Redundancy,Modality,and Priority in Dual Task Interference

Abstract

This study examined the effects of several properties of a simulated in-vehicle-task (IVT) on interference with a concurrent tracking task, which simulated vehicle control. We compared auditory, visual and redundant delivery of IVT information, under conditions when the visual display was close and separated from the tracking task. In the first experiment we varied whether the tracking or the IVT was emphasized, and in the second experiment we added instruction in the use of redundant displays. IVT messages varied in length. The results from 20 participants in each experiment revealed (a) an effect of priority on the tracking task only, suggesting that separate resources were used for each task, (b) an advantage for auditory over visual delivery only when the visual display was separated, suggesting that visual costs relate to peripheral, not central resources, (c) no benefit and sometimes noticeable costs for the redundant display, compared to the single modality displays in experiment 1, and (d) an improvement in performance with redundant displays when training was given in experiment 2. The results have a positive bearing on the use of head-up (adjacent) displays for complex information.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Booher

H. R.

(1975). Relative comprehensibility of pictorial information and printed words in proceduralized instructions. Human Factors, 17, 266–277.

Dingus

T.A.

Hulse

M.C

McGehee

D.V.

Manakkal

(1994). Driver Performance Results from the Travtek IVHS Camera Car Evaluation Study. Proceedings of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting, p. 1118–1122.

Helleberg

Wickens

C. D.

Goh

(2003). Effects of data link modality on pilot attention and communication effectiveness. Proceedings of the 12th Biennial International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Dayton, OH: USA.

Horrey

W.J.

Wickens

C. D.

(2002). Driving and side task performance: The effects of display clutter, separation, and modality. (Technical Report No. AHFD-02–13/GM-02–2). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois, Aviation Research Laboratory.

Liu

Y. C.

(2001). Comparative study of the effects of auditory, visual, and multimodality displays on drivers' performance in advanced traveler information systems. Ergonomics, 44 (4), 425–442.

Latorella

K. A.

(1998). Effects of Modality on Interrupted Flight Deck Performance: Implications for Data Link Proceedings of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting, p. 87–91.

Navon

Gopher

(1979). On the economy of the human-processing system. Psychological Review, 86(3), 214–255.

Seagull

F. J.

Wickens

C. D.

Loeb

R.G.

When is less more? Attention and workload in auditory, visual, and redundant patient-monitoring conditions. Proceedings of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting, p. 1395–1399.

Spence

Driver

(1997). Cross-modal links in attention between audition, vision, and touch: Implications for interface design. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 1(4), 351–373.

10.

Wickens

C. D.

(2002). Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3(2), 159–177.

11.

Wickens

C.D.

Dixon

Seppelt

B.D.

(2002). In vehicle displays and control task interference: the effects of display location and modality. (Technical Report No. ARL-02–7/NASA-02–5/GM-02–1). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois, Aviation Research Laboratory.

12.

Wickens

C. D.

Goh

Helleberg

Horrey

W. J.

Talleur

(in press). Attentional models of mulit-task pilot performance using advanced display technology. Human Factors.

13.

Wickens

C. D.

Hollands

J. G.

(2000) Engineering Psychology and Human Performance (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

14.

Wickens

C. D.

Sandry-Garza

Vidulich

(1983). Compatibility and resource competition between modalities of input, central processing, and output Human Factors, 25(2), 227–248.

15.

Wickens

C.D.

Seppelt

B.D.

(2002). Interference with driving or in-vehicle task information: The effects of auditory versus visual delivery. (Technical Report No. AHFD-02–18/GM-02–3). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois, Aviation Research Laboratory.