We conducted 2 experiments to investigate the clutter-scan trade-off between the cost of increasing clutter by overlaying complex information onto the forward field of view using a helmet-mounted display (HMD) and the cost of scanning when presenting this information on a handheld display. In the first experiment, this tradeoff was examined in terms of the spatial accuracy of target cuing data in a relatively sparse display; in the second, the spatial accuracy of the cue was varied more radically in an information-rich display. Participants were asked to detect and identify targets hidden in the far domain while performing a monitoring task in the near domain using either an HMD or a handheld display. The results revealed that on a sparse display, the reduced scanning from the HMD presentation of cuing outweighed the costs of clutter for cued targets, regardless of cue precision, but no benefit was found for uncued targets. When the HMD displayed task-irrelevant information, however, target detection was hindered by the extraneous clutter in the forward field of view relative to the handheld display condition, and this cost of clutter increased as the amount of data that needed to be inspected increased. Potential applications of this research include the development of design considerations for head-up displays for aviation and military applications.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Broadbent, D. E. (1982). Task combination and selective intake of information. Acta Psychologica, 50, 253–290.
2.
Davison, H., & Wickens, C. D. (1999). Rotorcraft hazard cueing: The effects on attention and trust (University of Illinois Institute of Aviation Tech. Report ARL-99-5/NASA-99-1). Savoy, IL: Aviation Research Laboratory.
3.
Fadden, S., Ververs, P., & Wickens, C. D. (1998). Costs and benefits of head-up display use: A meta-analytic approach. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting (pp. 16–20). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
4.
Fadden, S., & Wickens, C. D. (1997). Maximizing traffic awareness with a head-up flightpath highway display (University of Illinois Institute of Aviation Tech. Report ARL-97-1/FAA-97-1). Savoy, IL: Aviation Research Laboratory
5.
Lee, J. D., & Moray, N. (1992). Trust, control strategies and allocation of function in human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35, 1243–1270.
6.
Lee, J. D., & Moray, N. (1994). Trust, self confidence, and operators' adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 153–184.
7.
Martin-Emerson, R., & Wickens, C. D. (1997). Superimposition, symbology, visual attention, and the head-up display. Human Factors, 39, 581–601.
8.
Merlo, J. L., Wickens, C. D., & Yeh, M. (1999). Effect of reliability on cue effectiveness and display signaling (Tech. Report ARL-99-4/FED-LAB-99-3). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois, Aviation Research Laboratory.
9.
Metzger, U., & Parasuraman, R. (2001). Conflict detection aids for air traffic controllers in free flight: Effects of reliable and failure modes on performance and eye movements. In Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (n.p.). Columbus: Ohio State University.
10.
Meyer, J. (2001). Effects of warning validity and proximity on responses to warnings. Human Factors, 43, 563–572.
11.
Mosier, K., Skitka, L., Heers, S., & Burdick, M. (1998). Automation bias: Decision making and performance in high technology cockpits. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8, 47–63.
12.
Muir, B. M., & Moray, N. (1996). Trust in automation: Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics, 39, 429–460.
13.
National Research Council. (1997). Tactical display for soldiers: Human factors considerations.Washington, DC: National Academy.
14.
Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation: Use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Human Factors, 39, 230–253.
15.
Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T., & Wickens, C. D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans, 30, 286–297.
16.
Sarter, N. B., & Schroeder, B. (2001). Supporting decision making and action selection under time pressure and uncertainty: The case of in-flight icing. Human Factors, 43, 580–590.
17.
Singh, I. L., Molloy, R., & Parasuraman, R. (1993). Individual differences in monitoring failures of automation. Journal of General Psychology, 120, 357–373.
18.
Sorkin, R. D., Kantowitz, B. H., & Kantowitz, S. C. (1988). Likelihood alarm displays. Human Factors, 30, 445–459.
19.
Ververs, P. M., & Wickens, C. D. (1998). Head-up displays: Effects of clutter, display intensity, and display location on pilot performance. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8, 377–404.
20.
Weintraub, D. J., & Ensing, M. J. (1992). The book of HUD - A head-up display state of the art report (CSERIAC SOAR 91--2). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: CSERIAC.
21.
Wickens, C. D. (1997). Attentional issues in head-up displays. In D. Harris (Ed.), Engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics: Transportation systems (Vol. 1, pp. 3–21). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
22.
Wickens, C. D. (1999). Frames of reference for navigation. In D. Gopher, & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance XVII (pp. 113–144). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23.
Wickens, C. D., & Andre, A. D. (1990). Proximity compatibility and information display: Effects of color, space, and objectness of information integration. Human Factors, 32, 61–77.
24.
Wickens, C. D., Conejo, R., & Gempler, K. (1999). Unreliable automated attention cueing for air-ground targeting and traffic maneuvering. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 43rd Annual Meeting (pp. 21–35). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
25.
Wickens, C. D., Gempler, K., & Morphew, M. E. (2000). Workload and reliability of predictor displays in aircraft traffic avoidance. Transportation Human Factors Journal, 2(2), 99–126.
26.
Wickens, C. D., & Long, J. (1995). Object versus space-based models of visual attention: Implications for the design of headup displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1, 179–193.
27.
Wickens, C. D., & Rose, P. N. (2001). Human factors handbook for displays: Summary of findings from the Army Research Lab's Advanced Displays and Interactive Displays Federated Laboratory.Thousand Oaks, CA: Rockwell Scientific.
28.
Wickens, C. D., Ververs, P., & Fadden, S. (in press). Head-up displays. In D. Harris (Ed.), Human factors for commercial flight deck.Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
29.
Wickens, C. D., Vincow, M. A., & Yeh, M. (2003). Design applications of visual spatial thinking: The importance of frame of reference. Manuscript in preparation.
30.
Yeh, M., & Wickens, C. D. (2001a). Attentional filtering in the design of electronic map displays: A comparison of color-coding, intensity coding, and decluttering techniques. Human Factors, 43, 543–562.
31.
Yeh, M., & Wickens, C. D. (2001b). Display signaling in augmented reality: The effects of cue reliability and image realism on attention allocation and trust calibration. Human Factors, 43, 355–365.
32.
Yeh, M., Wickens, C. D., & Seagull, F. J. (1999). Target cuing in visual search: The effects of conformality and display location on the allocation of visual attention. Human Factors, 41, 524–542.
