Visual Complexity of Head-Up Display in Automobiles Modulates Attentional Tunneling

Abstract

Objective

To investigate how the visual complexity of head-up displays (HUDs) influence the allocation of driver’s attention in two separate visual domains (near and far domains).

Background

The types and amount of information displayed on automobile HUDs have increased. With limited human attention capacity, increased visual complexity in the near domain may lead to interference in the effective processing of information in the far domain.

Method

Near-domain and far-domain vision were separately tested using a dual-task paradigm. In a simulated road environment, 62 participants were to control the speed of the vehicle (SMT; near domain) and manually respond to probes (PDT; far domain) simultaneously. Five HUD complexity levels including a HUD-absent condition were presented block-wise.

Results

Near domain performance was not modulated by the HUD complexity levels. However, the far domain detection accuracies were impaired as the HUD complexity level increased, with greater accuracy differences observed between central and peripheral probes.

Conclusion

Increased HUD visual complexity leads to a biased deployment of driver attention toward the central visual field. Therefore, the formulation of HUD designs must be preceded by an in-depth investigation of the dynamics of human cognition.

Application

To ensure driving safety, HUD designs should be rendered with minimal visual complexity by incorporating only essential information relevant to driving and removing driving-irrelevant or additional visual details.

Keywords

attentional tunneling driving simulation head-up display visual complexity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Broadbent

D. E.

(1958). Perception and Communication. New York: Oxford University Press.

Burnett

G. E.

Donkor

R. A.

(2012). Evaluating the impact of head-up display complexity on peripheral detection performance: A driving simulator study.Advances in Transportation Studies, 28, 5–16.

Carrasco

(2011). Visual attention: The past 25 years. Vision research, 51(13), 1484–1525.

Charissis

Papanastasiou

Vlachos

(2008). Comparative study of prototype automotive HUD vs. HDD: Collision avoidance simulation and results (No. 2008-01-0203). SAE Technical Paper.

Cho

(2015). Augmented reality (AR) head-up display (HUD) design study for prevention of car accident based on graphical design, sensitivity and conveyance of meaning. Archives of Design Research, 28, 103–117.

Cousineau

(2005). Confidence intervals in within- subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1(1), 42–45.

Currano

Park

S. Y.

Moore

D. J.

Lyons

Sirkin

(2021, May). Little road driving HUD: Heads-up display complexity influences drivers’ perceptions of automated vehicles. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1–15).

Fadden

Ververs

P. M.

Wickens

C. D.

(1998, October). Costs and benefits of head-up display use: A meta-analytic approach. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 16–20). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.

Fadden

Wickens

C. D.

Ververs

(2000). Costs and benefits of head up displays: An Attention perspective and a meta analysis. SAE Transactions, 109(1), 1112–1117.

10.

Harris

J. P.

Fahle

(1996). Differences between fovea and periphery in the detection and discrimination of spatial offsets. Vision Research, 36(21), 3469–3477.

11.

Hibberd

D. L.

Jamson

S. L.

Carsten

O. M.

(2013). Mitigating the effects of in-vehicle distractions through use of the Psychological Refractory Period paradigm. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 50, 1096–1103.

12.

Hillebrand

Wahrenberg

Manzey

(2012). A new method to assess pilots’ allocation of visual attention using a head-up display. In Human Factors: a view from an integrative perspective. Proceedings HFES Europe Chapter Conference Toulouse (pp. 235–275).

13.

Horrey

W. J.

Wickens

C. D.

(2004). Driving and side task performance: The effects of display clutter, separation, and modality. Human Factors, 46(4), 611–624.

14.

Liu

Y. C.

(2003). Effects of using head-up display in automobile context on attention demand and driving performance. Displays, 24(4-5), 157–165.

15.

Liu

Y. C.

Wen

M. H.

(2004). Comparison of head-up display (HUD) vs. head-down display (HDD): Driving performance of commercial vehicle operators in Taiwan. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61(5), 679–697.

16.

Mackworth

N. H.

(1965). Visual noise causes tunnel vision. Psychonomic Science, 3(1-12), 67–68.

17.

Martin-Emerson

Wickens

C. D.

(1997). Superimposition, symbology, visual attention, and the head-up display. Human Factors, 39(4), 581–601.

18.

Miniukovich

De Angeli

(2014, May). Quantification of interface visual complexity. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (pp. 153–160).

19.

Nilsson

E. J.

Aust

M. L.

Engström

Svanberg

Lindén

(2018). Effects of cognitive load on response time in an unexpected lead vehicle braking scenario and the detection response task (DRT). Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 59, 463–474.

20.

Palmer

(1994). Set-size effects in visual search: The effect of attention is independent of the stimulus for simple tasks. Vision Research, 34(13), 1703–1721.

21.

Park

(2020). Ergonomic guidelines of head-up display user interface during semi-automated driving. Electronics, 9(4), 611–627.

22.

Plainis

Murray

I. J.

Chauhan

(2001). Raised visual detection thresholds depend on the level of complexity of cognitive foveal loading. Perception, 30(10), 1203–1212.

23.

Prinzel

L. J.

III Risser

(2004). Head-up displays and attention capture (No. NASA/TM-2004-213000).

24.

Reyes

M. L.

Lee

J. D.

(2008). Effects of cognitive load presence and duration on driver eye movements and event detection performance. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 11(6), 391–402.

25.

Ringer

R. V.

Throneburg

Johnson

A. P.

Kramer

A. F.

Loschky

L. C.

(2016). Impairing the useful field of view in natural scenes: Tunnel vision versus general interference. Journal of Vision, 16(2), 7.

26.

Schnur

Bektaş

Çöltekin

(2018). Measured and perceived visual complexity: A comparative study among three online map providers. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 45(3), 238–254.

27.

Smith

Gabbard

J. L.

Conley

(2016, October). Head-up vs. head-down displays: examining traditional methods of display assessment while driving. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (pp. 185–192).

28.

Sojourner

R. J.

Antin

J. F.

(1990). The effects of a simulated head-up display speedometer on perceptual task performance. Human Factors, 32(3), 329–339.

29.

Strobach

Schütz

Schubert

(2015). On the importance of Task 1 and error performance measures in PRP dual-task studies. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 403.

30.

Van Winsum

(2018). The effects of cognitive and visual workload on peripheral detection in the detection response task. Human Factors, 60(6), 855–869.

31.

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(4), 377–403.

32.

Ward

N. J.

Parkes

(1994). Head-up displays and their automotive application: An overview of human factors issues affecting safety. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 26(6), 703–717.

33.

Wickens

C. D.

Long

(1995). Object versus space-based models of visual attention: Implications for the design of head-up displays.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1(3), 179–193.

34.

Williams

L. J.

(1985). Tunnel vision induced by a foveal load manipulation. Human Factors, 27(2), 221–227.

35.

Wolfe

Dobres

Rosenholtz

Reimer

(2017). More than the Useful Field: Considering peripheral vision in driving. Applied Ergonomics, 65, 316–325.

36.

Wolfe

Sawyer

B. D.

Kosovicheva

Reimer

Rosenholtz

(2019). Detection of brake lights while distracted: Separating peripheral vision from cognitive load. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81(8), 2798–2813.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.39 MB