Twelve subjects performed a complex task, detecting and recognizing small targets presented at infinity, while simultaneously monitoring a virtual image display (VID). The VID was presented at one of four optical distances (2.0, 0.5, 0.0, and-0.5 D). Optical distance was found to affect detection and recognition performance, mainly at the extreme value of 2.0 D. Interactions between optical distance and grouping of subjects according to measures of accommodation indicated that the three other optical distances affect performance differentially. The subjects' resting position of accommodation (RPA) and a combined measure of accommodation range and RPA were significantly correlated with performance (0.58). A narrowing of the functional visual field (complete misses of peripheral targets) was found at the 2.0-D optical distance for all subjects, and at the other optical distances for the subjects with an inferior accommodative mechanism (i.e., a near RPA and/or a narrow accommodation range).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Barnette, J. F. (1976). Role of head-up display in instrument flight (Tech. Report IFC-LR-76-2). Randolph AFB, TX: USAF Instrument Flight Center.
2.
Benel, R. A. (1980). Visual accommodation, the Mandel-baum effect, and apparent size. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts International, 40(10B). 5044. (University Microfilms No. 80-08974)
3.
Brown, R. H. (1957). "Empty-field" myopia and visibility of distant objects at high altitudes. American Journal of Psychology, 70, 376–385.
4.
Charman, W. N. (1974). On the position of stationarity in laser refraction. American Journal of Optometry and Physiological Optics, 51, 832–838.
5.
Gibson, C. P. (1980). Binocular disparity and head-up displays. Human Factors, 22, 435–444.
6.
Hennessy, R. T., and Leibowitz, H. W. (1970). Subjective measurement of accommodation with laser light. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 60, 1700–1701.
7.
Hennessy, R. T., and Leibowitz, H. W. (1972). Laser optometer incorporating the Badal principle. Behavioral Research Methods and Instrumentation, 4, 237–239.
8.
Hull, J. C., Gill, R. T., and Roscoe, S. N. (1982). Locus of the stimulus to visual accommodation: Where in the world, or where in the eye??Human Factors, 24, 311–319.
9.
Jarvi, D. (1981). Investigation of spatial disorientation of F-15 Eagle pilots (Tech. Report ASD-TR-81-5016). Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: USAF Systems Command. Aeronautical Systems Division.
10.
Kersten, D., and Legge, G. E. (1983). Convergence accommodation. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 73, 332–338.
11.
Leibowitz, H. W. (1976). Visual perception and stress. In G. Borg (Ed.), Physical work and effort (pp. 25–37). New York: Pergamon.
12.
Leibowitz, H. W., and Hennessy, R. T. (1975). The laser optometer and some implications for behavioral research. American Psychologist, 30, 349–352.
13.
Leibowitz, H. W., and Owens, D. A. (1975). Anomalous myopias and the intermediate dark focus of accommodation. Science, 189, 646–648.
14.
Leibowitz, H. W., and Owens, D. A. (1978). New evidence for the intermediate position of relaxed accommodation. Documenta Ophthalmologica, 46, 133–147.
15.
Leitner, E. F., and Haines, R. F. (1981). Magnitude of visual accommodation to a head-up display. Washington. DC: NASA.
16.
Lowe, J. R., and Ornelas, J. R. (1983). Applications of head-up displays in commercial transport aircraft. Journal of Guidance and Control, 6, 77–83.
17.
Malstrom, F. V., and Randle, R. J. (1976). Effects of visual imagery on the accommodation response. Perception and Psychophysics, 19, 450–453.
18.
Mandelbaum, J. (1960). An accommodation phenomenon. Archives of Ophthalmology. 63, 923–926.
19.
Newman, R. L. (1980). Operational problems associated with head-up displays during instrument flight (Tech. Report AFAMRL-TR-80-116). Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: USAF Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory.
20.
Owens, D. A. (1979). The Mandelbaum effect: Evidence for an accommodative bias toward intermediate viewing distances. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 69, 641–652.
21.
Owens, D. A. (1984). The resting state of the eye. American Scientist, 72, 378–387.
22.
Palmer, E., and Cronn, E. (1973). Touchdown performance with a computer graphics night visual attachment. In Proceedings of the AIAA Visual ami Motion Simulation Conference (Paper 73–927). New York: Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
23.
Randle, R. J. (1985). Behavioral myopia remission using biofeedback: Phase I final report (Tech. Report ILLIANA-85-1). Las Cruces, NM: ILLIANA Aviation Sciences Ltd.
24.
Randle, R. J., Roscoe, S. N., and Petitt, J. C. (1980). Effects of magnification and visual accommodation on aim-point estimation in simulated landings with real and virtual image displays (Tech. Paper NASA-TP-1635). Washington, DC: NASA.
25.
Roscoe, S. N. (1982). Landing airplanes, detecting traffic, and the dark focus. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 53, 970–976.
26.
Roscoe, S. N., and Hull, J. C. (1982). Cockpit visibility and contrail detection. Human Factors, 24, 659–672.
27.
Simonelli, N. M. (1980). The dark focus of visual accommodation: Its existence, its measurement, its effects. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1980), Dissertation Abstracts International, 41(02B), 722. (University Microfilms No. 80-17984).
28.
Soliday, S. M., and Milligan, J. R. (1968). Terrain-following with a head-up display. Human Factors, 10, 117–126.
29.
Whiteside, T. C. D. (1957). The problems of vision in flight at high altitude. London: Butterworths.
