Clutter in tactical situation displays (TSD) is a persistent problem that affects pilots’ performance. Decluttering methods such as dimming, dotting, small-sizing and removal have been used in several display types to reduce clutter. This study aims to investigate the effects of different decluttering methods applied in TSD on pilots’ visual search performance. It also aims to uncover the basic psychophysical processes underlying the pilots’ visual search behavior through computational modeling. Data from fifteen Air-Force pilots showed that accuracy is higher and response time is faster when the TSD is decluttered, regardless of the technique. However, when the data was fitted into the hierarchical drift-diffusion model, it was revealed that among the techniques tested, dimming yielded the best search performance based on the model parameters. This study suggests that analyzing behavioral data through computational modeling may lead to better insights that are more practical and applicable in solving the issues in visual search in TSDs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AhnW. Y.HainesN.ZhangL. (2017). Revealing neurocomputational mechanisms of reinforcement learning and decision-making with the hBayesDM package. Computational Psychiatry, 1, 24–57.
2.
AhnW. Y.KrawitzA.KimW.BusemeyerJ. R.BrownJ. W. (2013). A model-based fMRI analysis with hierarchical Bayesian parameter estimation. Decision, 1(S), 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/2325-9965.1.S.8
3.
BeckM. R.LohrenzM. C.TraftonJ. G. (2010). Measuring search efficiency in complex visual search tasks: Global and local clutter. Journal of experimental psychology: applied, 16(3), 238.
4.
CoffmanB. A.TrumboM. C.FloresR. A.GarciaC. M.Van Der MerweA. J.WassermannE. M.. . . ClarkV. P. (2012). Impact of tDCS on performance and learning of target detection: interaction with stimulus characteristics and experimental design. Neuropsychologia, 50(7), 15941602.
5.
CorbettE. A.SmithP. L. (2017). The magical number one-on-square-root-two: The double-target detection deficit in brief visual displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(7), 1376.
6.
Doyon-PoulinP.OuelletteB.RobertJ. M. (2014, July). Effects of visual clutter on pilot workload, flight performance and gaze pattern. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction in Aerospace (pp. 1–7).
7.
Doyon-PoulinP.RobertJ. M.OuelletteB. (2012, October). Review of visual clutter and its effects on pilot performance: A new look at past research. In2012 IEEE/AIAA 31st Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC) (pp. 2D1-1). IEEE.
8.
KimS. H.LeeJ. H.ParkD.LeeY.YunM. H. (2019, November). Effects of Visual Complexity Levels and Information Decluttering Methods for Cockpit Displays on Human Search Performance. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 63, No. 1, pp. 96–100). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
9.
LazaroM. J.KangY.YunM. H.KimS. (2021). The Effects of Visual Complexity and Decluttering Methods on Visual Search and Target Detection in Cockpit Displays. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 1 -13. DOI: 10.1080/10447318.2021.1890491
10.
LercheV.VossA. (2020). When accuracy rates and mean response times lead to false conclusions: A simulation study based on the diffusion model. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 16, 107–119.
11.
LlerasA.WangZ.NgG. J. P.BallewK.XuJ.BuettiS. (2020). A target contrast signal theory of parallel processing in goal-directed search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 1–32.
12.
MoacdiehN.SarterN. (2015). Display clutter: A review of definitions and measurement techniques. Human factors, 57(1), 61–100.
13.
MoacdiehN. M.SarterN. (2017). The effects of data density, display organization, and stress on search performance: An eye tracking study of clutter. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 47(6), 886–895.
14.
PalmerJ.WrightR. (1998). Attentional effects in visual search: Relating search accuracy and search time. Visual attention, 8, 348–388.
15.
Pedersen, M.L., Frank, M.J. Simultaneous Hierarchical Bayesian Parameter Estimation for Reinforcement Learning and Drift Diffusion Models: a Tutorial and Links to Neural Data. Comput Brain Behav 3, 458–471 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42113-020-00084-w
16.
RatcliffR.McKoonG. (2008). The diffusion decision model: theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural computation, 20(4), 873–922.
17.
RatcliffR.SmithP. L.BrownS. D.McKoonG. (2016). Diffusion decision model: Current issues and history. Trends in cognitive sciences, 20(4), 260–281.
18.
RosenholtzR.LiY.MansfieldJ.JinZ. (2005, April). Feature congestion: a measure of display clutter. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 761–770).
19.
RosenholtzR.LiY.NakanoL. (2007). Measuring visual clutter. Journal of vision, 7(2), 17–17.
20.
St JohnM.ManesD. I.SmallmanH. S.FeherB.MorrisonJ. G. (2004). An intelligent threat assessment tool for decluttering naval air defense displays.
21.
St. JohnM.SmallmanH. S.ManesD. I.FeherB. A.MorrisonJ. G. (2005). Heuristic automation for decluttering tactical displays. Human Factors, 47(3), 509–525.
22.
Van ZandtT.TownsendJ. T. (1993). Self-terminating versus exhaustive processes in rapid visual and memory search: An evaluative review. Perception & Psychophysics, 53(5), 563–580.
23.
WieckiT. V.SoferI.FrankM. J. (2013). HDDM: Hierarchical Bayesian estimation of the drift-diffusion model in Python. Frontiers in neuroinformatics, 7, 14.
24.
YehM.WickensC. D. (2001). Display signaling in augmented reality: Effects of cue reliability and image realism on attention allocation and trust calibration. Human Factors, 43(3), 355–365.
