Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Attentional behavior in complex visual workspaces is driven by the physical and temporal characteristics of the display, the goals and knowledge of the operator, and task demands. Accordingly, to develop effective displays, designers must understand how these factors interact to influence attentional allocation within the display and the detectability of critical alerts. In the current study, participants performed a central highway-in-the-sky (HITS) manual tracking task and a peripheral alert detection task concurrently while alert eccentricity, salience, expectancy, and central task workload were manipulated. Eccentricity and expectancy effects were observed in both hit rates and response times (RTs). RT evinced interactions of salience with both eccentricity and expectancy, indicating that the absence of dynamic distractors allowed for more rapid detection of near alerts and more effective use of top-down attentional guidance in the detection of targets in high expectancy locations. Effects also manifested in PDT, with interactions between workload, salience, and target expectancy. Results demonstrate interactions among multiple bottom-up and top-down factors in the control of visual attention within a complex workspace.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Boot

W. R.

Brockmole

J. R.

Simons

D. J.

(2005). Attention capture is modulated in dual-task situations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 662-668.

Cosman

J. D.

Vecera

S. P.

(2009). Perceptual load modulates attentional capture by abrupt onsets. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 404-410.

Crundall

Underwood

Chapman

P. R.

(2002). Attending to the peripheral world while driving. Applied Cognitive Psychology., 16, 459-475.

Duncan

Humphreys

G. W.

Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review.96, 433–458 (1989).

Folk

C. L.

Remington

R. W.

Johnston

J. C.

(1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 1030-1044.

Itti

Koch

(2000). A saliency-based search mechanism for overt and covert shifts of visual attention. Vision Research, 40(10-12), 1489-1506.

McCarley

J.S.

Kramer

A.F.

(2006). Eye movements as a window on perception and cognition. In Rizzo

Parasuraman

(Eds.), Neuroergonomics: The Brain at Work. N.Y.: N.Y. Oxford University Press.

McCarley

Wickens

Sebok

Steelman-Allen

Bzostek

Koenecke

(2009). Control of Attention: Modeling the Effects of Stimulus Characteristics, Task Demands, and Individual Differences. NASA NRA: NNX07AV97A.

Most

S.B.

Simons

D.J.

Scholl

B.J.

Jimenez

Clifford

Chabris

C.F.

(2001). How not to be seen: the contribution of similarity and selective ignoring to sustained inattentional blindness. Psychological Science, 12, 9-17.

10.

Murata

(2004). Foveal task complexity and visual funneling. Human Factors. 46, 135-141.

11.

Nikolic

M. I.

Orr

J. M.

Sarter

N. B.

(2004). Why Pilots Miss the Green Box: How Display Context Undermines Attention Capture. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 14, 39–52.

12.

Nothdurft

H. C.

(2002). Attention shifts to salient targets. Vision Research, 42, 1287-1306.

13.

O’Regan

J. K.

Rensink

R. A.

Clark

J. J.

(1999). Change-blindness as result of "mudsplashes". Nature. 398, 34.

14.

Rayner

Miller

Rotello

(2008). Eye movements when looking at print advertisements: The goal of the viewer matters. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 697-707.

15.

Rinalducci

E.J.

Lassiter

D.L.

MacArthur

Piersal

Mitchell

L.K.

(1989). Further experiments on the effects of foveal load on peripheral vision. Proceedings 33rd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society. Santa Monica CA: Human Factors.

16.

Rinalducci

Rose

(1996). The effects of foveal load on peripheral visual sensitivity. Proceedings 30th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society. Santa Monica CA: Human Factors.

17.

Schons

V.W.

Wickens

C.D.

(1993). Visual separation and information access in aircraft display layout (Technical Report ARL-93-7/NASA-A3I-93-1). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois, Aviation Research Lab

18.

Senders

J.W.

1983. Visual scanning processes. Tilburg: University of Tilburg Press.

19.

Sheridan

T.B.

1970. On how often the supervisor should sample. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Science and Cybernetics SSC-6, 140-145.

20.

Wickens

C.D.

Carswell

C.M.

(1995). The Proximity Compatibility Principle: Its Psychological Foundation and Relevance to Display Design. Human Factors, 37(3), 473-495.

21.

Wickens

C.D.

McCarley

J.S.

(2008). Applied Attention Theory. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

22.

Williams

(1982). Cognitive load and the functional field of view. Human Factors. 24, 683-692.

23.

Wolfe

J.M.

(1994). Guided search 2.0 A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1(2), 202-238.

24.

Wickens

C. D.

Muthard

E. K.

Alexander

A. L.

Van Olffen

Podczerwinski

(2003). The influences of display highlighting and size and event eccentricity for aviation surveillance. Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors & Ergonomics Society.

25.

Wolfe

J. M.

Horowitz

T. S.

(2004). What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it? Nature Neuroscience, 5, 1-7.

26.

Yarbus

A. L.

(1967). Eye movements and Vision. New York: Plenum.

27.

Yeh

Wickens

C.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.

Interactions Among Target Salience,Eccentricity,Target Expectancy and Workload in an Alert Detection Task

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References