We examined the effect of velocity vectors on human ability to extrapolate movement of multiple moving objects. This was achieved using an identity tracking task, in which objects (line-drawings of familiar objects) first move for 5 s, after which they temporarily disappear from view. In order to examine different aspects of vector information, we compared 4 velocity vector conditions: (1) no vectors were displayed; (2) only a history trail was displayed; (3) a condition where the end of the velocity vector pointed to exactly where the objects would reappear after the masking; (4) a constant heading length was displayed. Based on recent studies on Keane and Pylyshyn (2006) and Oinonen et al. (2009), we hypothesized that the condition, where exact location information is presented, would improve performance compared to baseline. The results supported this hypothesis by indicating that history trail or directional vector do not improve performance but only complete visual information about the future location will help to anticipate movement in multiple object tracking.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BerbertA. G.KelleyC. R. (1962). Piloting nuclear submarines with controls that look into future. Electronics, XXXV (June 8, 1962).
2.
BescoR. O. (1964). Manual attitude control systems: Vol II. Display format considerations (Technical report to the NASA). Culver City, CA: Hughes Aircraft Company.
3.
ColeH. W. (1985). Understanding radar. London: Collins.
4.
EllisS.R.StarkL. (1986). Statistical dependency in visual scanning. Human Factors, 28 (4), 421–438.
5.
FargelL. C.UlbrichE. A. (1963). Predictive controllers applied to lunar landing. Instrumentation and Control Systems, 36, 130–131.
6.
GrunwaldA. J. (1981). Predictor symbology in computer-generated perspective displays. In LymanJ.BejczyA, Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference in Manual Control (NASA-JPL Pub 81–95).
7.
HartS. G.LoomisL. L. (1980). Evaluation of the potential format and content of a cockpit display of traffic information. Human Factors, 22 (5), 591–604.
8.
JensenR. S. (1981). Prediction and quickening in perspective flight displays for curved landing approaches. Human Factors, 23, 355–363.
9.
KantowitzB. H.SorkinR. S. (1983). Human factors: Understanding people-systems relationships. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
10.
KeaneB. P.PylyshynZ. W. (2006). Is motion extrapolation employed in multiple object tracking? Tracking as a low-level, non-predictive function. Cognitive Psychology, 52, 346–368.
11.
KelleyC. R. (1962). Predictor instruments look to the future. Control Engineering, 86, 86–90.
12.
KelleyC. R. (1968). Manual and automatic control. New York: Wiley.
13.
KellyJ. R. (1983). Effect of lead-aircraft ground-speed quantization on self-spacing performance using a cockpit display of traffic information. NASA TP-2194.
14.
KellyJ. R.AbbottT. S. (1984). In-trail spacing dynamics of multiple CDTI-equipped aircraft queues. NASA TM-85699. Hampton, VA: NASA Langley.
15.
KellyJ. R.WilliamsD. H. (1983). Factors affecting in-trail following using CDTI. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference on Manual Control, GeorgeFrankL., (AFWAL-TR-83–3021), pp. 485–513. U.S. Air Force.
16.
LaineM.VirtanenP. (1999). WordMill Lexical Search Program. Turku, Finland: Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Turku.
17.
McLaneR. C.WolfJ. D. (1966). Symbolic and pictorial displays for submarine control. Paper presented at the MIT-NASA Working Conference on Manual Control, Cambridge, MA, February 28–March 2, 1966.
18.
MerwinD. H.WickensC. D. (1996). Evaluation of perspective and coplanar cockpit displays of traffic information to support hazard awareness in free flight (Technical Report ARL-96–5). Savoy, IL: Aviation Research Laboratory.
19.
NolanM. S. (1998). Fundamentals of air traffic control (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole—Wadsworth.
20.
OinonenK.OksamaL.HyöNäJ. (2009). Movement extrapolation and identity-location binding for invisible objects. In submission.
21.
OksamaL.HyöNäJ. (2004). Is multiple object tracking carried out automatically by an early vision mechanism independent of higher-order cognition? An individual difference approach. Visual Cognition, 11, 631–671.
22.
OksamaL.HyöNäJ. (2008). Dynamic binding of identity and location information: A serial model of multiple identity tracking. Cognitive Psychology, 56, 237–283.
23.
PalmerE. A. (1983). Conflict resolution maneuvers during near miss encounters with cockpit traffic displays. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
24.
PalmerE. A.JagoS. J.BatyD. L.O'connorS. L. (1980). Perception of horizontal aircraft separation on a cockpit display of traffic information. Human Factors, 22 (5), 605–620.
25.
PalmerE.BatyD.O'connorS. (1979). Perception of aircraft separation with various svmbols on a cockpit display of traffic information. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference on Manual Control. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH.
SandersM. A.McCormickE. J. (1993). Human factors in engineering and design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
29.
SheridanT. B. (1966). Three models of preview control. IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, HFE-7(2), 91–102.
30.
SnodgrassJ. G.VanderwartM. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174–215.
31.
RoscoeS. N.CorlL.JensenR. S. (1981). Flight display dynamics revisited. Human Factors, 23, 341–353.
32.
WickensC. D.HaskellI.HarteK. (1989). Ergonomic design for perspective flight path displays. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 9 (4), 3–8.
33.
WilliamsD. H. (1983). Time-based self-spacing techniques using cockpit display of traffic information during approach to landing in a terminal area vectoring environment. NASA-TM-84601.
