Representation of Search and Target Acquisition Protocol in Models and Simulation


  • Gabrielle Lovell
  • Amelia Gabrovic
  • Tipper Higgins
  • Paul Evangelista United States Military Academy



Search and Target Acquisition, Models and Simulation, IWARS


This research evaluates the representation of individual Soldier Search and Target Acquisition (STA) protocols in models and simulation and identifies gaps in the current methodology and implementation. The primary contributions of this research include a synthesis of related literature, an algorithmic exploration of the current STA algorithms implemented in military simulation models, a functional analysis of three systems with a significant relationship to STA, and a determination of gaps and proposed solutions to improve the representation of human STA in military simulation models. The analysis highlighted gaps in three important STA representations: (1) field of view search, (2) identification in a field of view, and (3) information acquisition and situational awareness. Implications and recommendations to resolve these gaps are discussed.

Author Biography

Paul Evangelista, United States Military Academy

Director, Engineering Management Program

Department of Systems Engineering,

United States Military Academy

Mahan Hall, Bldg 752, Room 420

West Point, NY 10996, USA


Alaways, L. & Watkins, W.R. (1999). Depth Perception Applied to Search and Target Acquisition. Utrcht, The Netherlands: RTO MP-45.
Darken, C.J., Evangelista, P.F., & Jungkunz, P. (2011). Modeling and Integration of Situational Awareness and Soldier Target Search. Monterey, California: Institutional Archive of the Naval Postgraduate School.
Donohue, J. (1991). Introductory review of target discrimination criteria (No. E-19290U). Dynamics Research Corp Wilmington, Ma.
Driggers, R. G., Jacobs, E. L., Vollmerhausen, R. H., O'Kane, B., Self, M., Moyer, S., ... & Kistner, R. (2006, May). Current infrared target acquisition approach for military sensor design and wargaming. In Infrared Imaging Systems: Design, Analysis, Modeling, and Testing XVII (Vol. 6207, p. 620709). International Society for Optics and Photonics.
“Introduction,” IWARS 5.1 User Guide. April (2014).
IWARS Methodology Guide. Version 2.0.6. (2010)
Jones, D.B. (1974). Air-to-Ground Target Acquisition Source Book: A Review of Literature. Alexandria, Virginia: US Department of Commerce.
Najemnik, J. & Geisler, W.S. (2010). Eye Movement Statistics in Humans are Consistent with an Optimal Search Strategy. Bethesda, Maryland: National Institutes of Health.
Sjaardema, T.A., Smith, C.S., & Birch, G.C. History and Evolution of the Johnson Criteria. (n.d). United States.
Sutherland, D.M. (2010). Identification of Soldier Behaviors Associated with Search and Target Acquisition (STA) (No. Natick/Tr-10/010). Army Natick Soldier Research Development and Engineering Center Ma.
Target Acquisition and Misidentification ACQUIRE-TTPM-TAS. Physical Model Acquisition Document (PKAD). (2012). (U.S. Army Material Systems Analysis Activity, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland).
Treisman, A. (1986). Features and Objects in Visual Processing. New York: Scientific American, Inc.
Vollmerhausen, R.H., Jacobs, E.L., & Driggers, R.G. (2004). New metric for predicting target acquisition performance. Optical Engineering, 43(11), 2806-2819.



How to Cite

Lovell, G., Gabrovic, A., Higgins, T., & Evangelista, P. (2019). Representation of Search and Target Acquisition Protocol in Models and Simulation. Industrial and Systems Engineering Review, 7(1), 31-37.

Most read articles by the same author(s)