{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025669642857142856, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005580357142857143, 'mean_word_length': 4.862745098039215, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Pilot Differences and Motion Cuing Effects on Simulated Helicopter Hover

The effects that cues of aircraft motion, delays in visual scene, and movement of a ship model have on pilots' ability to hover a simulated helicopter near a destroyer-class ship were examined. Twelve pilots were tested in a within-subject factorial combination of fixed-base, moving-base, and G-seat conditions in which delays of 66 or 128 ms existed in the simulator's visual display and the pilots had to hover near a moving or stationary ship. Best control performance was seen under the moving-base conditions, whereas poorest control was associated with the fixed-base simulation. An intermediate level of performance was produced by the G-seat. In addition, visual delay affected control of the roll axis of the simulation, and interactions between pilots and motion cuing and visual delay were seen. little effect.