Objective: To examine the importance of platform motion to the transfer of performance in motion simu- lators. Background: The importance of platform motion in simulators for pilot training is strongly debated. We hypothesized that the type of motion (e.g., disturbance) contributes significantly to performance differences. Methods: Participants used a joystick to perform a target tracking task in a pod on top of a MOOG Stew- art motion platform. Five conditions compared training without motion, with correlated motion, with distur- bance motion, with disturbance motion isolated to the visual display, and with both correlated and disturbance motion. The test condition involved the full motion model with both correlated and disturbance motion. We analyzed speed and accuracy across training and test as well as strategic differences in joystick control. Results: Training with disturbance cues produced critical behavioral differences compared to training without disturbance; motion itself was less important. Conclusion: Incorporation of disturbance cues is a potentially important source of variance between studies that do or do not show a benefit of motion platforms in the transfer of performance in simulators. Application: Potential applications of this research include the assessment of the importance of motion platforms in flight simulators, with a focus on the effi- cacy of incorporating disturbance cues during training. Keywords: self-motion, learning, transfer of training, practice, attention INTRODUCTION The use of flight simulators has become an increasingly common aspect of pilot training over the past few decades because trainees can accumulate experience flying without risk of human injury and vehicular loss. Self-motion cues provided by expensive motion platforms are often key components of these simulated environments, and simulator designers tend to focus on realism and technical advances over examination of which specific factors support learning (Bowen, Oakley, & Barnett, 2006; Roessingh, 2005; Salas, Bowers, & Rhodenizer, 1998). However, the advantage (if any) to add- ing full-body motion to these training sessions is still unclear (Bürki-Cohen, Sparko, & Bellman, 2011; Caro, 1979; McCauley, 2006; Valverde, 1973). In motion simulators, two types of motion are presented: motion that is correlated with pilot maneuvering (correlated motion) and motion that is related to environmental changes (disturbance motion due to wind shears, turbu- lence, or engine failure). Both sources of motion can provide feedback that is then used to adjust flight control. Here we are interested in whether disturbance motion in particular improves per- formance relative to correlated motion and/or no motion. Empirical evidence to support the claim that motion platform simulators are superior to non- motion platform simulators is mixed. Some studies have shown that self-motion is a critical component during training (Lee & Bussolari, 1989; McDaniel, Scott, & Browning, 1983; Proctor, Bauer, & Lucario, 2007; Van der Pal, 1999), and Johnston and Catano (2013) found that performance in a motion simulator pre- dicted later success in pilot training. However, other studies have found self-motion to be less important (Jacobs & Roscoe, 1975; Koonce, 1979; Woodruff, Smith, Fuller, & Weyer, 1976). 639776HFS XX X 10.1177/0018720816639776Human FactorsTraining Transfer and Self-Motion Address correspondence to Judith M. Shedden, Associate Professor, Psychology, Neuroscience & Behaviour, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada; e-mail: judith.shedden@gmail.com. The Effectiveness of Simulator Motion in the Transfer of Performance on a Tracking Task Is Influenced by Vision and Motion Disturbance Cues John G. Grundy, Stefan Nazar, Shannon O’Malley, Martin v. Mohrenshildt, and Judith M. Shedden, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada HUMAN FACTORS Vol. 58, No. 4, June 2016, pp. 546–559 DOI: 10.1177/0018720816639776 Copyright © 2016, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.