The Vertical Visual Field and Implications for the Head-Up Display

Abstract

The present study evaluated dual-task performance as a function of the vertical separation between a tracking task and a discrete-response task, to provide data relevant to the positioning of aircraft head-up display (HUD) information. The data were consistent with Sanders” (1970) research on visual scanning where a nonlinear decrease in performance as a function of the horizontal separation between two displays was observed. Performance is equivalent across a range of visual angles from superimposition to 6.4° vertical separation between displays. The cost to performance is increased for moderate vertical separations (9.6° to 22.5°) where visual scanning is required. At larger separations, the performance cost increases linearly with visual angle, where head movements may begin to supplement eye movements in order to access information. The function which describes the cost of vertical separation was observed to be larger at both small and moderate visual angles when the information in the two displays required integration. The data suggest that nonconformal HUD information may be placed a few degrees down from a superimposed position without a significant performance loss.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andre

A.D.

Wickens

C.D.

(1992). Layout analysis for cockpit display systems. Proc. of the Intl. Soc. for Info. Display An. Symp. New York: Palisades Institute for Research Services.

Fischer

Haines

R.F.

Price

T.A.

(1980). Cognitive issues in head-up displays. NASA Technical Paper 1711. Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.

Larish

I.A.

Wickens

C.D.

(1991). Attention and HUDs: Flying in the dark? Proc. of the Intl. Soc. for Info. Display An. Symp. New York: Palisades Institute for Research Services.

Sanders

A.F.

(1970). Some aspects of the selective process in the functional visual field. Ergonomics, 13, 101–117.

Sanders

A.F.

Houtmans

M.J.M.

(1985). Perceptual processing modes in the functional visual field. Acta Psychologica, 58, 251–261.

Thorndyke

P.W.

(1980, December). Performance models for spatial and locational cognition (Technical Report R-2676-ONR). Washington, DC: Rand.

Weintraub

D.J.

Haines

R.F.

Randle

R.J.

(1984). The utility of head-up displays: Eye-focus vs decision times. Proc. of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.

Wickens

C.D.

(1986). The effects of control dynamics on performance. In Boff

Kaufman

Thomas

(Eds.), Handbook of Perception and Performance Vol. II (pp. 39–1/39–60). New York: Wiley and Sons.

Wickens

C.D.

(1992). Computational models of human performance. Invited Address: 1992 Symposium on Psychology in the DOD. U.S. Air Force Academy.