This study investigates the effect of a novel display mechanism, named “persistence display”, on visual sensitivity to changes in graphical gauges. The effectiveness of the persistence display was evaluated under different magnitudes of level changes and was compared to traditional displays that are prevalent in the process control industry. The results of this study show that persistence display increased the users' visual sensitivity such that their ability to detect changes in graphical gauges was greater compared to traditional forms of display across all level of change magnitude. Further recommendations are made to continue evaluating the effect that persistence display may have on operators training.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrenitzS. (1984). Cry Wolf: The Psychology of False Alarms. New York: Erlbaum.
2.
BurnsC. (2005). Choosing the best from the good: Displaying engineering principles. The Human Factors Society 49th Annual Meeting (pp. 1556–1560). Human Factors Society.
GreenD. M.SwetsJ. A. (1966). Signal Detection and Psychophysics. New York: John Willey and Sons, Inc.
6.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In HancockP. A.MeshkatiN., Human Mental Workload (pp. 239–250). Amsterdam: North Holland Press.
7.
HeijdenA. V. (1992). Selective Attention in Vision. New York, NY, USA: Chapman and Hall Inc.
8.
HollingworthA. (2003). Failures of Retrieval and Comparison Constrain Change Detection in Natural Scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(2), 388–403.
9.
HollingworthA. (2006). Visual memory for natural scenes: Evidence from change detection and visual search. Visual Cognition, 14, 781–807.
10.
IrwinD. E. (1992). Memory for position and identity across eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 307–317.
11.
JamiesonG. A.VicenteK. J. (2001). Ecological interface design for petrochemical applications: Supporting operator adaptation, continuous learning, and distributed, collaborative work. Computers and Chemical Engineering, 25, 1055–1074.
12.
JessaM.BurnsC. (2007). Visual sensitivities of dynamic displays. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65, 206–222.
13.
LuckS. J. (1997). The capacity of visual working memory for features and conjunctions. Nature, 390, 279–281.
14.
ParasuramanR.RileyV. (1997). Humans and Automation: Use, Misuse, Disuse, Abuse. Human Factors, 39(2), 230–253(24).
15.
PortnoyF.MilgramP.McCartneyC. J. (2008). The use of low-pass filtering to facilitate the detection of peripheral nerves for ultrasound-guided nerve block procedures. The 52nd Annual Meeting of Human Factors and Ergnomics Society. New York.
16.
PortnoyF.MilgramP. (2008). The effect of low-pass filtering on target detection in simulated ultrasound images. The 52nd Annual Meeting of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. New York.
17.
ReisingD. C.BullemerP. (2008). Improve operator situation awareness with effective design of overview displays. White Paper, ASM Consortium.
18.
ReisingD. C.SandersonP. M. (2002). Work domain analysis and sensors I: Principles and simple example. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56, 569–596.
19.
RensinkR. A. (2002). Change detection. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 245–277.
20.
TitchenerE. (1908). Lectures on the Elementary Psychology of Feeling and Attention. New York, NY, USA: The Macmillan Company.
21.
WickensC. D.HollandsJ. G. (1999). Engineering Psychology and Human Performance (3rd Edition ed.). Prentice Hall.
