Augmented reality head-mounted displays (AR-HMDs) can present information at the center field of view (FOV) to 360° around the user. Deciding where to place virtual content when using an AR-HMD could directly impact the effort required to access information for different tasks. The current paradigm investigated the cost of information access effort for two different tasks presented on a virtual display using an AR-HMD. Participants made comparison judgments for two types of tasks (focused attention and computation integration) based on information presented at increasing lateral distances from the left side of the virtual display. Results showed no loss in performance as predicted by the Information Access Effort function. However, results show that evoking head movements played a significant role in restoring and preserving accuracy at greater visual eccentricities without hindering response time.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BallardD. H.HayhoeM. M.PelzJ. B. (1995). Memory Representations in Natural Tasks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(1), 66-80. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1995.7.1.66
2.
DraschkowD.KallmayerM.NobreA. C. (2021). When Natural Behavior Engages Working Memory. Current Biology, 31 (4), 869-874.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/Lcub.2020.11.013
3.
FaddenS.WickensC. D.VerversP. (2000). Costs and Benefits of Head up Displays: An Attentional Perspective and a Meta Analysis. SAE Technical Paper 2000-01-5542. https://doi.org/10.4271/2000-01-5542
4.
GrayW.FuW. T. (2004). Soft constraints in interactive behavior: The case of ignoring perfect knowledge in-the-world for imperfect knowledge in-the-head. Cognitive Science, 28(3), 359-382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsci.2003.12.001
5.
HoutmansM. J. M.SandersA. F. (1984). Perception of signals presented in the periphery of the visual field. ActaPsychologica, 55(2), 143-155. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(84)90064-7
6.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
7.
KimK. H.ReedM. P.MartinB. J. (2010). A model of head movement contribution for gaze transitions. Ergonomics, 53(4), 447-457. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130903483713
8.
KroftP.WickensC. D. (2003). Displaying multi-domain graphical database information: An evaluation of scanning, clutter, display size, and user interactivity. Information Design Journal, 11(1), 44-52. https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.11.1.06kro
9.
LargeD. R.CrundallE.BurnettG.HarveyC.KonstantopoulosP. (2016). Driving without wings: The effect of different digital mirror locations on the visual behaviour, performance and opinions of drivers. Applied Ergonomics, 55, 138-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.02.003
10.
LuF.DavariS.LisleL.LiY.BowmanD. A. (2020). Glanceable AR: Evaluating Information Access Methods for Head-Worn Augmented Reality. 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), 930-939. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR46266.2020.00113
11.
Martin-EmersonR.WickensC. D. (1992). The Vertical Visual Field and Implications for the Head-Up Display. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, 36(18), 1408-1412. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193129203601810
12.
MurataA.DoiT.KarwowskiW. (2018). Enhanced performance for in-vehicle display placed around back mirror by means of tactile warning. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 58, 605-618. https://doi.org/10.1016/Ltrf.2018.07.003
13.
MurataA.KohnoY. (2018). Effectiveness of replacement of automotive side mirrors by in-vehicle LCD-Effect of location and size of LCD on safety and efficiency-. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 66, 177-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/Lergon.2018.03.010
14.
SchonsV.WickensC.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 Laboratory.
15.
WickensC.D. (1993). Cognitive factors in display design. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 83(4), 179-201.
16.
WickensC. (2021). Attention: Theory, Principles, Models and Applications. International Journal of Human—Computer Interaction, 37(5), 403417. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1874741
17.
WickensC. D.DixonS. R.SeppeltB. (2005). Auditory Preemption versus Multiple Resources:Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 49(3), 463-466. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120504900353
18.
WickensC. D.CarswellC. M. (1995). The proximity compatibility principle: Its psychological foundation and relevance to display design. Human Factors, 37(3), 473-494. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049408
19.
WickensC.D.DixonSSeppeltB.D. (2002). In vehicle display and control task interference (Technical Report No. ARLA2-7/NASA-02-5/GM-02-1). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois, Aviation Research Laboratory.
20.
YangY.Z.WickensC.ParkT.SiahK.FongL. (2015) Effects of information access cost and accountability on medical residents’ information retrieval strategy and performance during pre-handover preparation: evidence from interview and simulation study. Human Factors, 571459-1471.
