Twenty-eight empirical studies provided data for four meta-analyses on visual detection and discrimination inflight-decktypical tasks, at varying degrees of eccentricity relative to a central point of interest. The data revealed a general trend for poorer performance at increasing eccentricity, and greater degradation when eye movements were prevented. The data failed to reveal a systematic discontinuity of performance degradation beyond 15°, which defines the typical “primary field of view” in the cockpit, but they reveal a 14% miss rate and 21% discrimination error rate at that location. The results also point to the profound influence of moderator variables of expectancy and salience on eccentric visual performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
[A] AcostaE.DickmanJ. D (1984). Information processing in the visual Periphery: influence of mental workload. Proc. of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, 28(8), 737-739.
2.
[B] BarfieldW.BunL. K.KraftC. (1989). The influence of eccentricity, contrast, and angular extent on the perception of peripheral apparent motion. Proc. of the HFES Annual Meeting, 33(20), 1445-1449.
3.
BellenkesA. H.WickensC. D.KramerA. F. (1997). Visual scanning and pilot expertise. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 68(7), 569-79.
4.
[C] CrundallD.UnderwoodG.ChapmanP. (1999). Driving experience and the functional field of view. Perception-London, 28(9), 1075-1088.
5.
[D] CrundallD.UnderwoodG.ChapmanP. (2002). Attending to the peripheral world while driving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16(4), 459-475.
6.
Department of Defense. (2012). Design criteria standard: Human engineering (MIL-STD-1472G). Wash., DC: Dept of Defense.
7.
Federal Aviation Administration. (1993). Airworthiness and Operational Approval of Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS II) and Mode S Transponders (AC 20-131A). Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration.
8.
Federal Aviation Administration. (2011). Installation of Electronic Display in Part 23 Airplanes (AC 23.1311-1C). Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration.
9.
GreenD. M.SwetsJ. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. Huntington, NY: Robert E. Krieger Pub. Co.
[F] ImbertJ. P.HodgettsH. M.PariseR.VachonF.DehaisF.TremblayS. (2014). Attentional costs and failures in air traffic control notifications. Ergonomics, 57(12), 1817-1832.
12.
[G] JenkinsS.E. (1979). Size and luminance discrimination in the peripheral visual field (MRL-R-760). Melbourne, Australia: Dept of Defence, Defence Science and Technology Organisation, Material Research Laboratories.
13.
[H] JohnstonJ. C.RuthruffE.LienM-C. (2015). Visual information processing from multiple displays. Human Factors, 57(2), 276-297.
14.
[I] KooiF. L.MoschM. (2006). Peripheral motion displays. Proc. of the HFES Annual Meeting, 50(16), 1604-1608.
15.
[J] MayeurA.BrémondR.BastienJ. C. (2008). Effect of task and eccentricity of the target on detection thresholds in mesopic vision. Human Factors, 50(4), 712-721.
16.
[K] McKeeS. P.NakayamaK. (1984). The detection of motion in the peripheral visual field. Vision Research, 24(1), 25-32.
17.
[L] MurataA. (2004). Foveal task complexity and visual funneling. Human Factors, 46(1), 135-141.
18.
[M] NikolicM. I.SarterN. B. (2001). Peripheral visual feedback. Human Factors, 43(1), 30-38.
19.
[N] NikolicM. I.OrrJ. M.SarterN. B. (2004). Why pilots miss the green box. Intl Journal of Av. Psychology, 14(1), 39-52.
20.
[O] ParkG. D.ReedC. L. (2010). Distribution of peripheral vision for a driving simulator functional field of view task. Proc. of the HFES Annual Meeting, 54(19), 1526-1530.
21.
RensinkR. A. (2002). Change detection. Annual review of psychology, 53(1), 245-277.
22.
SandersA. F.HoutmansM. J. M. (1984). The functional visual field revisited. In van DoornA.J.van de GrindW.A.KoenderinkJ.1. (Eds.), Limits in perception (pp. 359-380). Utrecht, Netherlands: VNU Science.
23.
SarterN. B.MumawR. J.WickensC. D. (2007). Pilots’ monitoring strategies and performance on automated flight decks. Human Factors, 49(3), 347-357.
24.
[P] SchonsV.WickensC. (1993). Visual separation and information access in aircraft display layout (Tech. Rep. No. ARL-93-7/NASA-A3I-93-1). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois, Aviation Research Laboratory.
25.
[Q] SteelmanK. S.McCarleyJ. S.WickensC. D. (2013). Great expectations. Jrnl. of Exp. Psych.: Applied, 19(4), 403-419.
26.
StelzerE. M.WickensC. D. (2006). Pilots strategically compensate for display enlargements in surveillance and flight control tasks. Human Factors, 48(1), 166-181.
27.
[R] StrayerD. L.CooperJ. M.DrewsF. A. (2004). What do drivers fail to see when conversing on a cell phone?Proc. of the HFES Annual Meeting, 48(19), 2213-2217.
28.
WickensC. D. (2015). Noticing events in the visual workplace. In HoffmanR. R.HancockP. A. M. W., et al., (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Applied Perception Research (pp. 749-768). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29.
[S] WickensC. D.HooeyB. L.GoreB. F.SebokA.KoenickeC. S. (2009). Identifying black swans in NextGen. Human Factors, 51(5), 638-651.
30.
[T] WilliamsL. J. (1982). Cognitive load and the functional field of view. Human Factors, 24(6), 683-692.
31.
[U] WilliamsL. J. (1985). Tunnel vision induced by a foveal load manipulation. Human Factors, 27(2), 221-227.
32.
[V] WilliamsL. J.MonacoW. A.MathewsR. (1984). The effects of a foveal cognitive load manipulation on the peripheral processing abilities of naval aviators. Proc. of the Tri-Service Aeromedical Research Panel Fall Technical Meeting, 160-168. Pensacola, FL: Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory.
33.
[W] WolfeJ. M.O’NeillP.BennettS. C. (1998). Why are there eccentricity effects in visual search? Visual and attentional hypotheses. Perception & Psychophysics, 60(1), 140-156.
34.
[X] ZwahlenH. T.SchnellT. (1996). Conspicuity advantage of fluorescent color targets in the field. Proc. of the HFES Annual Meeting, 40(18), 915-918.
