The goal of the present study was to develop and empirically evaluate three countermeasures to tactile change blindness (where a tactile signal is missed in the presence of a tactile transient). Each of these countermeasures relates to a different cognitive step involved in successful change detection.
Background:
To date, change blindness has been studied primarily in vision, but there is limited empirical evidence that the tactile modality may also be subject to this phenomenon. Change blindness raises concerns regarding the robustness of tactile and multimodal interfaces.
Method:
Three countermeasures to tactile change blindness were evaluated in the context of a highly demanding monitoring task. One countermeasure was proactive (alerting the participant to a possible change before it occurred) whereas the other two were adaptive (triggered after the change upon an observed miss). Performance and subjective data were collected.
Results:
Compared to the baseline condition, all countermeasures improved intramodal tactile change detection. Adaptive measures resulted in the highest detection rates, specifically when signal gradation was employed (i.e., when the intensity of the tactile signal was increased after a miss was observed).
Conclusion:
Adaptive displays can be used to counter the effects of change blindness and ensure that tactile information is reliably detected. Increasing the tactile intensity after a missed change appears most promising and was the preferred countermeasure.
Application:
The findings from this study can inform the design of interfaces employing the tactile modality to support monitoring and attention management in data-rich domains.
AuvrayM.GallaceA.Hartcher-O’BrienJ.TanH. Z.SpenceC. (2008). Tactile and visual distractors induce change blindness for tactile stimuli presented on the fingertips. Brain Research, 1213, 111–119.
2.
BennetA.BennetD. (2003). Designing the knowledge organization of the future: The intelligent complex adaptive system. In HolsappleC. (Ed.), Handbook on knowledge management (pp. 623–638). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
3.
DorneichM. C.WhitlowS. D.VerversP. M.RogersW. H. (2003). Mitigating cognitive bottlenecks via an augmented cognition adaptive system. In Proceedings of the IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics International Conference (pp. 937–944). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
4.
FerrisT. K.SarterN. (2011). Continuously informing vibrotactile displays in support of attention management and multitasking in anesthesiology. Human Factors, 53, 600–611.
5.
FerrisT.StringfieldK.SarterN. (2010). Tactile “change blindness” in the detection of vibration intensity. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting (pp. 1316–1320). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
6.
GallaceA.AuvrayM.TanH. Z.SpenceC. (2006). When visual transients impair tactile change detection: A novel case of crossmodal change blindness?Neuroscience Letters, 398, 280–285.
GallaceA.ZeedenS.RöderB.SpenceC. (2010). Lost in the move? Secondary task performance impairs tactile change detection on the body. Consciousness and Cognition, 19, 215–229.
9.
GeldardF. A. (1957). Adventures in tactile literacy. American Psychologist, 12, 115–124.
10.
GeldardF. A. (1960). Some neglected possibilities of communication. Science, 131, 1583–1588.
11.
GiangW.SanthakumaranS.MasnaviE.GlussichD.KlineJ.ChuiF.. . . ZelekJ. (2010). Multimodal interfaces: Literature review of ecological interface design, multimodal perception and attention, and intelligent adaptive multimodal interfaces (Report No. CR 2010–051). Toronto, ON: Defence Research and Development Canada–Toronto.
12.
JensenM. S.YaoR.StreetW. N.SimonsD. J. (2011). Change blindness and inattentional blindness. Cognitive Science, 2, 529–546.
13.
JonesL. A.SarterN. B. (2008). Tactile displays: Guidance for their design and application. Human Factors, 50, 90–111.
14.
LeeJ. D.HoffmanJ. D.HayesE. (2004). Collision warning design to mitigate driver distraction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 65–72). New York, NY: ACM.
15.
LeeJ. D.SeeK. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46, 50–80.
16.
LuS. A. (2014). Tactile and crossmodal change blindness and its implications for display design (PhD dissertation). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
17.
LuS. A.SarterN. (2014). Tactile change blindness in an unmanned aerial vehicle control task. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting (pp. 1706–1710). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
18.
MalikaA.GallaceA.Hartcher-O’BrienJ.TanH.SpenceC. (2008). Tactile and visual distractors induce change blindness for tactile stimuli presented on the fingertips. Brain Research, 1213, 111–119.
19.
McLandersM.SantomauroC.TranJ.SandersonP. (2014). Tactile displays of pulse oximetry in integrated and separated configurations. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 58th Annual Meeting (pp. 674–678). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
20.
OviattS. (2003). Multimodal interfaces. In SearsA.JackoJ. (Eds.), The human–computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications (2nd ed., pp. 413–432). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
21.
ParasuramanR.BarnesM.CosenzoK. (2007). Adaptive automation for human–robot teaming in future command and control systems. International C2 Journal, 1(2), 43–68.
22.
ParasuramanR.WickensC. D. (2008). Humans: Still vital after all these years of automation. Human Factors, 50, 511–520.
23.
PerreaultJ. O.CaoC. G. (2006). Effects of vision and friction on haptic perception. Human Factors, 48, 574–586.
24.
PrinetJ. C.TerhuneA.SarterN. B. (2012). Supporting dynamic re-planning in multiple UAV control: A comparison of 3 levels of automation. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 56th Annual Meeting (pp. 423–427). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
25.
RensinkR. A.O’ReganJ. K.ClarkJ. J. (1997). To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science, 8, 368–373.
26.
SarterN. B. (2000). The need for multisensory interfaces in support of effective attention allocation in highly dynamic event-driven domains: The case of cockpit automation. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 10, 231–245.
27.
SarterN. B. (2002). Multimodal information presentation in support of human-automation communication and coordination. Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research, 2, 13–35.
28.
SarterN. B. (2006a). Multimodal information presentation: Design guidance and research challenges. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 36, 439–445.
29.
SarterN.B. (2006b). Visual, tactile, and multimodal information processing. In MarrasW. S.KarwowskiW. (Eds.), The occupation ergonomics handbook: Fundamentals and assessment tools for occupational ergonomics (2nd ed., pp. 23.1–23.25). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis.
30.
SarterN. (2007a). Coping with complexity through adaptive interface design. In JackoJ. (Ed.), Human–computer interaction: HCI intelligent multimodal interaction environments (pp. 493–498). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
31.
SarterN. B. (2007b). Multiple resource theory as a basis for multimodal interface design: Success stories and qualifications, and research needs. In KramerA.WiegmannD.KirlikA. (Eds.), Attention: From theory to practice (pp. 187–195). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
32.
ScerboM. W. (1996). Theoretical perspectives on adaptive automation. In ParasuramanR.MoulouaM. (Eds.), Automation and human performance: Theory and applications (pp. 37–63). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
SchmorrowD. D.KruseA. A. (2002). Improving human performance through advanced cognitive system technology. In Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation & Education Conference [CD-ROM]. Arlington, VA: I/ITSEC.
34.
SimonsD. J. (2000). Current approaches to change blindness. Visual Cognition, 7, 1–15.
35.
TrumblyJ. E.ArnettK. P.JohnsonP. C. (1994). Productivity gains via an adaptive user interface: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 40, 63–81.
36.
van ErpJ. B. (2002). Guidelines for the use of vibro-tactile displays in human computer interaction. In Proceedings of EuroHaptics, 2002, 18–22.
37.
van ErpJ. B. F.VeltmanJ. A.Van VeenH. A. H. C.OvingA. B. (2003). Tactile torso display as countermeasure to reduce night vision goggles induced drift. In Spatial disorientation in military vehicles: Causes, consequences and cures. RTO Meeting Proceedings (Vol. 86, pp. 49.1–49.8). Neuilly-sur-Seine, France: NATO Research and Technology Organization.
38.
WoodsD. D. (1995). The alarm problem and directed attention in dynamic fault management. Ergonomics, 38, 2371–2393.
