kerbusch, Ruben Smelik, Selmar Smit, Frido Kuijper
TNO
The Hague, Netherlands
Simulation is widely used for military training and experimentation. In many cases the local populace is a
vital part of the virtual world; whether it is the interaction they have with trainees or the added realism they
provide through their presence. However, creating a scenario with a realistic population is a laborious and
time consuming process, and therefore has to be omitted or simplified quite often.
Although the behavior of the locals, their daily pattern-of-life, is inextricably linked with the features and
infrastructure of the physical terrain in which the population lives, they are currently still being treated as
disjunctive assets in most computer generated forces tools. Therefore, we propose an integration of physical
and human terrain in the generation process that has the potential to i) reduce the effort needed for an
instructor to create and maintain scenarios, and ii) improve the realism of the simulation.
The objective of this research is automatic generation of a local population and their typical behavior, based
on general rules for daily life, resulting in, e.g., people leaving in the morning to go to work in the fields or
factories, children leaving for school. These generated behavior patterns abide by local demographics and
physical terrain characteristics, such as the locations of residential areas and other infrastructural elements.
This paper describes a novel, instructor-centric approach to scenario creation, which considers human and
physical terrain data as a combined source for the generation of population behavior. The authors discuss
the design of the human terrain data model, and its incorporation into an existing physical terrain generation
process.
76
DYNAMIC SYNTHETIC ENVIRONMENTS THROUGH RUN-TIME MODIFICATION OF
SOURCE DATA
Kenny J. Hebert, Dale Sexton
Presagis
Richardson, TX
One of the key components to achieving a high level of realism in today’s training simulations is the ability to
dynamically interact and manipulate the synthetic environment utilized by the simulation. Whether the interaction
is the result of naturally occurring environmental effects, such as flooding and erosion, or simulation driven
events, such as bomb craters, dynamically manipulating the synthetic environment provides critical feedback to
the warfighter that is representative of real world engagements. In recent years, many research efforts have been
undertaken to support the correlated representation of dynamic terrain in a federated simulation environment.
However, much of those research efforts have focused entirely on the dynamic manipulation of the underlying
terrain polygons and associated visual representation without considering the dynamic modification of the
original source data or other derived datasets that are utilized by client devices participating in the training event.
In today’s Modeling and Simulation (M&S) environment, there are a wide number of applications and client
devices that utilize native GIS source data at run-time and require more than just updated terrain polygons and
visual images. In order to support dynamic modifications to the synthetic environment applicable to a full range
of M&S applications, a comprehensive approach must be taken to ensure that multiple data types and formats can
be dynamically modified and updated at run-time. In this paper we will provide an overview of the current
approaches for achieving dynamic terrain and present a proposed method for the dynamic run-time modification
of synthetic terrain data to support correlated visual, sensor, and SAF devices. The approach presented will utilize
event-driven changes to dynamically modify and manipulate multiple data sources in a central repository with the
use of an event notification mechanism to ensure all client devices are updated to reflect the latest changes to the
environment at run-time.
WEDNESDAY, 5 DECEMBER, 2012 ROOM W304E
S-3 Virtually Faithful
0830
To Believe or Not to Believe,
Fidelity is the Question (12425)
0900
Combining Constructive Models
with a 3D Game for Enhanced
Immersion (12329)
0930
Virtual Locomotion Concepts and
Metrics Study: Experimentation and
Results (12236)
Notes
77
TO BELIEVE OR NOT TO BELIEVE, FIDELITY IS THE QUESTION
Randall Garrett, PhD
Northrop Grumman
Suffolk, Virginia
A major debate among the gaming and Modeling and Simulation (M&S) communities continues concerning
the issue of “how much fidelity and resolution are really needed” for simulated environments to be
effective. The recent introduction of powerful game engines providing high fidelity and resolution capable
of integrating with proven models, certainly offers the M&S community increased functionality. In turn,
game developers can now leverage valid models to reinforce the “realism” of their game environments.
There is also the concept of immersion that is
now routinely linked to both fidelity of visualization and the concept of a model’s believability. The utility
of a simulation’s visualization is dependent on its effectiveness. However, our continued expectation of
higher degrees of fidelity and resolution may be evolving to the point of jeopardizing the intended purpose
of the model for which the simulation is based. Even with a valid model supporting the simulation, in the
case of visualization, “Garbage in - Hollywood out” could be a reality. Generally, the more the fidelity, the
more it costs to produce a product for use in the M&S arena and in many cases, as within the modeling of
avatars or Non Player Characters (NPCs), too much fidelity may render the character as unbelievable to the
user. Also, many visual objects included within a high fidelity simulation are often distractions. It is a
paradox that the human mind may need less visual fidelity for it to believe that a representative visualization
is more realistic. The optimum fidelity needed for the intended use of a model remains a factor of costs or
tradeoffs associated with emerging disruptive gaming technologies, validation of the model, believability of
the simulation, and user preference. This paper explores these tradeoffs for the M&S community and the
effectiveness of using high fidelity visualization within an immersive training environment.
COMBINING CONSTRUCTIVE MODELS WITH A 3D GAME FOR ENHANCED IMMERSION
Marjorie A. Zielke, Ph.D. & Gary Hardee, MA
Joe R. Gonzalez Jr., MS
University of Texas at Dallas
Texas A&M University
Richardson, Texas
College Station, Texas
Incorporating constructive models into a 3D game is an effective, realistic and nonlinear way to prepare
warfighters for operational environment complexities. In its third development spiral, The Hybrid Irregular
Warfare Network-defeat Toolkit federation, or HINT, sponsored by TRADOC G2 Intelligence Support
Activity, combines an immersive 3D game-based simulation – The First Person Cultural Trainer (FPCT) –
with the One Semi-Automated Force (OneSAF) and the Joint Non-kinetic Effects (JNEM) models in a
hybrid model framework federation. This paper drills down on this methodology, focusing on benefits,
challenges and lessons learned from integrating the OneSAF and JNEM models with the FPCT 3D game. In
FPCT, the player discovers IED and insurgent networks through populace relationship building. The player
wins by positively affecting the mood and cooperation level of the virtual population, thereby facilitating
the collection of “golden nuggets” of information. To create this gameplay, FPCT exchanges and
incorporates OneSAF data, which simulates force-on-force activity, and JNEM data, which provides welldefined civilian influences such, as mood and cooperation of a heterogeneous population in an area of
operation. The player then can positively affect the JNEM-driven mood and cooperation state through
culturally correct populace interaction. If populace interaction is effective, critical information golden
nuggets are collected during gameplay and published back to OneSAF and JNEM to model second-and
third-order effects of ongoing military stability operations. Multiple data exchanges from OneSAF, JNEM
and FPCT simulate dynamically changing operational conditions. The HINT methodology for combining
constructive models with a 3D game provides a platform for lessons learned and also suggests other
potential ways to develop simulations in this way. FPCT won the IITSEC Serious Games Competition
government category in 2011, the Innovations in Department of Defense Gaming competition at the 2011
GameTech Conference, and the NTSA Cross-Function award in 2010.
78
VIRTUAL LOCOMOTION CONCEPTS AND METRICS STUDY: EXPERIMENTATION AND
RESULTS
Timothy Roberts &Pat Garrity
Orlando, FL
Jay Saffold
Research Network, Inc.
Kennesaw, GA
The U.S. Army Research Laboratory Simulation and Training Technology Center has been performing
research in the field of virtual locomotion for multiple years with the main goal of finding the most
naturalistic virtual locomotion design. This paper extends the results of a previous study which categorized
and defined virtual locomotion technologies for use in immersive dismounted training into an
experimentation phase. For the live experimentation baseline, a live Military Operations in Urban Training
facility was used. At this facility, data were collected to support metrics provided in the previous study. In
order to collect this data, site instrumentation and measurement apparatus were installed for a baseline
system reference experiment. For position and accuracy measurements, the instrumentation included a
surveyed path with time, space, position indicator sensors and other devices (live video). For fatigue
measurement, a heart monitor was used to measure rate before and after the course was exercised. Using
this live reference as a baseline, a subset of the key categories defined from the previous virtual locomotion
technology study were tested, compared and contrasted to the absolute measurements and metrics collected.
The virtual locomotion technology experiments were performed in a controlled indoor facility over a course
which technically matches the live experiment. Desktop gaming systems and hybrid capture techniques
were chosen as the virtual locomotion systems categories to compare to the baseline. This paper discusses
the experimental set-up of each case, the metrics and measurements used to compare and contrast the
systems, the results of the experiments, lessons learned, and a summary of results.
S-4 Build It and They Will Come
1030
Migrating Processor Architectures
for Simulation (12289)
1100
You Can Handle the Truth:
Simulation Architecture for Multiple
Truth Engines (12198)
1130
Service Oriented Architecture Role
in Air Force and Navy Common
Trainer Initiatives (12192)
Notes
79
MIGRATING PROCESSOR ARCHITECTURES FOR SIMULATION
Kenneth F. Corbo, Renee L. Niemiec, Ethan Money, Hillary Egan,
Adam Moore, Michelle O’Bryan, David Thonglyvong
Lockheed Martin Global Training and Logistics
Orlando, Florida; Akron, Ohio; Marietta, Georgia
To stay relevant and competitive in the simulation industry, companies need to upgrade existing computing
hardware to meet high performance standards while maintaining low cost. Certain Central Processing Unit
(CPU) architectures are considerably more expensive than the x86 architecture set competitors. Significant
technical challenges face a company hoping to benefit from legacy software while keeping their eye trained
on performance and cost. Since legacy source code intended for an obsolete platform may be difficult or
impossible to recompile on a modern machine, costly modification of the code is often required.
This paper reports the progress of an effort to develop an alternative solution to modifying legacy code.
Leveraging emulation software such as the Quick Emulator (QEMU), unmodified legacy software is hosted
on target hardware of a different architecture. This solution involves the use of hardware virtualization and
emulation to abstract the physical characteristics of the legacy hardware and operating system. The solution
provides companies with an adaptable alternative for supporting software compiled for expensive
architecture sets and hosting on lower cost hardware.
This paper will provide an overview of the capabilities of emulation and virtualization solutions. It will
document repeatable procedures and lessons learned with specific references to migrating from a SPARC
platform to an x86 platform using QEMU. The pros and cons of this type of solution, including adaptability,
latency, and cost, will be discussed. This paper will serve as guidance for others in the training community
facing similar situations in which legacy software is required to be hosted on incompatible hardware.
YOU CAN HANDLE THE TRUTH: SIMULATION ARCHITECTURE FOR MULTIPLE TRUTH
ENGINES
James A. Hadley, Steven E. Elrod, Timothy E. Etters
The Boeing Company
Kent, WA
High-fidelity training simulation architectures integrate all aspects of the mission system software including
the system emulation, sensor/communication models, and truth engines. While this practice is beneficial for
updates and maintenance, it creates difficulties when attempting to repurpose the training system to other
platforms, develop new models, or reuse models with other truth engines. Additionally, managing multiple
projects that require extensive integration efforts of models and truth engines requires time and money that
are ill afforded on tight production schedules.
The modeling and simulation team for Boeing Surveillance and Engagement supports software test and
training simulations for six intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms. To support its
customers and requirements, the team developed a simulation architecture that separates truth, simulation
models, and mission system software into different modules. These modules are tightly integrated, but
loosely coupled. As a result, both mission software testing and training system configurations are
reconfigurable with multiple truth engines.
This paper reviews key principles on developing a reconfigurable simulation that interfaces with multiple
mission systems, expansion of sensor/subsystem models, and creating a common interface for truth data. It
also provides lessons learned on how to manage the architecture to ensure future flexibility without having
to create ad hoc, single-use solutions. The paper provides guidance on avoiding heavy simulation
integration periods from project to project and creating simulation architectures capable of flexibility,
modification, and expansion.
80
SERVICE ORIENTED ARCHITECTURE ROLE IN AIR FORCE AND NAVY COMMON
TRAINER INITIATIVES
Christopher Lawless
USN NAWCTSD AIR 4.6.8.
Orlando, FL
Ilya Lipkin & Tony DalSasso
USAF AFMC AFLCMC/WNSEB
WPAFB, OH
One of the challenges facing the United States Air Force (USAF) and United States Navy (USN) is the need to
respond effectively and efficiently to rapidly changing training requirements. The solution presented in this paper
will leverage lessons learned on Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) and Global Hawk (GH) ground
segment Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) development efforts, to create a SOA based common products
trainer. SOA focuses on “Services” as an abstract boundary, which facilitates interactions between those with
needs for the service, to those with capabilities to use the service for training components. Leveraging the SOA it
is possible to provide a “plug and play” common training system, which will link services or products between
consumers and producers to provide a dynamic, real-time common training system. This paper will present
challenges and current efforts within the USAF and Navy for common products, and recommend a solution as to
how they can be integrated into a SOA. Within the USAF there are some products available to integrate into a
SOA framework, such as a common visual database initiative for geospatial models. The Navy’s common
products include synthetic forces, common weapons simulations, and visual databases. The proposed approach
will leverage common component interfaces to utilize industry and government “best of breed” COTS/GOTS
solutions, as they are integrated into a SOA. One of the key enabling components necessary for the proposed
SOA solution would be a requirement for the Operational Flight Program (OFP) to support a SOA framework for
the training environment that is concurrent with standard aircraft OFP development effort. The BAMS and GH
trainers have native Ground Segment OFP support, which will ensure concurrency and compatibility for the
aircraft trainer. This paper will discuss and present a set of critical requirements of the SOA architecture that will
ensure modularity and reusability of crew trainer simulations.
S-5 Say What?
1400
Bridging Live and Virtual Radios
Without Specialized Cross-Domain
Solutions (12259)
1430
Modeling and Simulation for
Dynamic Spectrum Access (12386)
1500
“Can You Hear Me Now?”
Understanding the Cosite
Interference Hurdle (12122)
Notes
81
BRIDGING LIVE AND VIRTUAL RADIOS WITHOUT SPECIALIZED CROSS-DOMAIN
SOLUTIONS
Ryan McLaughlin, Benjamin Leppard & Cindy Walker
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Orlando, FL
Since defense budgets continue to decrease there has been a strong need to maintain or increase the effectiveness
of training, while reducing costs. One way to accomplish this is to combine the strengths of live training with the
advantages of distributed virtual and constructive simulation based training. The foundation for this requires good
tactical radio communications between live and virtual operators. Current technologies on the market make it
possible for live and virtual radios to interoperate. These products need additional cross domain solutions (CDS)
and security accreditations which are often difficult to obtain. The Pacific Air Force (PACAF) and the Joint
Pacific Alaska Range Complex (JPARC) use a Live Virtual and Constructive (LVC) tactical radio
communications solution which only requires a single CDS solution over a distributed network such as the
Combat Air Force Distributed Mission Operations (CAF DMO) Distributed Mission Operations Network
(DMON). This paper describes solutions developed for PACAF to provide radio communications interoperability
between simulated radios of an AWACS simulator located at Elmendorf Air Force Base and live radios located at
the JPARC in a manner which does not require additional single purpose CDS devices. To achieve this, live radio
communications are required to pass through the JPARC CDS. Since live radios, the CDS, and virtual radios all
have different protocol interfaces, interoperability between these three different protocols is necessary: DIS for
simulated radios at the AWACS simulator, TENA for the JPARC CDS, and SIP for live JPARC radios. The need
described enabled us to bridge telephony and simulation domains as well as establish a new virtual radio object
model in TENA. This paper will describe interoperability considerations between SIP, TENA, and DIS protocols,
differing assumptions in the telecommunications and simulation worlds which provide unique implementation
challenges, and the security challenges in adding additional single purpose CDS devices to live range
architectures.
MODELING AND SIMULATION FOR DYNAMIC SPECTRUM ACCESS
Keith Philpott, Titus Pottinger
Boeing
Huntington Beach, CA
Dynamic Spectrum Access (DSA) allows radio devices to more efficiently use radio frequency (RF)
spectrum, and allows for more robust communications that are more tolerant of interference and jamming,
by automatically changing their transmission or reception parameters in a way where the entire wireless
communication network (of which a radio is a node) communicates more efficiently, while avoiding
interference with other radios or jammers. DSA improves performance of a communication network
through spectrum sensing, spectrum access, and neighbor discovery.
The context of this paper is the application of Simulations and Models to Dynamic Spectrum Allocation and
Management technologies and methods for software defined radios (SDRs) to form a network of
“cognitive” communicating nodes. This paper provides approaches to ensure robust designs through the use
of models and simulations leveraging established waveform models with increased fidelity.
An overview of modeling and simulation approaches for dynamic spectrum allocation and management will
be presented, including the benefits that modeling and simulation bring to each stage of development of the
DSA technology. The planning for modeling and simulation is discussed as necessary to support
development and a concept of operations. The simulations include both radio simulations and simulations of
the RF environment to more efficiently mature designs in a controlled laboratory environment as
demonstrated in recent research and development projects.
82
“CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?” UNDERSTANDING THE COSITE INTERFERENCE
HURDLE
Diane Richie
Orlando, FL
Military training relies on modeling and simulation tools and protocols to provide solutions to modern
training challenges. Synthetic training events are simulated exercises in the Live, Virtual, and Constructive
(LVC) domains that allow geographically dispersed participants, which typically include specific services,
joint, coalition, and interagency components, to train together in a virtual battle space. Hardware quantity
and resource allocation required to bridge tactical communication devices across the LVC domains, in many
scenarios, require communication sites composed of relay towers. If engineering considerations are not
given to co-located antennas and radios at the tower, cosite interference can occur where the transmission of
one signal degrades the reception of another signal by increased static, broken voice or in severe instances,
blocked reception of other tactical communications. These complications may not be replicated as
encountered in real-world deployment and may not be valid training conditions. Technical issues, such as
these, have the potential to interfere and disrupt training events and objectives. This paper will review and
explain mechanisms relating to cosite interference resulting from co-located communication equipment so
that site and event coordinators may more completely understand potential problems and complications that
may arise in the establishment or expansion of tactical communication relay sites used in distributed
military training.
WEDNESSDAY, 5 DECEMBER, 2012 ROOM W304E
S-6 Behind the Scenes
1600
Building Terrain Under the Tower of
Babel (12029)
1630
Geospatial Correlation Testing
Framework and Toolset (12107)
1700
THREADS…Tying Integration
Together (12004)
Notes
83
BUILDING TERRAIN UNDER THE TOWER OF BABEL
Robert F. Richbourg
Alexandria, Virginia
Representation of “place” is ubiquitous in contemporary game and simulation systems, so much so that
availability of an environmental representation is often taken for granted. However, the original
construction, refinement, and system implementation of a typical run-time simulated environment is the
result of several complex processes that admit many opportunities for variance stemming from non-standard
application of subjective human judgments. Such assessments have an impact beginning with original data
capture and ending with run-time use of the environmental product. In particular, one step in the typical
process requires that a computer-readable code or set of codes be assigned to each feature that eventually
becomes part of the simulated environment. As an example, the relatively common code “AL015” is
frequently attached to information that represents a Building. The codes themselves are selected from predefined dictionaries of “environmental concepts,” intended to include and describe all of the germane
features within a particular application domain. Frequently, these dictionary codes are imperfect descriptors,
and the closest matching code will be assigned to a feature. Unfortunately, determination of the closest
match is subjective and also depends on the context in which the information will be used. Adding to the
difficulty, different dictionaries of concepts are frequently used at different points in the process, and
mapping between equivalent concepts in the different dictionaries becomes necessary. Thus the problem of
the “Tower of Babel”; many different “languages,” based on different dictionaries of concepts, are used
throughout the process of creating and using simulated environments. Translating between the concept
dictionaries is rarely straightforward and typically requires extensive subjective assessment. This paper
exemplifies the impact of mapping differences on simulation outcomes, describes the origins and status of
several key dictionaries, illustrates typical difficulties in mapping between them, and concludes by
suggesting a potential solution strategy.
GEOSPATIAL CORRELATION TESTING FRAMEWORK AND TOOLSET
Freddie Santiago, Marlo Verdesca, Jon Watkins
Dignitas Technologies, LLC
Orlando, Florida
Julio de la Cruz
US Army Research Laboratory
Orlando, Florida
The Modeling and Simulation industry has long been plagued by geospatial database representational flaws
and miscorrelation used to represent the synthetic natural environment within military training systems.
These errors spawn from a wide range of sources, including design decisions, performance simplifications,
bad source data, and unrealistic or erroneous database content. These errors are so pervasive across systems
that they are often accepted as inevitable despite Soldier training impacts.
This paper discusses the work conducted under a Phase II SBIR. It provides proposed solutions consisting
of toolsets that assess and compare geospatial and geometric data between disparate database formats and
representations while providing multiple testing mechanisms such as visual inspection, automated testing
and interactive testing using reusable software libraries and analysis artifacts. Real world examples of
specific database errors on Army simulation programs will illustrate the complexity of tying geometric
flaws with training impact.
This paper examines the challenges, planned approaches, and solutions for both detection and evaluation of
correlation and representation errors. The work includes implementation of a testing framework and open
standards for test tools and test data exchange, as well as instantiation of that framework in the C-nergy
toolset. Moreover, technical transfer of this research by leveraging emerging common Army standards, such
as SE Core and One Semi Automated Forces (OneSAF), is critical to successful widespread use of
correlation testing toolsets.
84
THREADS….TYING INTEGRATION TOGETHER
Tammie F. Smiley
Trideum
Huntsville, AL
Lawrence Rieger
US Army TRADOC ARCIC
Fort Eustis, VA
As the Department of Defense focuses on enabling current forces for global operations; it will be applying
significant simulation resources to both force developments and training. The major challenge in creating
simulation federations is making sure the federation works when War fighters arrive to use it. The steadily
increasing focus on joint force representation within simulation events, both training and experimentation, means
that the simulation federations supporting those events grow constantly more complex. As ever more complex
simulation federations support joint force development experiments and mission-readiness exercises, the
standardization of integration tests permit easier and more detailed checks to ensure diverse simulation
federations will work together. Army Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC) provides TRADOC battle
laboratories with the simulation infrastructure for such experiments, and has developed a rigorous program of
federation integration to ensure their simulation infrastructure properly supports the experiment objectives.
Throughout the last five years, ARCIC has developed phased thread tests to track and measure technical
integration of the federation architecture. The use of these innovative thread tests and supporting integration
processes have enabled streamlined testing efforts, better utilizing the resources of participating battle
laboratories. Thread tests are used throughout the various phases of the integration cycle. Threads can be event
and non-event specific, and are archived for future use. In fact, tests threads do not have to be simulation specific,
but can be used by any simulation federation, whether training or combat development events. Test threads are
viewed as living documents which are continuously improved by gathering feedback, and reviewed by governing
technical authorities. The paper reviews how thread tests are used throughout the community, describes the
innovative work processes developed for thread-based integration activities, and describes the lessons learned
over four years of increasingly complex federation integration. The processes discussed in the paper are nonproprietary and the threads themselves are readily available to the Simulation Community of Practice.
S-7 P"air"idigm Shift
1600
Applying Practices from Instructor
Applications to Creating Simulated
Avionics Displays (12120)
1630
Lessons Learned During the
Implementation of Aerial Refueling
DMO (12283)
1700
Augmented Reality Training
Application for C-130 Aircrew
Training System (12197)
Notes
85
APPLYING PRACTICES FROM INSTRUCTOR APPLICATIONS TO CREATING SIMULATED
AVIONICS DISPLAYS
Matthew Crumley
CAE USA, Inc.
Tampa, Florida
For the AT-6 Light Attack and Reconnaissance aircraft, the team at CAE USA approached the challenge of
making its simulated cockpit instruments using process and technology refined by our instructor applications.
Instructor applications are typically used in modeling and simulation to control the synthetic and virtual
environments used to train students. This endeavor was different, as the Instructor Support group was used to
design software for the pilots, not only the instructors. This paper identifies a software architecture that can
enable designers—those who are more visual and less software oriented—to gradually move into domain-specific
software, like avionics. The development team embraced the principles of agile software engineering, used a
newer .NET framework, and worked with a software architecture that has many similarities to ARINC 661, an
avionics standard for designing cockpit displays.
Applying a process from a known area of design (instructor applications) to an unknown area of design (avionics)
proved its mettle when we saw these technologies coalesce into a stable, demonstrable solution. Using
FalconView as a backend map provider, a moving map was created for the avionics suite. This was possible by
using the strengths inherent in Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF), a critical part of the overall design. This
paper describes the process of developing those simulated displays. It also details how Instructor application
developers worked with avionics experts to help achieve this task, the success of which rested heavily on using
the Model-View-ViewModel software architecture. The project was a procedural and technical success borne out
of necessity. Having fewer avionics experts available for a project does not imply diminished results. The way
instructor applications are designed (and engineered) can provide a window into a collaborative work
environment—one that combines the skills of both analytic and artistic professionals—a global force.
LESSONS LEARNED DURING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AERIAL REFUELING DMO
Michael Parker
QuantaDyn Corporation
Sterling, VA
Ronald Kornreich
GS-13 DAF, HQS ANG NGB/A5P
Andrews AFB, MD
Developing a virtual environment in which two trainers can network together and perform close proximity
maneuvers such as aerial refueling (AR) missions is a new and complex task. The Air National Guard has worked
closely with QuantaDyn Corporation to develop a solution and define standards to make the idea of Distributed
Mission Operation (DMO) Aerial Refueling a reality. The solution uses an innovative relative positioning
algorithm that maximizes positioning precision and minimizes network saturation. When aircraft trainers are
networked together, the inherent latency in the network becomes a major factor. It takes a small amount of time
for data to travel between trainers, during which both aircraft are moving at high speed, thus when the data arrives
it is always a step behind. In order to compensate for this effect, dead reckoning is used to estimate the remote
aircraft’s position until new position data is received. While standard dead reckoning works well for most
networked simulations, there can be position and orientation anomalies that may never be noticed unless the
entities are in close proximity for a long duration. During the development of an AR DMO environment involving
a Boom Operator Trainer and a Receiver Aircraft Trainer, a few of these anomalies and issues were encountered.
These issues include: 1) a “surging” effect where the remote tanker aircraft would suddenly slow down giving the
pilot a sense that their aircraft was surging forward; 2) the intricacies of developing dead reckoning algorithms
suitable for relative positioning; and 3) the effects of relative versus absolute data packet time stamping on AR
DMO. Several operational issues were also encountered including: 1) how to properly initialize networked
trainers 2) how to define prerequisites for trainers to take part in AR DMO and 3) how to handle the uniquely
detailed AR training environment across a network. This paper will discuss the obstacles both widely known and
newly discovered that were encountered while building this unique network environment, as well as the solutions
that were applied to allow for multiple trainers to network together and fly prolonged close proximity missions.
86
AUGMENTED REALITY TRAINING APPLICATION FOR C-130 AIRCREW TRAINING
SYSTEM
Charles R. Mayberry
HQ AETC/A3ZM
Randolph AFB, TX
Sheila Jaszlics & Garrett Fritz
Arvada, CO
Gary Stottlemyer
Highlands Ranch, CO
The United States Air Force (USAF) trains C-130 Loadmaster students at Little Rock Air Force Base (AFB)
through a civilian contract. The Aircrew Training System (ATS) contractor utilizes a Fuselage Trainer
(FuT) to provide scenarios for the Loadmaster students to practice loading and unloading a simulated
aircraft. The USAF does not have enough FuTs to accomplish the necessary training and these devices are
not at a high enough fidelity to accomplish many of the aircraft functions to meet the training objectives
before flying on the actual aircraft. The ATS has moved the pilot’s initial training into the Weapon System
Trainer (WST). The WST has nearly eliminated all the aircraft flights for pilot initial instrument training
because the simulator is life-like enough to accomplish the training tasks to qualify the students in the
device. The Loadmaster student flights are scheduled based upon the pilot’s flight training, thus forcing the
Loadmaster students to utilize some other type of simulator device for their initial training. The purpose of
the study is to investigate the feasibility of using an augmented reality (AR) tool to teach normal and
emergency procedures to Loadmaster students at the C-130 ATS schoolhouse.
The investigation will examine the use of a prototype Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) AR device that will
attach to the Loadmaster’s helmet. Three scenarios will provide a basis to evaluate the different aspects of
hardware and software needed to utilize an HMD as a Loadmaster training tool.
The scenarios will test how the AR device may improve the C-130 Loadmaster training capabilities to learn
normal and emergency procedures when compared to students who are trained exclusively in the FuT. The
results show a way for the Government to save thousands of dollars in fuel costs and open the eyes of the
training contractor to a new way of training students using AR.
THURSDAY, 6 DECEMBER, 2012 ROOM W304E
S-8 Better Bot Brains
0830
Human Activity Modeling and
Simulation with High Biofidelity
(12038)
0900
No More Zombies! High-Fidelity
Character Autonomy for Virtual
Small-Unit Training (12045)
0930
Customizable Speech Centers for
Automated Entities within
Simulation (12094)
Notes
87
HUMAN ACTIVITY MODELING AND SIMULATION WITH HIGH BIOFIDELITY
Zhiqing Cheng, Stephen Mosher
John Camp and Darrell Lochtefeld
Infoscitex Corporation
Dayton, Ohio, USA
Jeanne Smith and Isiah Davenport
711th Human Performance Wing
Air Force Research Laboratory
Dayton, Ohio, USA
Human activity Modeling and Simulation (M&S) plays an important role in simulation-based training and
Virtual Reality (VR). However, human activity M&S technology currently used in various simulation-based
training tools and VR systems lacks sufficient biofidelity and thus is not able to describe and demonstrate
the nuances of human activities and human signatures. This inadequacy becomes crucial when the training
or the use of VR is human centered, such as human threat recognition training and dismount detection
training. Human signatures that can be observed from a fairly long distance include body shape, gesture, and
motion. In recent years, the Air Force Research Laboratory has investigated human modeling and
simulation with high biofidelity, with an emphasis on true human shape and motion. This paper presents the
technical development from these investigations, which include (a) static shape modeling and morphing; (b)
pose modeling and dynamic modeling; (c) motion capture (in particular, markerless motion capture); (d)
inverse kinematics and motion mapping/creation; and (e) creation and replication of human activity in 3-D
space with true shape and motion. A brief review is conducted to discuss the methods and techniques related
to these topics, along with some research results. Examples are provided to illustrate the importance of
biofidelity in the simulation-based training.
NO MORE ZOMBIES! HIGH-FIDELITY CHARACTER AUTONOMY FOR VIRTUAL SMALLUNIT TRAINING
Brian S. Stensrud, Ph.D.,
Angela Woods,
Samuel Wintermute, Ph.D.
Oviedo, FL
Eugene Ray Pursel
Laboratory
Quantico, VA
Gino Fragomeni, Pat Garrity
SFC Paul Ray Smith, Simulation &
Training Technology Center
Orlando, FL
Virtual practice environments can offer situated, realistic learning experiences if properly implemented.
‘Serious Games’ delivered within these environments offer visually compelling experiences, but often suffer
from a lack of realistic interactions with virtual characters such as teammates, adversaries, and other noncombatants. Artificially intelligent human behavior models – intelligent agents - provide a variety of
features not present in legacy computer generated forces (CGF) systems; including goal-directed dynamic
decision making, non-determinism, interactivity, and transparency. Using a cognitive architecture,
intelligent agents exhibiting these features can be brought to bear for virtual training environments to
support both kinetic and non-kinetic small-unit training exercises. In partnership with the U.S. Army
Research Lab's SFC Paul Ray Smith, Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC), we have
developed a suite of intelligent agents for virtual environments that can realistically engage human players
in small-unit training scenarios. The centerpiece of this work is a knowledge-rich OPFOR sniper behavior,
capable of detecting and selecting friendly targets of opportunity, communicating with other insurgent
support entities such as lookouts, and finding the appropriate escape path to avoid detection and capture. In
addition to a sniper entity, we also developed agents to play supporting roles, including autonomous fire
team agents and noncombatant townsfolk. In this paper, we describe in detail the challenges encountered
during this effort and how intelligent agents can be exploited to improve training within systems such as the
Dismounted Soldier Training System (DSTS). In addition, we outline the reusable integration architecture
we developed to connect our agents to EDGE, a massively-multiplayer online virtual environment
developed at STTC, and describe the design choices made to ensure that the architecture can be reused to
connect both these agents and other AI technologies with new virtual environments as they become
available.
88
CUSTOMIZABLE SPEECH CENTERS FOR AUTOMATED ENTITIES WITHIN SIMULATION
Jason R. Potts, Todd Griffith, Ph.D., Kyle Roth, Jared Snyder
Discovery Machine Inc.
Williamsport, PA
As modeling and simulation continue to expand their roles in training environments, the need for intelligent,
automated entities expands. By incorporating increasingly intelligent constructive entities, training exercises
can increase in fidelity and complexity, without increasing the manpower costs associated with human
operators. However, in order to fulfill the same roles that human operators play in training exercises,
autonomous entities need to be able to interact with other entities (both autonomous and human-controlled)
in a realistic and robust manner.
A critical aspect of this interaction involves entities being able to communicate with humans (and each
other) in a way that closely parallels the types of communication which take place amongst humans playing
the same roles. In this paper, we present work conducted under the Office of Naval Research which enables
robust communication between autonomous entities and human users through natural means such as verbal
conversation. Additionally, we present a framework which enables a subject matter expert (SME) to define
and expand the communications employed by autonomous entities, without requiring the user to be aware of
software engineering, programming, or artificial intelligence concepts underlying the implementation.
This framework, called the Customizable Speech Center (CSC), consists of a graphical, modular
architecture for defining concepts about which entities can communicate. The CSC allows human users to
easily expand the communication capabilities of autonomous entities, as well as integrate these capabilities
into the larger behavior models used during training exercises. This incorporation of robust communication
into the behavior models enables extremely dynamic constructive entities capable of adapting to situations
in a more realistic and human-like manner. Not only does this present the opportunity to reduce instructor
workload by allowing them to give voice commands to autonomous entities, but this also enables the
training of users in the often complex aspects of team coordination and communication.
S-9 Accessible Al
1030
Design Patterns for the
Configuration of Utility-Based AI
(12146)
1100
Achieving Modular AI through
Conceptual Abstractions (12401)
1130
Modeling Cultural Behavior for
Military Virtual Training (12054)
Notes
89
DESIGN PATTERNS FOR THE CONFIGURATION OF UTILITY-BASED AI
Kevin Dill
Lockheed Martin Global Training
and Logistics
Burlington, Massachusetts
Eugene Ray Pursel
Laboratory
Quantico, Virginia
Pat Garrity, Gino Fragomeni
U.S. Army Research Laboratory Simulation
and Training Technology Center
Orlando, Florida
There is an ongoing need for improved autonomous virtual characters for military training, particularly in
areas such as squad-level scenarios for the Army and Marines. In the past, simulations have often used
techniques such as scripting or Finite State Machines for Artificial Intelligence (AI) control of non-player
characters. These approaches allow the scenario creator to have precise control over the actions of the
characters, but the cost of configuration and the quality of the result scale poorly as the complexity of the AI
grows. As a result, they tend to lead to AI behaviors that are rigid and predictable, and thus are
insufficiently reactive to unexpected situations and not suitable for replay or repeated use.
In previous papers we have endorsed utility-based AI as our preferred alternative. This approach enables the
developer to think in terms of heuristic equations rather than simple black-and-white decisions, and thus to
create an AI which can examine the subtle nuance of the situation and select actions accordingly. The
resulting characters retain the strong authorial control of previous approaches, but they can be far more
believable, adaptable, and reactive to the situation around themselves.
Utility-based AI is flexible and powerful, but newcomers may find guidance useful in the face of such
flexibility. In this paper we propose several design patterns that can be applied to the configuration of
utility-based AI. Much like design patterns for software engineering, the intent is to share “simple and
succinct solutions to commonly occurring design problems” (Gamma et. al., 1994). These patterns can
provide a complete solution for simple AI problems, but more importantly they provide a solid foundation
on which more complicated logic can be built.
ACHIEVING MODULAR AI THROUGH CONCEPTUAL ABSTRACTIONS
Kevin Dill
Lockheed Martin Global Training
and Logistics
Burlington, Massachusetts
Eugene Ray Pursel
Laboratory
Quantico, Virginia
Pat Garrity, Gino Fragomeni
U.S. Army Research Laboratory Simulation
and Training Technology Center
Orlando, Florida
Many Artificial Intelligence (AI) approaches have been employed for controlling autonomous characters in
games and simulations but, regardless of approach, a software engineer ultimately has to write the code
which drives each of the AI's decisions. This process can be expensive and time consuming, particularly if
we want our AI to provide appropriate, realistic responses in a wide variety of situations. Ultimately, the
complexity of this task is one of the major limiting factors on the quality of our characters. Although there
are a nearly infinite number of possible decisions which an AI might have to make, there is tremendous
duplication in the concepts used to make these decisions. For example, many different decisions account in
one way or another for the distance between two positions, the availability of some resource (such as money
or ammo), or the amount of time which has elapsed since some recent event. The challenge, then, is to find
abstractions for these duplicated concepts which allow us to work with them in a coherent way. This paper
identifies a number of these sorts of conceptual abstractions. The abstractions are architecture agnostic,
making them useful regardless of decision making strategy. They enable us to employ a modular approach
to AI configuration in which the programmer only writes source code the first time that he implements a
new concept. From that point forward he simply specifies the configuration of each component in XML,
relying on the architecture to instantiate and initialize an object of the appropriate type. This greatly reduces
code duplication (and the corresponding opportunities for errors). Furthermore, the XML configuration
itself reflects the modularity of the underlying architecture, thus allowing the AI architect to think at the
granularity of abstract concepts rather than individual lines of code and greatly simplifying the complexity
of configuration.
90
MODELING CULTURAL BEHAVIOR FOR MILITARY VIRTUAL TRAINING
Karel van den Bosch, Philip Kerbusch, Jeff Schram
TNO
The Netherlands
Soldiers on mission in areas with unfamiliar cultures must be able to take into account the norms of the local
culture when assessing a situation, and must be able to adapt their behavior accordingly. Innovative
technologies provide opportunity to train the required skills in an interactive and realistic setting (e.g.
serious games, or mixed-reality environments). Such training environments require adequate models that
generate the behavior of virtual players. This paper presents an architecture for developing such models.
The architecture integrates the Culturally Affected Behavior language (CAB) with modeling behavior as a
function of Beliefs, Desires, and Intents (BDI). Culture is defined as norms stored in a separate data file of
the agent. During interaction with a human player (e.g. trainee) the agent continuously evaluates whether
events are consistent with its cultural norms and responds accordingly. To prevent stereotyped behavior, the
agent’s behavior was also affected by its personality, defined in terms of Digman’s Five Factor Model
(1990). The architecture was implemented in JADEX. In a test, agents showed appropriate assessment for
their culture and showed behavior consistent with its norms. It is concluded that the architecture may prove
important for the development of agent-based training in cultural-aware behavior.
S-10 Livin' the Dream
1330
Developing Interoperable
Simulations through Conceptual
Modeling and Ontological Analysis
(12110)
1400
Embedded LVC Training: A
Distributed Training Architecture
for Live Platforms (12385)
1430
OmniScribe – Enhancing AAR in an
LVC Environment (12119)
Notes
91
DEVELOPING INTEROPERABLE SIMULATIONS THROUGH CONCEPTUAL MODELING
AND ONTOLOGICAL ANALYSIS
John W. Graham
Raytheon
Orlando, FL
Richard J. Andrade
PEO- STRI
Orlando, FL
Ontologies are data models representing a set of concepts within a domain and the relationships between
those concepts. In Software Engineering, Object Oriented Analysis and Design phases commonly use
ontologies, or object oriented “is-a” hierarchies to represent the functional requirements for a system.
Ontologies establish a means by which a common vocabulary can be developed and provide a mechanism to
capture domain knowledge for facilitating agreement amongst simulations.
The use of conceptual models to facilitate the integration of live, virtual and constructive (LVC) simulation
systems is a popular research topic. This paper will explore an augmented software engineering approach
which aids LVC integration through development of ontologies that feed the formulation of conceptual
models. The concepts presented here are supplemented by examples which apply theory to practical
applications.
By creating ontologies that form the basis of interoperability agreements, we can develop a conceptual
model framework that focuses on modeling concepts instead of implementation details. Conceptual models
are thus accessible to developers and users and provide a common frame of reference. Using relevant
examples, this paper examines the development of ontologies and conceptual models to guide the creation
of interoperable simulation systems.
EMBEDDED LVC TRAINING: A DISTRIBUTED TRAINING ARCHITECTURE FOR LIVE
PLATFORMS
Jaclyn Hoke, Jason Wenger, Brian Wolford
Rockwell Collins, Inc.
Cedar Rapids, IA
Given the reductions in Department of Defense budgets it is imperative that every dollar spent on training
warfighters be used in a cost efficient manner. One approach for cost effective training is distributed
training exercises that include live, virtual, and constructive participants, but injecting the training
functionality into live aircraft platforms is challenging. Many of the current architectures and approaches for
presenting the information to a pilot require modifications to the Operational Flight Program (OFP)
software. This is an expensive approach that can be challenging and time consuming to certify for flight
safety. Ongoing research and development in embedding distributed training functionality within flight
hardware has led to a new architecture that is presented in this paper. This research system demonstrates a
partitioned architecture for embedded training that interfaces with the OFP through a single, standards based
hook, allowing training functionality to be injected into flight displays in a manner with a credible path to
certification.
In addition to illustrating the architecture, this paper explains how the approach provides the capability for
the end user to train with systems and sensors that are not physically present on the platform, such as the
multiple radar simulators currently integrated. These onboard simulated sensors and systems consume pilot
inputs as well as participant state data and interactions sent over a datalink, enabling embedded distributed
training on live platforms in exercises that can contain combinations of live, virtual and constructive (LVC)
participants. The results of test bench experiments are provided, and the planned flight test experiments that
will be conducted during LVC exercises are described. Finally, the paper discusses research that will
leverage the system, steps to further mature the proposed architecture, and the foreseeable challenges with
fielding this approach to enabling embedded training.
92
OMNISCRIBE – ENHANCING AAR IN AN LVC ENVIRONMENT
Alden Peterson, Stephen Gilbert, Eliot Winer
Jeffrey Welch
Iowa State University – Virtual
Dignitas Technologies, LLC
Realities Applications Center
Orlando, FL
Ames, Iowa
Julio de la Cruz, Hector Gonzalez
US Army RDECOM STTC
Orlando, FL
Innovations in live, virtual and constructive (LVC) environments geared for US military joint force training
allow a more effective utilization of space and time for training exercises across the globe. As this use
becomes more prominent, the need for a suitable after action review (AAR) tool to incorporate an
everincreasing number of data sources is fast becoming a requirement. To perform an AAR fully, data from
a variety of input sources must be saved, synchronized, and analyzed. It is important to equip military
trainers with an effective tool to facilitate this need for comprehensive data in AARs to maximize the
effectiveness of LVC training environments.
Iowa State University is developing an open source software tool for the U.S. Army to address
shortcomings of existing AAR tools. Utilizing an innovative modular domain-independent API, users can
combine inputs from multiple sources such as simulation data, physiological sensor information, discrete
events, and video feeds into a single application. The aggregated information can then be replayed during an
AAR session allowing simulation event information to be supplemented with sources not traditionally
incorporated in AAR and providing a framework to greatly enhance AAR.
This paper describes such a system (OmniScribe) at its current stage of development, describing its API for
the integration of disparate inputs within a single tool and illustrating using a working prototype. It will
discuss the current state of the architectural framework, designed to allow users the ability to add additional
playback functionality by developing unique modules, and the prototype. Additionally, the paper will
briefly discuss the implications a foundation of disparate data stream integration within LVC training will
have on future real-time data mining, decision visualization, and enabling deep behavioral analysis of
trainee performance.
TUESDAY, 4 DECEMBER, 2012 ROOM W304G
T-1 Pods, Flocks & Swarms: Keep Your Boat Afloat
1400
Implementing Integrated LVC for
Naval Aviation Training (12073)
1430
Ballistic Missile Defense Fleet
Synthetic Training (FST) at Sea
(12241)
1500
Countering a Swarm Attack (12183)
NOTES
93
IMPLEMENTING INTEGRATED LVC FOR NAVAL AVIATION TRAINING
Lechner, Rob
Chief Engineer, Training
Boeing Research & Technology
The Boeing Company
Schwering, John
Lead, I-LVC Aviation Training
Boeing Training Systems
The Boeing Company
Integrated Live Virtual Constructive (I-LVC) training for tactical aircraft can produce tradeoffs and efficiencies in
the aviation fiscal (flight hour) accounts while generating warfighter readiness. Although fielding the capability
remains somewhat elusive, significant progress has been made towards implementation on current tactical fighter
and command and control platforms. This paper discusses migrating I-LVC to various Naval Aviation platforms
and the multiple challenges associated with implementation.
In 2007, The Boeing Company began an independent Research and Development project entitled ‘Project Alpine’
aimed at reducing the risk of introducing LVC capability into a tactical platform. To date, Project Alpine has
demonstrated the capability to perform air-to-air intercepts between live friendly aircraft and sophisticated
ground-based virtual and constructive hostile aircraft, ground moving targets and surface-to-air threats. In 2010,
this effort transitioned into a contracted effort with the United States Air Force (USAF) for a program entitled
‘LVC Pilot Program (LVCPP).’ LVCPP includes three live flight demonstrations with increasing complexity and
integration of LVC assets for the purpose of developing an LVC Concept of Operations (CONOPS) and roadmap
for the USAF. Phase 2 of the program introduces LVC capability onto the F/A-18E/F platform.
This paper will build upon the approaches discussed in the 2010 I/ITSEC paper, “Advancements of Integrated
LVC Applied for Tactical Aviation Aircraft Training”, analyze the work completed in Project Alpine / LVC Pilot
Program and offer a potential U.S Navy implementation of I-LVC on-board various Navy platforms. We address
such topics as Training & Readiness, appropriate combination of LVC components, platform impacts, scalability,
and requirements. Additionally, we will address how readiness can be improved and the potential savings to be
gained in certain mission areas such as Anti-Air-Warfare; Strike Warfare; and Electronic Warfare with credible
and relevant I-LVC technology.
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE FLEET SYNTHETIC TRAINING (FST) AT SEA
John E. Bell
Alion Science and
Technology
Norfolk, VA
William T. Cook
Darrel M. Morben
Valkyrie Enterprises
Navy Warfare
Virginia Beach, VA
Development Command
Norfolk, VA
Matt Morneault
Engenuity, LLC
Edgewater, MD
Effective ballistic missile defense (BMD) training requires a highly distributed integrated training environment
that stimulates deployed forces throughout all elements of the BMD System (BMDS) including sensors,
launchers, and command and control systems manned by US, NATO, and Coalition forces. This paper will
describe BMD FST at Sea development and assess its effectiveness in supporting distributed BMD training using
test data and lessons learned during at-sea exercises. A significant challenge in building this distributed
environment is stimulating deployed maritime BMD assets that provide early detection and engagement of
ballistic threats. Current at-sea training capabilities are restricted to onboard training systems that cannot share
simulation data between ships because shipboard satellite communication networks have relatively limited
bandwidth, high latency, and are not connected to land-based simulation networks. The Navy Warfare
Development Command (NWDC) has developed a cost-effective solution to stimulate live Aegis BMD shipboard
training systems at sea with virtual and constructive models by integrating the Navy Continuous Training
Environment (NCTE) using shipboard satellite communication networks. NWDC has deployed and exercised this
new capability using a variety of complex integrated air and missile defense (IAMD) scenarios to test whether
ships can conduct detection and engagement of ballistic missile threats shared simultaneously with other BMDS
training systems, while participating in coordinated command and
control between BMDS elements and the Combatant Commander. NWDC has demonstrated this capability in
several at-sea training exercises, leveraging the NCTE’s connection to other distributed training networks from
Missile Defense Agency, including in-theater BMDS elements such as Patriot, THAAD, and TPY-2. Using this
capability, Combatant Commanders will conduct more realistic training exercises that support mission rehearsal,
are scalable to all levels of command and control, and can facilitate experimentation for development of new and
more robust Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures, while allowing BMD ships to remain deployed at sea.
94
COUNTERING A SWARM ATTACK
Morten Kolve
Kongsberg Defence Systems
Kongsberg, Norway
Geoff Tompson
Decisive Encounters Limited
London, United Kingdom
Ships transiting a choke point, such as the Strait of Hormuz, may face an asymmetric naval threat consisting
of a swarm of 50+ knot, fast inshore attack craft (FIAC), armed with unguided rockets, anti-ship missiles
(ASMs) or torpedoes. In such an environment, survival will depend on very close crew coordination and
communication between the Combat Information Center (CIC), the bridge team, lookouts and crew-served
weapon operators on board the vessel under attack, plus optimal tasking of supporting helicopters and
armed unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). No single naval simulator provides adequate training for crews
and their supporting air assets in such a swarm attack environment. Against a determined enemy, perhaps
with little regard for their own survival, ships will require a carefully coordinated crew response to provide
an acceptable chance of countering a swarm attack. This paper proposes a training methodology to prepare
crews to counter a swarm attack that links conventional simulators to Serious Games utilities representing
the target vessel's crew positions and associated air assets, opposed by multiple FIAC attacking in a swarm.
The paper will consider the phases of a swarm attack and how simulators may be networked to train crews
to survive. The training provided stresses the need for early recognition and identification of the threat;
prioritizing FIAC to be engaged; tasking defensive weapon systems; and ordering initial maneuvers. As the
attack develops, lookouts are trained to provide accurate information to the bridge and CIC, which will take
evasive maneuvers and task the crew-served weapon operators. Having mastered self defense of their own
ship, the trainer will allow crews to work with other vessels to improve situational awareness and multi-ship
cooperation. The aim of the training is to ensure that crews facing a swarm attack are well coordinated and
therefore best able to survive.
TUESDAY, 4 DECEMBER, 2012 ROOM W304G
T-2 Rethinking Immersive Training
1600
Evaluating Immersion in Training
Environments (12046)
1630
Comparing Training Transfer of
Simulators: Desktop versus
Wearable Interfaces (12008)
1700
Enhancing Realism in Desktop
Interfaces for Dismounted Infantry
Simulation (12043)
NOTES
95
EVALUATING IMMERSION IN TRAINING ENVIRONMENTS
Krista Langkamer Ratwani, Webb Stacy, Alexandra Geyer, Scott Pappada, and Emily Weise
Aptima, Inc.
Woburn, MA
Within both research and practice, immersion is a topic that has received a lot of attention. The military, in
particular, has invested a lot of time and money into creating “immersive” training environments in the
hopes of providing personnel with training experiences that prepare them for many different types of
encounters. Despite this interest, significant questions remain unanswered regarding the training value of
such environments. A review of the literature on training in virtual environments reveals an assumption that
higher immersion obtained through increased simulation fidelity results in improved training effectiveness
and transfer. However, researchers who have attempted to evaluate this assumption have yet to produce
compelling evidence. Further, there is no clear consensus regarding what constitutes immersion. For
example, some researchers describe immersion as a state or feeling (e.g., Witmer & Singer, 1998), while
others conceptualize it as a physical attribute of the training environment (e.g., Slater, 2003). This lack of
agreement over the definition of immersion magnifies questions about its influence in the learning process.
Before the impact of immersion on learning and performance can be properly assessed, a clear operational
definition must be provided that distinguishes immersion from other related concepts. Among other things,
a meaningful definition will facilitate the development of good measures. Such measures are essential to
any large-scale research effort because they provide standardization across efforts, including research
evaluating the impact of immersion on training effectiveness. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to
provide a multilevel operational definition of immersion, as well as methods for the creation and real-time
measurement of immersion, as it relates to learning in training environments. This analysis is the first step in
aiding training designers in determining what level of immersion is required to facilitate effective training.
COMPARING TRAINING TRANSFER OF SIMULATORS: DESKTOP VERSUS WEARABLE
INTERFACES
John S. Barnett
Grant S. Taylor
U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and
University of Central Florida: Institute for Simulation
Social Sciences
and Training
Orlando, FL
Orlando, FL
The use of simulators for training provides advantages over training in the field, but often at the cost of
reduced realism. New ideas in interface design promise to reduce this potential disadvantage of simulationbased training while maintaining its benefits. One such design is the use of a wearable computer in which
the simulator interface is embedded into a Soldier’s load-bearing equipment, allowing the user’s natural
body movements to become inputs into the simulator environment. This type of interface may be more
immersive and have advantages over traditional desktop interfaces. This research seeks to identify training
benefits of this wearable interface relative to a more traditional desktop computer.
To evaluate the system, participants with no prior military experience were trained in hostage rescue
procedures in a game-based simulation environment using either a wearable or desktop interface. A control
group was trained in the same procedures in a live action condition. Following training, each group
completed a series of missions in the live condition, with their performance video and audio recorded for
scoring purposes. Participants were scored on the number of correct actions and the time to complete each
mission. Results indicated that participants trained in the live condition performed better and were faster
than those trained in either simulator condition. However, there were no significant differences between the
simulator conditions for performance or speed. This indicates that although the wearable interface was
expected to provide better training than the desktop interface, each interface provided equivalent levels of
training transfer. These results underscore the importance of determining the training effectiveness of novel
training methods before fielding. Although a novel training method may appear to be superior to more
traditional methods, the new method should still be evaluated empirically to determine its training
effectiveness.
96
ENHANCING REALISM IN DESKTOP INTERFACES FOR DISMOUNTED INFANTRY
SIMULATION
Dr. James Templeman
U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
Washington, DC
Ms. Patricia Denbrook
DCS Inc.
Centreville, VA
A new user interface for training dismounted infantrymen in decision-making and team coordination has been
developed at the Naval Research Laboratory and evaluated by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) Code 30’s
Demonstration & Assessment team. Since decisions are judged by the outcome of the actions they gave rise to,
the validity of virtual training depends on the realism with which actions are simulated. We distinguish between
physical realism: required for training sensory-motor skills; and behavioral realism: required for cognitive
training. Behavioral realism indicates how closely users’ actions in simulation resemble their actions in real life.
Avatars represent users in simulation; thus giving users greater control over their avatar enhances training tactics.
This insight led us to extend desktop simulators. Gamepads are the controller of choice for first-person-shooter
console games, familiar to many Marines. We added an inexpensive head tracker and sliding pedals to a gamepad
interface. We mapped view control and aiming to the user’s head rotation, and leaning the upper body to head
translation. The user steps by sliding the pedals back and forth, and crouches by pressing the pedals down. The
gamepad directs the avatar’s course and heading. The interface engages the user’s head, hands, and feet to
precisely control the avatar’s body. This new control, called ‘Pointman’, has been integrated into Virtual
Battlespace 2. Pointman underwent a series of tests, involving fire-teams and later squads of Marines. The
interface evolved based on user feedback. Practice drills were developed to expedite learning the interface. A
Military Utility Assessment of Pointman was conducted by the D&A team at the Marine Corps Base Hawaii
Simulation Center. A squad of seasoned Marines was trained to use Pointman and then applied it in training
exercises. Marine feedback, in the form of surveys and interviews, was collected. The assessment concluded that
Pointman provided realisticmovement and utility as a training system.
T-3 "Mobile"-izing Military Training
1030
Not Just for Angry Birds, Practical
Training with Mobile
Devices (12150)
1100
Automated Trend Analysis for
Navy-Carrier Landing Attempts
(12247)
1130
Applying Service Orientation to the
U.S. Army’s Common Training
Instrumentation Architecture
(12123)
NOTES
97
NOT JUST FOR ANGRY BIRDS, PRACTICAL TRAINING WITH MOBILE DEVICES
Steven Borkman
Dignitas Technologies
Orlando, FL
Julio de la Cruz
US Army Research Laboratory Simulation and Training Technology Center
Orlando, FL
Targetry Range Automated Control and Recording (TRACR) is a common target controller used at live-fire
Army target ranges. TRACR is used to control range targets (both lane based and maneuver). It provides the
controller the ability to expose and conceal targets, set their properties, behaviors, etc. beyond individual
targets. TRACR allows the controller to regulate the entire range, and the ability to create and play
scenarios. Training typically consists of a single range tower governing the entire site. For lane based
training, each lane has a trainer watching the student, but the trainer has no direct control over the events of
the range and must constantly make necessary requests via radio to the controller at the tower. This creates a
bottleneck at the tower and is inefficient from the trainer’s perspective. Collaboratively with Army’s
Program Manager Training Devices and the Army Research Laboratory Simulation and Training
Technology Center, the Team developed TRACR Ultra Lite (TÜL); an Android tablet based live training
app which delivers all of the target control capabilities found in TRACR into the hands of the trainer. While
using TÜL, the trainer can directly and efficiently control the trainee’s exercise, allowing for a tailored
training environment without overloading the tower operator. Along with lane based training, TÜL was also
designed to meet the needs of maneuver range training and serve as a tool for site maintenance. This paper
will discuss the abstract concept of enhancing live training with mobile capabilities. It will discuss how
mobile technologies such as smartphones and tablets can be used to enhance the quality, efficiency, and
safety of live training. Specific use cases of TÜL will be showcased and will describe how it was designed
and developed to execute in unison with TRACR while meeting this criteria.
AUTOMATED TREND ANALYSIS FOR NAVY-CARRIER LANDING ATTEMPTS
Neil C. Rowe
U.S. Naval Postgraduate School
Monterey, California, USA
A replacement system IPARTS is being built for the current U.S. Navy APARTS handheld data-entry
device that records evaluations of landings of pilots on aircraft carriers. Navy aircraft are difficult to land
and costly to repair, and extensive training and performance monitoring is important. Part of this task
includes summarizing older data on landing attempts for comparison of pilot performances. We built tools
for analyzing trends exhibited by pilots, pilot groups, aircraft, and evaluators in regard to grades, landing
details, and verbal comments. Results are shown on a sample of 85,571 passes representing about 20% of
the current Navy records, a significantly larger study than has ever been conducted. These results enabled
building several kinds of predictive models of pilot performance which help identify particular pilot
problems, and this should help in designing training programs. Fairness of grading of pilots was also
assessed by comparisons between military units, aircraft, and graders. The most novel part of the research
was understanding and computing statistics on the comments, which are in a telegraphic format using a
unique language; a 2433-rule standardization routine and a parser were built to interpret them. Comments
were essential in understanding the context of grades. The comment counts were also especially helpful in
designing a user interface for a replacement grading device we designed and tested. This work should
provide new insights into the performance of military pilots.
98
APPLYING SERVICE ORIENTATION TO THE U.S. ARMY’S COMMON TRAINING
INSTRUMENTATION ARCHITECTURE
Jeremy T. Lanman
U.S. Army PEO STRI
Orlando, Florida
Scott Clarke, Shawn Hillis, R. Darbin
General Dynamics C4 Systems
Orlando, Florida
Dave Frank
AIT Engineering
Orlando, Florida
The Common Training Instrumentation Architecture (CTIA) is one of the three architectures defined by the
U.S. Army’s Live Training Transformation (LT2) product line. It is used by LT2 products to define
interoperability standards among live training applications to support force-on-force and force-on-target
training. Using an introspective approach, honest dialog and user feedback, it was determined that CTIA
must evolve to address technology obsolescence and meet the growing needs of the live training
community. However, in order for the architecture to meet those needs, a Service Oriented Architecture
(SOA) approach was identified as the preferred methodology. This paper documents the analysis process
and methodology used by the Architecture team to apply service orientation to CTIA in order to address the
long term goals of the LT2 product line. These goals include support for distributed training, mobile
computing devices and cloud computing technologies.
The CTIA Architecture team utilized a series of workshops, SOA training and Human Centered Design
(HCD) techniques to identify and prioritize the strategic business goals and objectives for the product line.
As part of this effort, the team conducted an Open Group Service Integration Maturity Model (OSIMM)
assessment to analyze and prioritize architecture attributes against the open services integration dimensions.
Finally, the team selected and prioritized service oriented design principles which are being applied to the
architecture in order to achieve those goals. The result of this process is a roadmap and high level design for
the evolution of CTIA to a Service Oriented Architecture.
T-4 Building the Training Framework: The Right Tool for the Right Job
1600
A Site Selection Methodology to
Optimize Task Training (12336)
1630
Scientific Principles to Support
Rapid Scenario Development
(12334)
1700
Towards Adaptive Scenario
Management (ASM) (12080)
NOTES
99
A SITE SELECTION METHODOLOGY TO OPTIMIZE TASK TRAINING
Jennifer K. Phillips
Marisa L. Miller
Cognitive Performance Group
Orlando, FL
Fort Benning, GA
Successful execution of missions is contingent upon learning a range of skills for a variety of tasks. The
U.S. Army identifies common core tasks as well as tasks specific to each Military Occupational Specialty
(MOS), and organizes them by skill level to support the learning progression throughout a Soldier’s career.
While operational units are ultimately responsible for ensuring Soldiers are trained, the Noncommissioned
Officer Education System (NCOES) plays a crucial role in Soldier development by providing both
institutional classroom training and computer-based structured-self development. Over the past decade,
several tasks have emerged as a result of new operational requirements, and many are trained in institutional
settings. Subsequently, questions have been posed regarding the optimal placement of tasks that may
quickly become less relevant to the Warfighter, especially considering the resources required to update
institutional and computer-based training. The purpose of this paper is to report on an effort to identify the
characteristics of NCO (Noncommissioned Officer) tasks that are enduring across operational and mission
environments versus non-enduring, and to identify the factors considered for optimal placement of tasks in
training sites. A domain analysis was conducted to facilitate understanding of the Army’s site selection
process. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with subject matter experts (SMEs) from the NCO
Academies. Qualitative analysis techniques were applied to ascertain the factors associated with selecting
the institution, the operational unit, or structured self-study as the optimal training site. Twelve
discriminating factors were identified and used to create a front-end analysis (FEA) methodology for site
selection. To support the recommendations of Critical Task and Site Selection Boards (CTSSBs), an Excelbased site selection tool was created to implement the front-end analysis methodology and subsequently
assessed. The methodology supports the Army Learning Model by supporting life long learning through the
efficient placement of training.
SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES TO SUPPORT RAPID SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT
Jennifer J. Vogel-Walcutt, Jennifer K. Phillips & Karol G. Ross
Cognitive Performance Group
Orlando, FL
Rapid development of training scenarios grounded in the principles of learning science has been an ongoing challenge for the military. Typically, little, if any, attempt is made to utilize these principles in
scenario development for several reasons. First, the literature in this area is highly varied in content,
commonly focused upon K-12 education, and dispersed throughout education, psychology, and cognitive
science journals. As a result, the ability of scenario developers to apply readily available scientific principles
is significantly hindered. Second, due to the evolving battlespace, the immediate need for new or modified
training products often outweighs the longer term advantage of a scientifically sound methodology for
scenario creation. In response, this paper translates existing research from training science into actionable
principles for scenario development. The recommendations are organized by trainee expertise level.
Categories of recommendations include complexity level, length of scenario, feedback type and timing,
knowledge acquisition goals, number of practice segments, and instructor type. Taken together, these
principles will help developers tailor the format and content of training scenarios to address different types
of learning, maximize knowledge acquisition, and adapt to levels of learning, while simultaneously
decreasing the resources required to develop effective scenarios.
100
TOWARDS ADAPTIVE SCENARIO MANAGEMENT (ASM)
Perakath Benjamin, Mike Graul, Kumar Akella, Jason Gohlke, Brian Schreiber, and Lisa Holt
Knowledge Based Systems, Inc.
College Station, TX
This paper describes the motivations, method, and architecture for Adaptive Scenario Management (ASM).
Current scenario-based simulation training systems lack the capacity to dynamically adapt training content
to rapidly changing learner needs. Further, current simulation-based training systems are incapable of
dynamically generating and maintaining scenarios in an instructionally sound manner. Scenarios developed
in current simulation systems are hand-crafted, static representations of training and mission contexts. We
describe the results of a research and development initiative that addresses these problems through the
design of an adaptive training capability for distributed mission operations (DMO). We designed a
structured method for adaptive scenario management that includes the following important activities: (i)
performing pre-training assessment, (ii) generating/authoring scenarios and drills, (iii) configuring drills and
scenarios for execution of training, (iv) executing simulation-based training, and (v) performing posttraining assessment. Key to the effectiveness of the method is the use of a Mission Essential Competencies
(MEC)-based approach to performance assessment and scenario content design. An integrated performance
assessment approach that ensures scenario reconfiguration and adaptation are driven by scientifically
determined metrics and instrumentation methods is outlined in this paper. Finally, the paper (a) describes an
ASM application architecture, (b) outlines a knowledge-based approach for automated scenario generation
that underlies the ASM method and the ASM architecture, and (c) provides illustrative examples of the
ASM knowledge-based approach that is being tested and validated at an Air Force Research Laboratory
DMO training facility. The ASM has the potential for broader use with Air Force and other DoD and
commercial training applications.
T-5 Reality Check: Virtual Performance
1600
Can UAS Training Be Done
Without Live Flight? (12307)
1630
A Capabilities-Based Assessment
Tool for USMC Squad Immersive
Training (12124)
1700
From a Submarine to a Virtual
Environment and Vice Versa
(12071)
NOTES
101
CAN UAS TRAINING BE DONE WITHOUT LIVE FLIGHT?
Michael Cleveland
SPARTA, Inc.
Huntsville, AL
Gregory A. Goodwin
Orlando, FL
Operators of the Army’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) (Raven, Shadow, Hunter, and Gray Eagle) are
all initially trained with a combination of simulated and live flight. The balance of live training on these
systems currently ranges from 100% for Raven to 40% for Shadow. Requiring live flight is both expensive
and can have a significant impact on training throughput. Given that UAS’s are controlled using computer
interfaces, it seems reasonable to ask whether live flight training is necessary at all. This paper examines the
optimal balance between live and simulated initial operator training for Army UAS’s. To do this, we
examined the current programs of instruction, Training Aids, Devices, Simulators, and Simulations
(TADSS), and we interviewed both students and instructors about training challenges they faced. It was
clear from this effort that there is not a one size fits all answer for all UASs. Several factors were found to
be critical determinants of an optimal balance including the capabilities of the TADSS, the instructors’
ability to leverage the full capabilities of their TADSS, the cost of constructing or improving TADSS, the
tasks required to be trained within the POI, and frequent changes to the UAS operational software. In
developing these recommendations, we wanted to avoid reducing the quality of the training or shifting
training from the institution to the unit. We concluded that the current TADSS for Shadow, Hunter, and
Gray Eagle are good enough to reduce live flight training by about 10% to 20% depending on the UAS.
This would save from 40 to 112 man-days of training time per class (assuming 20 student classes). Costbenefit analysis of Raven training, on the other hand, indicated no benefit of reducing live flight training.
A CAPABILITIES-BASED ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR USMC SQUAD IMMERSIVE TRAINING
Joan H. Johnston
Training Technologies
Research Unit
Orlando, FL
David Dunfee and John J.
Keppeler
USMC Training and Education
Command
Quantico, VA
Dan Torgler
USMC Program Manager for
Training Systems
Orlando, FL
David Jarvis
Kaegan, Inc
Orlando, FL
Strong consensus exists among the services that increasing the availability of live, virtual, and constructive
integrated Training Capabilities (TCs) is a desirable strategy for accelerating unit readiness, while reducing
overall training costs. The USMC is planning to implement the Squad Immersive Training Environment
(SITE) which will be a home-station capability for: training squad core competencies under realistic
conditions to pre-specified standards; being reconfigurable to support scenarios across the range of military
operations; and conducting effective after-action reviews. An Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) study was
conducted to evaluate existing USMC TCs in the context of ten materiel requirements that had been
identified by a capabilities-based assessment. A significant challenge was determining the capability of
existing TCs to meet the new SITE requirements in order to identify cost effective technical improvements.
This paper describes an innovative capabilities-based assessment tool that was developed during the AoA to
address this challenge. We describe how the SITE Assessment Method was developed and applied; how the
findings led to a concept for employing SITE to build squad task proficiency; and how to develop a
rationale for making decisions about TC integration and interoperability. Lessons learned and guidelines are
provided for conducting an AoA for unit training systems.
102
FROM A SUBMARINE TO A VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT AND VICE VERSA
Lochlan E Magee, Aidan A Thompson, Brad Cain
DRDC Toronto
Kersten Kwan
CAE Inc.
Limited access to operational equipment is a constraint on military training and a principal reason why
alternative solutions for training, such as virtual environments (VEs), are needed. Limited access to
operational equipment for training is a widely recognized problem that also limits, less obviously, conduct
of the behavioral research required to determine training transfer from a VE to the real one. In this study, we
assessed the training effectiveness of a VE by an indirect method that did not require access to the
operational equipment and by a classic method, which made use of privileged access to a submarine. We
wanted to explore an experimental method to help inform the interpretation of future behavioral studies on
the training effectiveness of VEs when access to operational equipment is not possible. For these reasons,
we conducted two experiments. The first employed a reverse transfer-of-training paradigm that used the VE
for learning and evaluation and the second employed a forward transfer-of-training paradigm that used the
submarine for learning and evaluation. Each experiment required navy personnel to complete an emergency
drill, which involved isolation of a bulkhead within a submarine. Initial transfer-of-training and
improvements with practice to criterion (i.e., error-free performance) were used to compare the
performances of a trained group with a novice group in each experiment. Although the task is complex,
involving procedural, mechanical, and spatial components, the outcomes reported here are for spatial
learning only. We focus on this aspect of the task because many costly solutions have been sought to
interface humans with VEs for tasks that involve locomotion within extended spaces. Both experiments
yield evidence of positive training transfer and indicate that locomotion devices are unnecessary for
effective training transfer. They also indicate that the results of a reverse transfer-of-training evaluation do
not mirror forward transfer.
THURSDAY, 6 DECEMBER, 2012 ROOM W304G
T-6 Training to Total Performance
0830
The Effects on Performance After
Combining Driving and Judgment
Simulation (12074)
0900
Crossing the Barrier: A Scalable
Simulator for Course of Fire
Training (12187)
0930
High Fidelity Ballistics and Gunner
Training as a Part of Integrated
Aircrew Training Simulators
(12429)
NOTES
103
THE EFFECTS ON PERFORMANCE AFTER COMBINING DRIVING AND JUDGMENT
SIMULATION
Gregory P. Krätzig, M.A. Rae Groff, Fred Foerster, & Cathy Ford
Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Regina, SK, Canada
The use of simulators in training is well established in a number of professional fields (e.g. military,
aviation, and medicine); however, in the face of a rapidly evolving policing environment and increasing
financial pressures, law enforcement agencies are slowly beginning to adopt simulation technology as away
to address training gaps while being fiscally responsible. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) has
adopted driving simulators (Krätzig, Bell, Groff, & Ford, 2010; Krätzig, & Hudy, 2011) as a training tool
for their Cadet Training Program (CTP). Although the successful use of driving simulators (Krätzig, et al,
2010; Krätzig & Hudy, 2011) and the video-based use-of-force simulators is well established, the RCMP
envisioned combining the driving simulations and use-of-force simulations to create a more dynamic and
high-arousal training environment. Currently when cadets train in the driving or use of force synthetic
environments, they are standalone training sessions with a focus on task-specific learning objectives, and as
such cadet performance is very good. An experiment using 214 RCMP cadets was conducted, and the
performance data from combining these two synthetic environments into one complex scenario, was
analyzed. These results revealed performance decrease in both driving and judgment in previously
demonstrated areas of proficiency. This paper discusses methods, measures, and results along with the
future research directions.
CROSSING THE BARRIER: A SCALABLE SIMULATOR FOR COURSE OF FIRE TRAINING
Fournier H. , Lapointe, J. , Kondratova, I, Emond B. , & Munteanu C.
National Research Council of Canada
The growing training and operational needs of law enforcement and public safety personnel can no longer
be met efficiently and effectively through existing infrastructure and resources. While the demands of dayto-day operations are constantly changing, the training of law enforcement personnel and certification
process has largely stayed the same. While several technological solutions exist for enhancing training,
widespread adoption of current approaches and solutions, such as virtual training, is hindered by significant
cost barriers and by lack of scalability and reach. This creates challenges for smaller geographically
disconnected units, which characterizes most rural police departments in North America.
This paper presents MINT-PD, a technological solution for multimodal virtual Course of Fire (COF)
training, along with field observations and validation of the technology. One specific application of MINTPD is to help to increase the rate of success among the trainees who failed a first COF certification round.
Success in this context represents significant cost savings by reducing active-duty officers' down-time due
to the remedial training and reducing the need for the use of the live firing range. MINT-PD is based on the
Multimodal Interactive Trainer (MINT) simulation platform developed by NRC, specifically adapted to
address user needs in training and certification for a typical municipal police department.
MINT-PD technology allows users to modify training scenarios, incorporate different types of laser guns
and a flashlight, add avatars, and expand the training to include Use of Force scenarios. The conditions and
parameters implemented in the virtual COF simulator have been derived from field observations and
validated by COF trainers within a medium-size police department. This process of technology development
and validation will be described in the paper.
104
HIGH FIDELITY BALLISTICS AND GUNNER TRAINING AS A PART OF INTEGRATED
AIRCREW
Mr. Andrew Morris
FlightSafety Simulation
Broken Arrow, OK
While the use of simulators is a cost effective and low resource-intensive method of training, for aircrews of
rotary wing gunships there has been a disconnect between training of the gunners and the rest of the crew.
Full crew training and communication is essential to mission success and more effective training results.
However, with the demands of physical space, specialized hardware, physics modeling, and unique visual
obstacles for realistic representation, is it possible to combine gunner training with the constraints found on
a motion platform training device? A solution was required for the development of a combined full flight
HH-60G Aerial Gunner and Scanner Simulator. Special design consideration was given to the many unique
questions to be answered in combining mounted 50-caliber and 7.62mm gun hardware at Gunner and FE
stations located on the same motion platform as the rest of the crew training device. Deriving space for the
new crew stations, finding a solution for gunnery hardware providing necessary and accurate feedback for
realistic crew training, developing accurate ballistics modeling for munitions fired from a moving platform
in real-time, and the need for expanded visual system capabilities were some of the issues that had to be
addressed. This paper covers the difficulties, considerations, and development that went into engineering a
combined training device. It discusses the first-of-kind solution showing that it is indeed possible to create
such a training device to provide a viable integrated trainer for the effective training of helicopter gunship
aircrews.
T-7 Leading Others: Shift or Sink
1030
Leader Emotion Management:
Design and Evaluation of a Training
Program (12031)
1100
Future Training for Leaders in
Garrison during Expanded Dwell
Times (12214)
1130
Serious Game for Safety and
Security Education in the
Netherlands (12018)
NOTES
105
LEADER EMOTION MANAGEMENT: DESIGN AND EVALUATION OF A TRAINING
PROGRAM
Kara L. Orvis
Pacific Science &
Engineering
San Diego, CA
Krista Langkamer Ratwani
Gregory A. Ruark
Aptima, Inc.
Army Research Institute of the
Washington DC
Behavioral and Social Sciences
Ft. Leavenworth, KS
Eileen B. Entin
Aptima, Inc.
Woburn, MA
The life and career of a U.S. warfighter comprises an extensive list of complex emotion-evoking
experiences. It is not uncommon for military personnel, within all branches and occupational specialties, to
regularly experience a broad range of fluctuating emotions including boredom, pride, frustration,
excitement, happiness, and fear. Further, these emotions can often enhance or detract from unit performance
during missions, training events, and also while at home station. Historically there has been a great deal of
attention paid to ensuring military personnel are tactically prepared. However, there has been less emphasis
on the affective or motivational side for ensuring mission success. As one Army Solider said during data
collections for this effort, “the [military] does not like to talk about emotions but we [leaders] deal with
them every day.” Ultimately leaders are responsible for assuring the performance of their unit by monitoring
and managing the everyday emotions of their unit members. Such behaviors are referred to as Leader
Emotion Management (LEM) (Kaplan, Cortina, Ruark, Orvis, Engel, & Langkamer, 2012). To engage in
LEM, leaders must assess the emotions of their subordinates on a regular basis and then engage in behaviors
that will influence those emotions to help maximize performance. The purpose of this research was
threefold: 1) to explore whether leader emotion management is a valuable competency to develop in
military leaders; 2) design a LEM training program for junior leaders; and 3) evaluate that training. This
paper provides results from focus groups with military leaders that highlight the benefit of training LEM
concepts and how such training is different from other programs, such as resiliency training. Training design
decisions, which are based on qualitative feedback from over 100 Soldiers during the training design phase,
are also presented. Finally, the results of a training evaluation study conducted with 70 Army leaders are
summarized.
FUTURE TRAINING FOR JUNIOR NCOS IN GARRISON DURING EXPANDED DWELL
TIMES
Kara L. Orvis
Pacific Science & Engineering
San Diego, CA
Krista Langkamer Ratwani
Jeffrey E. Fite
Aptima, Inc.
Army Research Institute of the Behavioral and
Washington DC
Social Sciences, Ft. Hood, TX
For the past ten years Army non-commissioned officer (NCO) training has necessarily focused on
developing essential wartime skills that influence combat effectiveness. However, as deployments decrease
and Soldiers begin to return home, NCOs must focus on other duties related to effectively leading, training
and maintaining Soldier and unit performance while in garrison. Most warfighters agree that leading in
garrison is more difficult in many respects and may require the application of leadership skills and processes
in a manner that is different from leading in theater. While attention is now turning to address NCO garrison
training needs, many discussions have focused on emulating past garrison environments, with leaders
focusing on basic soldiering and discipline (e.g., Tan, 2011a). Although those are important foci,
conceptualizing garrison leadership solely from pre-9/11 experiences may not meet the training needs of
today’s NCOs, as both Soldiers and missions have changed. It is likely that leading in garrison for 2012 and
beyond will require some different knowledge and skills than leading in garrison during the 1980s and
1990s. The purpose of this research was to examine concerns related to leaders being prepared for the
challenges that they may face in the garrison environment during expanded dwell times and develop
recommendations related to how leaders can best meet those challenges. The results of this research provide
recommendations for how to best prepare leaders and Soldiers to operate within the garrison environment
and are based on semi-structured focus groups conducted with Army enlisted Soldiers, NCOs and officers.
106
SERIOUS GAME FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY EDUCATION IN THE NETHERLANDS
Maarten van Veen and Edwin Dado
Netherlands Defence Academy (NLDA)
Breda, The Netherlands
To respond to the increasing demand from government and society for improved performance of the safety
and security professionals and supporting educational institutes in the Netherlands, four institutes for higher
education, the Netherlands Institute for Safety (NIFV), the Netherlands Police Academy (PA), the
Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI) and the Netherlands Defence Academy (NLDA) joined forces and
proposed a common plan for establishing a Virtual Platform for Safety and Security (VPSS). The plan
consists of a number of different projects related to the primary processes of the involved institutes:
education, research and knowledge dissemination. This paper focuses on the project to develop a serious
game for use in a multidisciplinary educational setting. The development team consisted of representatives
from each of the four institutes. Within each institute, representatives worked not only within their
respective internal line of management but also within the project’s structure. The workgroup was
accountable to a steering committee that in turn was accountable to a consulting group consisting of the
directors of the involved institutes. Keeping the different levels of management aligned in this complex
management structure was the greatest challenge encountered during development of the serious game. The
paper argues that an iterative and prototype based approach works very well to develop a serious game in a
complex organisational setting. We start with explaining the rationale of the serious games project. Next we
explain our approach: the project was divided into short prototype cycles – rounds we call them – with a
focus on delivering prototypes fast. The results and challenges of each round are discussed and finally
abstracted to lessons learned. More focus on iterative development approaches and producing prototypes
will lead to a better understanding of the product and a closer relationship between developers and clients.
T-8 Training for Making Decisions Outside "The Box"
1030
Framework for Training Adaptable
and Stress-Resilient Decision
Making (12229)
1100
The Dynamic Team Training
Experiment; Improving Tactical
Team Decision Making (12396)
1130
Cutting the Cords: Training for
Marshalling with Gesture
Technology (12044)
NOTES
107
FRAMEWORK FOR TRAINING ADAPTABLE AND STRESS-RESILIENT DECISION MAKING
Meredith Carroll, Kelly Hale, Kay Stanney, Michael
Woodman, Luke DeVore
Design Interactive, Inc., Oviedo, FL
Peter Squire
Office of Naval Research
Arlington, VA
Lee Sciarini
Naval Air Warfare Center
Orlando, FL
The uncertainty of today’s battlefield and austerity of the fiscal environment requires the military to maximize
existing methods used to prepare Warfighters for combat. Currently, significant emphasis is being placed on
actively fostering resilience to stress, a key part of which is the ability to adapt to uncertainty and unfamiliar
situations and recover or bounce-back to pre-stress levels as quickly as possible. The related constructs of stress,
resilience, adaptability, and bounce-back as well as the knowledge of how best to influence these through training
have been the focus of research for decades and have resulted in a plethora of models, metrics and learning
strategies. The results of such efforts provide a disjointed toolbox of potential training interventions, yet, it
remains unclear how to seamlessly integrate these tools into a training regime easily accessible to instructors/unit
leaders to support effective and efficient training. The lack of this knowledge makes it difficult to systematically
develop decision makers that can adapt to uncertainty in the combat environment, and are resilient to stress. This
paper presents a framework for training adaptable, stress-resilient decision-making. Specifically, the objective of
the framework is to guide transition of those who succumb or marginally survive under stress at the cost of
decreased performance, into those who have the ability to quickly adapt and bounce-back to original performance
levels and eventually thrive under stressful conditions. This framework aims to achieve these goals by 1)
decreasing the initial impact of stressors on performance through stress inoculation training and exposure
techniques to improve observation, orientation and decision selection skills by instilling adaptability, and 2)
increasing the rate at which performance bounce-back occurs by focusing on biofeedback methods and other
coping strategies to enhance response under stress. Combined, these goals will increase the final resilience level
achieved after the stressor allowing performance levels to reach pre-stressor levels or greater. Key to this
framework are the ability to monitor how quickly a trainee is adapting to a stressor, predict if the trainee is going
to succumb versus recover, and insert training interventions to optimize training opportunities.
THE DYNAMIC TEAM TRAINING EXPERIMENT: IMPROVING TACTICAL TEAM
DECISION MAKING
Edzard Boland, Jelke van der Pal, Christopher Roos
National Aerospace Laboratory NLR
In order to enhance the decision making process, all air operation team players need to be alert and share
information or concerns just in time. Earlier studies apply the mnemonic DESIDE (Detect, Estimate, Set,
Identify, Do, Evaluate) to teach pilots to optimize their individual flight safety decision making process. In
this paper, DESIDE will be applied by a team of three to test the effectiveness of the tactical decision
making tool for teams. For that purpose, eight teams of Falcon 4 gamers were asked to perform an identical
set of tactical missions in simulators. Each team consisted of two fighter jet pilots and one supporting
Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) operator. In the control condition, a team received a short classical Crew
Resource Management (CRM) training, similar in content to the CRM training received in the Royal
Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF). In the experimental condition a team received a short training in the use of
the DESIDE decision making tool (Murray, 1997). Over the course of five tactical missions, the subjects
learned to apply DESIDE. In each debrief, the team was given feedback on the decision making process
(according to the instruction received) and mission outcome by a former F-16 Weapons Instructor. The
quality of the decision process and outcome was monitored and compared between the teams. The
NOTECHS (NOn TEChnical Skills) behavioral marker system in combination with the RNLAF rating
scheme was used to evaluate decision making. The results indicate that the DESIDE tool for decision
making is effective for teams in a military context. It does generate improved decision making process
quality in teams of F-16s and a UAS, performing air operation missions.
108
CUTTING THE CORDS: TRAINING FOR MARSHALLING WITH GESTURE TECHNOLOGY
Sarah Young MacDonald
Atlantis Systems Corp.
Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Canada’s Air Force currently conducts apprentice-level technical training in accordance with the Royal
Canadian Air Force standards. Included in each of these occupation specifications is a requirement for
Aircraft Marshalling. In 2011, a new approach to aircraft marshalling training by leveraging depth sensor
camera technology, virtual aircraft and virtual personnel to provide an interactive, fully immersive
environment for the trainee was identified. An initial prototype of this virtual marshalling trainer approach
was introduced to the Royal Canadian Air Force. Their reception was very positive, and the Royal Canadian
Air Force agreed to proceed with a more comprehensive aircraft marshalling trainer.
The global standard for aircraft marshalling simulation trainers has required a large classroom space,
purchase of expensive hardware, Instructor console station and is dependent on the availability of aircraft.
More current technological developments have been limited to the use of helmets and wands attached to
wires. While this has eliminated the large space requirement traditionally necessary, the cost of these
peripherals is a limitation worth consideration.
This paper will report on the development of the Aircraft Marshalling Virtual Trainer. The aim of the
Aircraft Marshalling Virtual Trainer project is to produce a dual purposed training aid and performance
virtual trainer that will be capable of training basic flight line Marshalling techniques, under various
conditions. In addition to a review of the product development, the paper will provide a thorough review of
the benefits of the new technologies incorporated into the Aircraft Marshalling Virtual Trainer, lessons
learned, initial product feedback, and targeted problem training applications which may benefit from this
new approach.
T-9 CAUTION: Domain Crossing Ahead
1330
Training Credibility in Cross Domain Events (12188)
1400
Toward a Training Enterprise Cross Domain Information
Sharing Solution (12206)
NOTES
109
TRAINING CREDIBILITY IN CROSS DOMAIN EVENTS
Robert Chapman
HQ ACC/A8T Langley AFB, VA
Tony Valle
Modern Technology Solutions, Inc.
Colorado Springs, CO
The US Air Force Distributed Mission Operations (DMO) Network employs cross domain solutions (CDSs)
to isolate simulators within security-defined domains yet still permit inter-team training in a collective
synthetic battlespace. The CDS conditions the collective battlespace by blocking, guising, or passing
information contained in the network protocol data units (PDUs). Therefore, the various enclaves may
experience different representations of the battlespace. One could expect that in an altered battlespace,
behaviors and actions of virtual or constructive entities would be distorted because of altered or missing
information, thereby affecting the credibility of training activities. Currently, there is no direct means to
judge the training integrity of the conditioned battlespace. Current judgments are subjective, a priori
opinions rendered by subject matter experts, usually from the perspective of the protected enclave.
There are several factors which hinder progress in aiding or supplementing judgments of training suitability
of collective battlespaces which are altered or incomplete. This paper builds upon previous work by the
authors and others regarding DMO cross domain solutions. It characterizes the problem more completely
and presents a framework for describing the impact of altered and incomplete information to training
integrity. The utility of the framework is that it provides more quantifiable measures for assessing potential
training impacts of a conditioned battlespace. It could also be used to improve the development of CDS
software as well as aid the security community in creating content for Security Classification Guides that is
useful for simulator and simulation activities.
TOWARD A TRAINING ENTERPRISE CROSS DOMAIN INFORMATION SHARING
SOLUTION
Gerald McGowan
Joint Staff, DDJ7 JCW
Suffolk, VA
Matthew Morneault
NWDC
Norfolk, VA
Robert DeForest
AFAMS
Orlando, FL
In December 2010 the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) approved the Initial Capabilities
Document (ICD) for "Cross Domain Enterprise," which was specific to real world operations and
applications. In the live, virtual and constructive (LVC) training environments, due to security and
Information Assurance (IA) policies to protect data at the appropriate classification level, information
sharing with warfighting training partners is often limited to a subset of the entire training spectrum, to
include limited "ground truth" data for LVC simulations themselves. This is mainly due to the distinctive
nature of distributed simulation, which requires network connectivity to the devices that handle the ground
truth, thus potentially exposing data that in the real-world weapon systems wouldn't be accessible, much
less networked. Further, the Office of the Director, National Intelligence, has published a National Security
Information Sharing Strategy, as has the DoD CIO, outlining the OSD's strategy for an enterprise capability
for information sharing. In Apr 2011 the COCOMS and services identified the number one training gap as
the ability to share data with our coalition training partners. The Cross Domain Information Sharing (CDIS)
initiative is outlined here, which is a Joint Staff J7 Joint and Coalition Warfighting (JCW), USN, and USAF
effort to provide the training community with a repeatable, more standardized security solution for reaching
our coalition training partners. Shrinking budgets, increasing demands on training, and the lengthy
certification and accreditation for point solutions has demanded the Services move towards an enterprise
CDIS. This paper describes the formation of the team in 2011, the work towards an enterprise capability, the
solutions examined for voice and for a core part of the architecture -- the Distributed Training Network
Guard -- and the team's efforts to synchronize a CDIS deployment with the simulation development cycles
of the Joint LVC federation.
110
PDF FILES OF THE 2012 TUTORIALS PRESENTATIONS ARE
INCLUDED ON THE PROCEEDINGS CD. PLEASE SEE THE
TUTORIALS SECTION OF THIS BOOK (BEGINNING ON PAGE 15)
FOR SCHEDULE AND SYNOPSES DETAILS.
NOTES
111
TABLE OF AUTHORS
Abou-El-Seoud, Nadia, 65
Ford, Cathy, 104
Cleveland, Michael, 102
Abraham, Anand, 28
Fouad, Hesham, 35
Clinger, Barry, 69
Akella, Kumar, 101
Fournier, H, 104
Colombo, Gian, 27
Alexander, Thomas, 59
Fragomeni, Gino, 88, 90
Cook, William, 94
Allen, Gary, 68
Frank, Dave, 99
Coolahan, James, 67
Altenhoff, Bliss, 43
Friedman, Harris, 23
Corbo, Kenneth, 80
Andrade, Richard, 92
Friedman, William, 9
Costello, Jing-Jing, 49
Andrews, Dee, 59
Fritz, Garrett, 87
Coxe, Matt, 27
Arbuthnot, Scott, 46
Frumkin, Lori, 69
Crumley, Matthew, 86
Arcese, Giovannina, 43
Fu, Dan, 51
Curnow, Christina, 17, 54
Archer, Susan, 63
Gannon, Karl, 11
Cutts, Dannie, 39
Archibald, Thomas, 13, 15
Garrett, Randall, 78
Dado, Edwin, 107
Armon, Brigitte, 61
Garrity, Pat, 30, 31, 79, 88, 90
DalSasso, Tony, 81
Atkinson, Beth, 56
Gehr, Sara, 16
Darbin, R, 99
Ayers, Jeanine, 56
Gerretsen, Arno, 76
Darbin, Rowland, 69
Bandrowski, Bill, 62
Geyer, Alexandra, 96
Davenport, Isiah, 88
Barnett, John, 96
Gilbert, Stephen, 93
Davis, Jesse, 50
Barreto, Alexandre, 74
Glover, Gerald, 23
De la Cruz, Julio, 84, 93, 98
Deacon, Allan, 70
Bartlett, Kathleen, 9, 11
Gohlke, Jason, 101
Dean, Frank, 30
Bell, Benjamin, 54
Goldberg, Benjamin, 17, 34, 39, 60, 63
Dechmerowski, Sara, 35
Bell, John, 94
Goldberg, Stephen, 59
DeForest, Robert, 110
Benjamin, Perakath, 101
Gonzalez, Hector, 93
Denbrook, Patricia, 97
Bennett, Russell, 25
Gonzalez, Joe, 78
Deutsch, Jacob, 28
Berking, Peter, 13
Goodwin, Gregory, 54, 102
DeVore, Luke, 108
Bernard, Benjamin, 58
Gore, Christopher, 74
Diallo, Saikou, 72
Biagini, Marco, 33
Graham, John, 44, 92
DiGiovanni, Frank, 17
Billings, Deborah, 17
Graser, Jay, 15
Dill, Kevin, 90
Birtwhistle, Marcus, 13
Graul, Mike, 101
Dillon, Michael, 69
Bizub, Warren, 72
Gravenstein, Nikolaus, 9
Dixon, David, 11
Boland, Edzard, 108
Griffith, Todd, 89
Dolletski-Lazar, Rhianon, 27
Borkman, Steven, 98
Gritton, Kent, 14
Dor, Daniel, 47
Bottone, Jennie, 19
Groff, Rae, 104
Drake, David, 39
Bouwens, Christina, 45
Gronowski, Mark, 29
Dubin, Rachael, 54
Bova, Frank, 9
Haag, Jason, 13, 51
DuBose, Sarah, 43
Bowman, Doug, 38
Hadley, James, 80
Dumanoir, Paul, 72
Branzoi, Vlad, 30
Hadsell, Raia, 30
Duncan, Ian, 28
Brawner, Keith, 17, 34, 39, 63
Hale, Kelly, 35, 49, 60, 108
Dunfee, David, 102
Bray, Britt, 65
Haley, James, 25
Hardee, Gary, 78
Dunn, Cindy, 67
Browne, Daniel, 37
Hartman, Fred, 69
Dyrlund, Allison, 54
Buck, Barbara, 16
Harwell, Stephanie, 74
Egan, Hillary, 80
Burg, Timothy, 43
Hayes, Tim, 52
Elrod, Steven, 80
Burley, Nicole, 11
Hays, Matthew, 22
Emond, B, 104
Byers, Carl, 52
Hebert, Kenny, 77
Ender, Tommer, 37
Cain, Brad, 103
Henry, James, 25
Entin, Eileen, 106
Campbell, Julia, 22
Hieb, Michael, 8, 74
Etters, Timothy, 80
Campbell, Todd, 20
Hillis, Shawn, 99
Evensen, Per Idar, 48
Carolan, Thomas, 29
Hoberney, Alan, 50
Fadde, Peter, 19
Carpenter, Angela, 49
Hoff, Erlend Oby, 48
Farrier, John, 75
Carroll, Meredith, 60, 108
Hoke, Jaclyn, 92
Fautua, David, 27
Chapman, Robert, 110
Holden, Heather, 34, 39, 63
Fernie, Andrew, 41
Chase, Jim, 39
Holhjem, Helene Rodal, 48
Figaroa, Rodney, 64
Chaudhry, A., 30
Hollerer, Tobias, 38
Fiore, Stephen, 49
Chauhan, Sanket, 10
Holt, Lisa, 101
Fite, Jeffrey, 106
Cheng, Zhiqing, 88
Howse, William, 53
Fiume, Eugene, 52
Chiu, Han-Pang, 30
Hruska, Nikolaus, 51
Fleener, Graham, 73
Cinnamon, Amanda, 75
Huddlestone, John, 13
Foerster, Fred, 104
Clark, Craig, 62
Huffman, Christopher, 55
Folsom-Kovarik, JT, 9
Clarke, Scott, 99
112 Papers are available on the 2012 I/ITSEC CD ROM included in the Conference Attendee meeting bag, or visit
Hulme, Kevin, 28
Isaksen, Geir, 12
Jarvis, David, 102
Jaszlics, Sheila, 87
Jesse, Flint, 49
Jin, Ge, 35
John, Bruce, 23
Johnson, Andy, 29, 51
Johnston, Joan, 102
Johnston, Matthew, 49
Jones, David, 35
Jones, Edward, 76
Jones, Kevin, 56
Joy, Bruce, 33
Kaye, Jonathan, 37
Kemper, Don, 46
Kenyon, Peggy, 26
Keppeler, John, 102
Kerbusch, Philip, 76, 91
Killilea, John, 27
King, Teresa, 22
Knarr, Kenneth, 11
Kokini, Christina, 60
Kolve, Morten, 95
Kondratova, I, 104
Kopper, Regis, 38
Kornreich, Ronald, 86
Koury, Bob, 64
Kratzig, Gregory, 104
Krijnen, Robbert, 31
Kuijper, Frido, 76
Kumar, Rakesh, 30
Kurzweil, Dina, 21, 24
Kwan, Kersten, 103
Lampotang, Samsun, 9
Lanman, Jeremy, 99
Lapointe, J, 104
Lathan, Corinna, 25
LaViola, Joseph, 31
Lawless, Christopher, 81
Lechner, Rob, 94
Lee, Cha, 38
Lemmers, Arjan, 76
Leppard, Benjamin, 82
Lessmann, Kurt, 39
Lipkin, Ilya, 81
Lizdas, David, 9
Lloyd, Charles, 57
Long, Lindsay, 43
Lopreiato, Joseph, 21
Ludwig, Jeremy, 51
Luria, Issac, 9
Lutz, Robert, 39
MacDonald, Sarah, 109
Macedonia, Michael, 45
Magee, Lochlan, 59, 103
Malone, Naomi, 17
Marcellas, Karen, 21, 24
Marvin, Dean, 15
Maxon, Andrew, 73
Maxwell, Daniel, 8
Mayberry, Charles, 87
McDermott, Patricia, 29
McDowell, Perry, 58
McGowan, Gerald, 70, 110
McGurn, Linda, 18
McKeown, Rebecca, 13
McLaughlin, Ryan, 82
McMahan, Ryan, 38
McNamara, Jennifer, 14
Meadors, Margaret, 25
Meyers, John, 66
Miller, Marisa, 100
Minkiewicz, Arlene, 64
Minkov, Yaniv, 47
Momeault, Matthew, 110
Money, Ethan, 80
Moore, Adam, 80
Morben, Darrel, 94
Morneault, Matt, 94
Morris, Andrew, 105
Mosher, Stephen, 88
Moukarzel, Rana, 61
Muller, Tijmen, 31
Munro, Allen, 21
Munteanu, C, 104
Myers, Paula, 25
Nachtigall, Susan, 65
Natarajan, Sridhar, 50
Nelson, Scott, 64
Niemiec, Renee, 80
Nygard, Helena Kvamme, 48
O'Bryan, Michelle, 80
O'Commor, Michael, 39
Olsen, Jeffrey, 20
O'Meara, Paul, 65
O'Neal, Michael, 37
Orvis, Kara, 106
Oskiper, Taragay, 30
Owen, John, 66
Oyan, Ingvild Bore, 48
Paddock, Arthur, 17
Pagano, Christopher, 43
Pappada, Scott, 96
Parker, Michael, 86
Pattanaik, Sumanta, 52
Perrin, Bruce, 16
Peterson, Alden, 93
Phillips, Jennifer, 100
Philpott, Keith, 82
Poltrack, Jonathan, 51
Poore, Joshua, 22
Pottinger, Titus, 82
Potts, Jason, 89
Presnell, Bart, 51
Prevou, Mike, 18
Priest, Heather, 33
Pursel, Eugene, 88, 90
Purselm Eugene, 30
Quintero, Benjamin, 42
Quire, Marty, 41
Ragan, Eric, 38
Rajon, Didier, 9
Ramirez- Padron, Ruben, 60
Ramoutar, Delonna, 56
Ratwani, Krista, 96, 106
Ray, Fritz, 48
Reber, Ethan, 58
Regan, Damon, 15
Reitz, Emilie, 27, 62
Richards, Robert, 51
Richbourg, Robert, 84
Richie, Diane, 83
Rieger, Lawrence, 85
Rivera, Jorge, 69
Rizzo, Albert, 23
Roberts, Matthew, 56
Roberts, Tim, 31
Roberts, Timothy, 79
Robinson, Albert, 9
Robson, Robby, 48
Roessingh, Jan, 59
Roos, Christopher, 108
Rosengrant, Carl, 17
Ross, Karol, 100
Roth, Kyle, 89
Rowe, Neil, 98
Ruark, Gregory, 106
Saffold, Jay, 79
Sagae, Kenji, 23
Salva, Angela, 42, 60
Samarasekera, S., 30
Santiago, Freddie, 84
Saunders, Randy, 68
Scerbo, Siroberto, 38
Schatz, Sae, 9, 11, 27
Schmidt, Caroline, 25
Schram, Jeff, 91
Schreiber, Brian, 101
Schwab, Wilhelm, 9
Schwartz, James, 24
Schwarz, Martin, 46
Schwering, John, 94
Sciarini, Lee, 108
Seavey, Kevin, 62
Sebrechts, Marc, 25
Severinghaus, Richard, 71
Sexton, Dale, 77
Shelton, Brett, 20
Sherrill, James, 42
Shieflett, James, 45
Sik, Ling Ling, 52
Sims, Edward, 23
Singapogu, Ravikiran, 43
Skiba, Thomas, 61
Skinner, Anna, 25
Skinner, Simon, 76
Smelik, Ruben, 76
Smiley, Tammie, 85
Smit, Selmar, 76
Smith, Brent, 14
Smith, Jeanne, 88
Smith, Peter, 14
Papers are available on the 2010 I/ITSEC CD ROM included in the Conference Attendee meeting bag, or visit the I/ITSEC
Website (www.iitsec.org) for ordering information. Limited numbers of single year copies of 1998-2009 are available. All
papers from 1966 through 2000 are available in the I/ITSEC Compendium (order form at the back of this book). Individual
papers may also be ordered through the www.iitsec.org portal.
113
Smith, Roger, 10
Smith, Steven, 11, 36
Snyder, Jared, 89
Solina, David, 9
Sotomayor, Teresita, 42, 60
Sottilare, Robert, 17, 34, 39, 59, 60, 63
Squire, Peter, 108
Stacey, Webb, 96
Stanney, Kay, 108
Starsman, Scott, 32
Stensrud, Brian, 88
Sterling, Rod, 41
Stewart. John, 53
Sticha, Paul, 53
Stinson, Cheryl, 38
Stottlemyer, Gary, 87
Streid, Harry, 40, 41
Stroup, Charles, 64
Sullivan, Joseph, 58
Summerlin, Linda, 26
Talbot, Thomas, 23
Tarr, Ron, 17, 27
Taylor, Grant, 96
Templeman, James, 97
Terwilliger, Brent, 58
Thalheimer, Will, 37
114
Thompson, Aidan, 103
Thonglyvong, David, 80
Thropp, Schawn, 50
Tompson, Geoff, 95
Torgler, Brad, 11
Torgler, Dan, 102
Trimmer, Matthew, 22
Twitchell, David, 15, 25, 62
Valle, Tony, 110
Van dan Bosch, Karel, 91
Van der Pal, Jelke, 108
VanVeen, Maarten, 107
Varshney, Maneesh, 44
Verdesca, Marlo, 84
Villamil, Ryan, 30
Visschedijk, Gillian, 31
Vogel-Walcutt, Jennifer, 100
Vorst, Carl, 40, 41
Walker, Cindy, 82
Wary, Robert, 33
Watkins, Jon, 84
Weaver, Zachary, 50
Webb, Andrea, 22
Weise, Emily, 96
Welch, Jeffrey, 93
Wenger, Jason, 92
Wiese, Emily, 56
Wihl, Lloyd, 44
Wildman, Jessica, 61
Williams, Karen, 64
Williamson, Brian, 31
Willis, Bernice, 54
Winer, Eliot, 93
Wintermute, Samuel, 88
Wisher, Robert, 17
Wolford, Brian, 92
Woo, Andrew, 52
Wood, Scott, 72
Woodman, Michael, 108
Woods, Angela, 33, 88
Woodson, Justin, 21, 24
Wray, Robert, 9, 21
Yano, Edgar, 74
Yates, William, 37
York, Brent, 60
Yuen, Billy, 52
Zasuwa, Maciej, 46
Zaugg, Tara, 25
Zhu, Zhiwei, 30
Zielke, Marjorie, 78
Papers are available on the 2011 I/ITSEC CD ROM included in the Conference Attendee meeting bag, or visit the I/ITSEC
Website (www.iitsec.org) for ordering information. (Limited numbers of CDs from 1998-2010 are also available.) All
papers from 1966 through 2000 are available in the I/ITSEC Compendium. Individual papers from 1990 through 2011 may
also be ordered through the www.iitsec.org portal.
The Power of
Innovation
Enabling the
Global Force
http://www.iitsec.org • (703) 247-2569
Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference
The National Training and Simulation Association (NTSA)
An Affiliate of the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA)
Suite 400, 2111 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22201

2012ProgramGuide

Transcription

Similar documents

iSIM iSIM

Power devices - Crosslight Software

Gizmos and Gadgets in Emergency Medicine

SIMPro3 Backhoe Loader

VISUAL SIMULATION As viewed from Orono Fairgrounds South

When Colette Foisy-Doll arrived in Qatar last year

ASE2000 Version 2 - Applied Systems Engineering Inc.

Nov 2013 IITSEC Newlsetter

sendai mediatheque - toyo ito

IITSEC11_Day3_web