Target Finding With a Spatially Aware Handheld Chart Display

Abstract

Objective:

The objective was to evaluate the use of a spatially aware handheld chart display in a comparison with a track-up fixed display configuration and to investigate how cognitive strategies vary when performing the task of matching chart symbols with environmental features under different display geometries and task constraints.

Background:

Small-screen devices containing both accelerometers and magnetometers support the development of spatially aware handheld maps. These can be designed so that symbols representing targets in the external world appear in a perspective view determined by the orientation of the device.

Method:

A panoramic display was used to simulate a marine environment. The task involved matching targets in the scene to symbols on simulated chart displays. In Experiment 1, a spatially aware handheld chart display was compared to a fixed track-up chart display. In Experiment 2, a gaze monitoring system was added and the distance between the chart display and the scene viewpoint was varied.

Results:

All respondents were faster with the handheld device. Novices were much more accurate with the handheld device. People allocated their gaze very differently if they had to move between a map display and a view of the environment.

Conclusion:

There may be important benefits to spatially aware handheld displays in reducing errors relating to common navigation tasks.

Application:

Both the difficulty of spatial transformations and the allocation of attention should be considered in the design of chart displays.

Keywords

handheld chart spatially aware display attention map reading

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aretz

A. J.

(1991). The design of electronic map displays. Human Factors, 33, 85–101.

Gray

W. D.

Simms

C. R.

W. T.

Schoelles

M. J.

(2006). The soft constraints hypothesis: A rational analysis approach to resource allocation for interactive behavior. Psychological Review, 113, 461–482.

Gugerty

Brooks

(2001). Seeing where you are heading: Integrating environmental and egocentric reference frames in cardinal direction judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 251–266.

Gunzelmann

(2008). Strategy generalization across orientation tasks: Testing a computational cognitive model. Cognitive Science, 32, 835–861.

Gunzelmann

Anderson

J. R.

(2006). location matters: Why target location impacts performance in orientation tasks. Memory and Cognition, 34, 41–59.

Hermann

Bieber

Duesterhoeft

(2003). Egocentric maps on mobile devices. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Mobile Computing (pp. 32–37) Stuttgart, Germany: IRB Verlag.

Hickox

J. C.

Wickens

C. D.

(1999). Effect of elevation angle disparity, complexity and feature type on relating out-of-cockpit field of view to an electronic cartographic map. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 284–301.

Levine

Marchon

Hanley

(1984). The placement and misplacement of you are here maps. Environment and Behavior, 16, 139–157.

Plumlee

Ware

(2006). Cognitive costs of zooming versus using multiple windows. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception, 13(2), 1–31.

10.

Rayner

(1988). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372–422.

11.

Schall

Mendez

Kruijff

Veas

Junghanns

Reitinger

Schmalstieg

(2009). Handheld augmented reality for underground infrastructure visualization. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 13, 281–291.

12.

Schreiber

Wickens

C. D.

Alton

Renner

Hickox

J. C.

(1998). Navigational checking using 3D maps: The influence of elevation angle, azimuth and foreshortening. Human Factors, 40, 209–223.

13.

Shepard

R. N.

Hurwitz

(1984). Upward direction mental rotation and discrimination of left and right. Cognition, 18, 161–193.

14.

Suomela

Roimela

Lehikoinene

(2002). The evolution of perspective view in WalkMap. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 7, 249–262.

15.

Vogel

E. K.

Woodman

G. F.

Luck

S. J.

(2001). Storage of features, conjunctions and objects in visual working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Human Perception and Performance, 27, 92–194.

16.

Wickens

C. D.

(1999). Frames of reference for navigation. In Gopher

Koriat

(Eds.), Attention and performance (Vol. 16, pp. 113–144). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.