This research compared visual (color), auditory (tone pitch), and tactile (vibration amplitude) displays of uncertainty in a threat avoidance task. Thirty participants used these displays to navigate through a simulated minefield, selecting paths that would minimize their chance of hitting a mine, while moving through the field as quickly and directly as possible. Results showed the participants in the visual condition to be the most conservative (safer but longer), while those in the auditory condition took the shortest (riskier) path. Interestingly, in terms of trial time, while all participants tended to improve their performance with respect to speed, participants in the tactile condition started out more slowly, but were similar in speed to the fastest, visual condition, by the end of the trials.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndreA. D.CutlerH. A. (1998). Displaying Uncertainty in Advanced Navigation Systems. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting, pp.31–35.
2.
BenbasatI.DexterA. S.ToddP. (1986). The Influence of Color and Graphical Information Presentation in a Managerial Decision Simulation. Human Computer Interaction, 2(1), p.65–92.
3.
BrunW.TeigenK. H. (1988). Verbal probabilities: Ambiguous, context dependent, or both?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 390–404.
4.
BrownM.NewsomeS. L.GlinertE. P. (1989). An Experiment into use of Auditory cues to Reduce Visual Workload. Proceedings of ACM CHI1989 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 339–346.
5.
ColquhounW P. (1985) Evaluation of Auditory Visual and Dual Mode Displays for Prolonged Sonar Monitoring in Repeated Sessions, Human Factors, 17, pp 425–437.
6.
CrossanA.BrewsterS. A.ReidS.MellorD. (2000). Multimodal Feedback Cues to Aid Veterinary Training Simulations. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Haptic Human-Computer Interaction, pp 45–49.
7.
FingerR.BisantzA. M. (2002). Utilizing Graphical Formats to Convey Uncertainty in a Decision Making Task. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3(1), pp. 1–25.
8.
GaverW. W.SmithR. B.O'SheaT. (1991) Effective Sounds in Complex Systems: The Arkola Simulation. In Proceedings of CHI 91 ACM Press, pp.85–90.
9.
JacobsonDan R. (1998). Navigating maps with little of no sight: An audio-tactile approach. Workshop on Content Visualization and Intermedia Representations (CVIR1998) August 15, 1998. University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
10.
JianJ. YBisantzA. M.DruryC. G. (2000) Foundations for an Empirically Determined Scale of Trust in Automated Systems. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 4(1), 53–71.
11.
KirschenbaumS. S.ArrudaJ. E. (1994). Effects of graphic and verbal probability information on command decision-making. Human Factors, 36(3), 406–418.
12.
LedermanS. J. (1974). Tactile roughness of grooved surfaces: The touching process and effects of macro- and micro-surface structure. Perception & Psychophysics, 16(2), pp. 385–395.
13.
LeeJ. D.MorayN. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operators' adaptation to automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 153–184.
14.
LodhaS. K.BeahanJ.HeppeT.JosephA.Zane-UlmanB. (1997). Muse: A Musical Data Sonification Toolkit. In Papers ICAD' 97, The Fourth International Conference on Auditory Display, November 2–5, 1997, Palo Alto, CA.
15.
McGeeM. R.OakleyI.BrewsterS. A.GrayP. D. (2000). Putting the feel in look and feel. In ACM CHI 2000 (The Hague, NL), ACM Press Addison-Wesley, pp 415–422.
16.
MuirB. M.MorayN. (1996). Trust in automation: Part II. Experimental studies of trust and human intervention in a process control simulation. Ergonomics, 39(3), 429–460.
17.
PangA. T.WittenbrinkC. M.LodhaS. K. (1997). Approaches to uncertainty visualization. Visual Computing, 13(8), 370–390.
18.
SchinzingStephanie (2001). The effect of display format and level of specificity on a decision making task. Thesis (M. S.): State University of New York at Buffalo, NY.
19.
WallstenT. (1990). The costs and benefits of vague information. In HogarthR. M. (Ed.), Insights in Decision Making, Chicago: University of Chicago, pp. 28–43.
20.
WallstenT. S.BudescuD. V. (1995). A review of human linguistic probability processing: General principles and empirical evidence. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 10(1), 43–62.
