Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Tactile displays have been proposed as a multisensory interface technology that can relieve the typically overburdened visual channel of operators. This study compared the ability of operators, while simultaneously completing a tracking task, to detect and identify system faults in a monitoring task with three types of alert cues: tactile, visual, and redundant tactile and visual. For the tactile display, the location and vibration pulse speed of two tactors were mapped to four system faults. Response time was significantly faster with the tactile cue. Also, the tactile cue resulted in less interference with the concurrent tracking task, while not degrading vigilance to an additional concurrent visual monitoring task. These results suggest that further tactile cue research is warranted to examine potential applications in complex systems, such as control stations for unmanned aerial vehicles.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chapman

C.E.

Bushnell

M.C.

Miron

Duncan

G.H.

Lund

J.P.

(1987). Sensory perception during movement in man. Experimental Brain Research, 68, 516–524.

Comstock

J.R.

Arnegard

R.J.

(1992). The Multi-Attribute Task Battery for Human Operator Workload and Strategic Behavior Research. NASA Technical Memorandum 104174.

Craig

J.C.

Sherrick

C.E.

(1982). Dynamic tactile displays. In Schiff

Foulke

(Eds.), Tactual perception: A sourcebook (pp. 210–233), Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Endsley

M.R.

(1988). Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 32nd Annual Meeting, (pp. 97–101).

Nikolic

M.I.

Sklar

A.E.

Sarter

N.B.

(1998). Multisensory feedback in support of pilot-automation coordination: The case of uncommanded mode transitions. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting, (pp. 239–243).

Riggs

L.A.

(1971). Vision. In. Kling

J.W.

Riggs

L.A.

(Eds.), Woodworth & Schlosberg's Experimental Psychology (3rd Edition), New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Sklar

A.E.

Salter

N. B.

(1999). Good vibrations: Tactile feedback in support of attention allocation & human-automation coordination in event-driven domains. Human Factors, 41(4) 543–52.

Vidulich

M.A.

Ward

F.G.

Schueren

(1991). Using the subjective workload dominance (SWORD) technique for projective workload assessment. Human Factors, 33 (6), 677–691.

Welch

R.B.

Warren

D.H.

(1986). Intersensory interactions. In Boff

Kaufman

Thomas

(Eds.), Handbook of Perception and Human.

10.

Performance, Vol. 1, New York: Wiley, Chapter 25-1-25-36.

11.

Wickens

C.D.

(1984). Processing resources in attention. In Parasuraman

David

(Eds.), Varieties of Attention (pp. 63–101), FL: Academic Press.

12.

Wickens

C.D.

(1992). Engineering Psychology and Human Performance (2nd Edition). New York: Harper Collins.

13.

Wickens

C.D.

Sandry

Vidulich

(1983). Compatibility and resource competition between modalities of input, control processing and output: Testing a model of complex performance. Human Factors, 25 (2), 227–248.

Utilty of a Tactile Display for Cueing Faults

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References