We conducted two experiments to understand the effects of computationally diminishing reality on performance, awareness of the environment, and subjective workload.
Background
Advances in extended reality (XR) technologies make it possible to alter or remove auditory and visual distractions from an environment. Though distractions are known to harm performance, there is no work examining the effects of removal via XR.
Method
Across two samples, STEM graduate students and Johnson Space Center employees, the effects of reducing distraction during a novel, demanding assembly task via a form of XR (diminished reality) were compared to a full distraction control condition, studied in a virtual reality (VR) environment. In one condition, participants experienced universal attenuation of distractions. In a second condition, attenuation was context-aware: only nontask objects were made less visible and only unimportant off-task audio was eliminated.
Results
Both experiments found subjective workload could be lowered via a Diminished reality (DR) aid. The STEM graduate student sample showed a benefit of a DR aid for performance and environment awareness; however, the sample of professionals from Johnson Space Center showed no performance differences with the DR aids. There were mixed results regarding awareness of the location of objects and events outside of the assembly task.
Conclusion
DR aids can have effects similar to those seen in studies that removed distractions entirely. More work is needed to understand the match between distraction removal design and task.
Application
These findings contribute to the development of a class of XR aids: Diminished Reality.
BaileyN. R.ScerboM. W.FreemanF. G.MikulkaP. J.ScottL. A. (2006). Comparison of a brain-based adaptive system and a manual adaptable system for invoking automation. Human Factors, 48(4), 693–709. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872006779166280
2.
BamneyA.PantangiS. S.JashamiH.SavolainenP. (2022). How do the type and duration of distraction affect speed selection and crash risk? An evaluation using naturalistic driving data. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 178, 106854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2022.106854
3.
BanburyS. P.MackenW. J.TremblayS.JonesD. M. (2001). Auditory distraction and short-term memory: Phenomena and practical implications. Human Factors, 43(1), 12–29. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872001775992462
4.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
5.
BrollW. (2022). Augmented reality. In DoernerR.BrollW.GrimmP.JungB. (Eds.), Virtual and augmented reality (VR/AR) (pp. 291–329). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79062-2_8
6.
ChenH. Y. W.Hoekstra-AtwoodL.DonmezB. (2018). Voluntary-and involuntary-distraction engagement: An exploratory study of individual differences. Human Factors, 60(4), 575–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720818761293
7.
CherryE. C. (1953). Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25(5), 975–979. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1907229
8.
DixonS. R.WickensC. D.McCarleyJ. S. (2007). On the independence of compliance and reliance: Are automation false alarms worse than misses?Human Factors, 49(4), 564–572. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872007X215656
9.
DonmezB.BoyleL. N.LeeJ. D. (2006). The impact of distraction mitigation strategies on driving performance. Human Factors, 48(4), 785–804. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872006779166415
10.
DursoF. T.RawsonK. A.GirottoS. (2007). Comprehension and situation awareness. In DursoF. T.NickersonR. S.DumaisS. T.LewandowskyS.PerfectT. J. (Eds.), Handbook of applied cognition (2nd ed., pp. 77–108). John Wiley and Sons.
11.
EndsleyM. R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 37(1), 32–64. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049543
12.
EndsleyM. R. (2020). The divergence of objective and subjective situation awareness: A meta-analysis. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 14(1), 34–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343419874248
FanY.LiangJ.CaoX.PangL.ZhangJ. (2022). Effects of noise exposure and mental workload on physiological responses during task execution. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(19), 12434. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912434
16.
FibigerW.EvansO.SingerG. (1986). Hormonal responses to a graded mental workload. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 55(4), 339–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00422730
17.
GraichenL.GraichenM.KremsJ. F. (2019). Evaluation of gesture-based in-vehicle interaction: User experience and the potential to reduce driver distraction. Human Factors, 61(5), 774–792. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720818824253
18.
GreenP.MacLeodC. J. (2016). SIMR: An R package for power analysis of generalized linear mixed models by simulation. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 7(4), 493–498. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210x.12504
19.
GrundgeigerT.HohmA.MichalekA.EgenolfT.MarkusC.HappelO. (2022). The validity of the SEEV model as a process measure of situation awareness: The example of a simulated endotracheal intubation. Human Factors, 64(7), 1181–1194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720821991651
20.
GrundgeigerT.MichalekA.HahnF.WurmbT.MeybohmP.HappelO. (2023). Guiding attention via a cognitive aid during a simulated in-hospital cardiac arrest scenario: A salience effort expectancy value model analysis. Human Factors, 65(8), 1689–1701. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208211060586
21.
GuérinB. (1993). Social facilitation. Cambridge University Press.
22.
HaghighatP.NguyenT.ValizadehM.ArvanM.PardeN.KimM.JeongH. (2023). Effects of an intelligent virtual assistant on office task performance and workload in a noisy environment. Applied Ergonomics, 109, 103969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2023.103969
23.
HancockP. A.MatthewsG. (2019). Workload and performance: Associations, insensitivities, and dissociations. Human Factors, 61(3), 374–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720818809590
24.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in Psychology, 52, 139–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9
25.
HerlambangM. B.CnossenF.TaatgenN. A. (2021). The effects of intrinsic motivation on mental fatigue. PLoS One, 16(1), Article e0243754. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243754
26.
HicksW. B.PryorM.SpruferaJ.GreeneA.ByrneV.McLaughlinA. C. (2018). Time pressure and teams: Contextual factors influencing task experience when using a cognitive aid. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 62(1), 125–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931218621029
27.
JonidesJ. (1981). Voluntary versus automatic control over the mind’s eye’s movement. In LongJ. B.BaddeleyA. D. (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 187–203). Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.
28.
KelleyJ. F. (1984). An iterative design methodology for user-friendly natural language office information applications. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 2(1), 26–41. https://doi.org/10.1145/357417.357420
29.
KhanI.KhusroS. (2020). Towards the design of context‐aware adaptive user interfaces to minimize drivers’ distractions. Mobile Information Systems, 2020(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8858886
30.
KoessmeierC.BüttnerO. B. (2024). Social media distraction: How distracting are visual social media cues and what influences users’ distractibility?Computers in Human Behavior, 159, 108306–108315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108306
31.
LeeC.BonebrakeS.HollererT.BowmanD. A. (2009, October). A replication study testing the validity of AR simulation in VR for controlled experiments. In 2009 8th IEEE international symposium on mixed and augmented reality (pp. 203–204). IEEE.
32.
LeeJ. D.YoungK.ReganM. A. (2008). Defining driver distraction. In ReganM. A.LeeJ. D.YoungK. (Eds.), Driver distraction theory, effects, and mitigation (p. 672). CRC Press.
33.
LorencE. S.MallettR.Lewis-PeacockJ. A. (2021). Distraction in visual working memory: Resistance is not futile. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(3), 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.12.004
34.
MagalhãesG. F.SantosG. N.RosaM. B.NoblatL. d. A. C. B. (2014). Medication reconciliation in patients hospitalized in a cardiology unit. PLoS One, 9(12), Article e115491. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115491
35.
MageziD. A. (2015). Linear mixed-effects models for within-participant psychology experiments: An introductory tutorial and free, graphical user interface (LMMgui). Frontiers in Psychology, 6(2), 110312. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00002
36.
MansikkaH.VirtanenK.HarrisD. (2018). Dissociation between mental workload, performance, and task awareness in pilots of high performance aircraft. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 49(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/thms.2018.2874186
37.
McCrickardD. S.CatramboneR.ChewarC. M.StaskoJ. T. (2003). Establishing tradeoffs that leverage attention for utility: Empirically evaluating information display in notification systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 58(5), 547–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1071-5819(03)00022-3
MolesworthB. R.BurgessM.KwonD. (2013). The use of noise cancelling headphones to improve concurrent task performance in a noisy environment. Applied Acoustics, 74(1), 110–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2012.06.015
40.
MorayN. (1959). Attention in dichotic listening: Affective cues and the influence of instructions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11(1), 56–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470215908416289
41.
MoriS.IkedaS.SaitoH. (2017). A survey of diminished reality: Techniques for visually concealing, eliminating, and seeing through real objects. IPSJ Transactions on Computer Vision and Applications, 9(1), 17–114. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41074-017-0028-1
NadjM.MaedcheA. (2019). Situation awareness in aircraft ground handling: The impact of auditory and visual notification cues. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 13(2), 102–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343419830183
44.
PerfectT. J.AndradeJ.EaganI. (2011). Eye closure reduces the cross-modal memory impairment caused by auditory distraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(4), 1008–1013. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022930
45.
PulakosE. D.AradS.DonovanM. A.PlamondonK. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 612–624. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.612
46.
R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
47.
ReganM. A.HallettC.GordonC. P. (2011). Driver distraction and driver inattention: Definition, relationship and taxonomy. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(5), 1771–1781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.04.008
48.
RichardsonK. (2024). Parsing sources of subjective workload with the task, environment, and aid scale. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University].
49.
SargentR.WaltersB.WickensC. (2023, July). Meta-analysis qualifying and quantifying the benefits of automation transparency to enhance models of human performance. In: Proceedings of the international conference on human-computer interaction (pp. 243–261). Springer Nature, Switzerland.
50.
SchaieK. W.WillisS. L. (2010). The Seattle longitudinal study of adult cognitive development. ISSBD Bulletin, 57(1), 24–29.
51.
SchneiderW.CheinJ. M. (2003). Controlled & automatic processing: Behavior, theory, and biological mechanisms. Cognitive Science, 27(3), 525–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0364-0213(03)00011-9
52.
SimpsonB. D.BoliaR. S.McKinleyR. L.BrungartD. S. (2005). The impact of hearing protection on sound localization and orienting behavior. Human Factors, 47(1), 188–198. https://doi.org/10.1518/0018720053653866
53.
SkraaningG.JamiesonG. A. (2021). Human performance benefits of the automation transparency design principle: Validation and variation. Human Factors, 63(3), 379–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819887252
54.
Steelman-AllenK. S.McCarleyJ. S.WickensC.SebokA.BzostekJ. (2009). N-SEEV: A computational model of attention and noticing. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society - Annual Meeting, 53(12), 774–778. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120905301203
55.
StrayerD. L.TurrillJ.CooperJ. M.ColemanJ. R.Medeiros-WardN.BiondiF. (2015). Assessing cognitive distraction in the automobile. Human Factors, 57(8), 1300–1324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720815575149
56.
SzalmaJ. L.HancockP. A. (2011). Noise effects on human performance: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 682–707. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023987
57.
TerrierR.ArgelaguetF.NormandJ.-M.MarchalM. (2018). Evaluation of AR inconsistencies on AR placement tasks: A VR simulation study. In BourdotP.CobbS.InterranteV.KatoH.StrickerD. (Eds.), Virtual reality and augmented reality (pp. 190–210). Springer International Publishing.
WickensC. D.GutzwillerR. S.VieaneA.CleggB. A.SebokA.JanesJ. (2016). Time sharing between robotics and process control: Validating a model of attention switching. Human Factors, 58(2), 322–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720815622761
62.
WickensC. D.LeeJ.LiuY.Gordon-BeckerS. E. (2018). Designing for people: An introduction to human factors engineering. CreateSpace.
63.
YehM.WickensC. D. (2001). Attentional filtering in the design of electronic map displays: A comparison of color-coding, intensity coding, and decluttering techniques. Human Factors, 43(4), 543–562. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872001775870359
64.
YehY. Y.WickensC. D. (1988). Dissociation of performance and subjective measures of workload. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 30(1), 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872088803000110
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.
