In choosing where to present information on large displays, multiple monitors, and head-mounted displays, the potential arises to create access costs associated with placing information outside of the immediate field of view. The current experiment examined performance tradeoffs associated with increasing information access effort ranging from 16 to 128 degrees of lateral separation on a wide-angle desktop display. During a spatial integration task, participants indicated whether grid coordinate numbers shown in one location on the screen were within a designated zone on a map displayed in another location. Results showed a significant non-linear trend of head movements, a linear trend of response time, and no effect on error, when the two pieces of information were displayed at greater separation distances. These results have implications for designing visual displays, suggesting where information access effort needs to be considered when scanning for information outside of the immediate field of view.
AshbyF. G.TownsendJ. T. (1980). Decomposing the reaction time distribution: Pure insertion and selective influence revisited. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 21(2), 93–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(80)90001-2
2.
BallardD. H.HayhoeM. M.PelzJ. B. (1995). Memory representations in natural tasks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(1), 66–80. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1995.7.1.66
3.
BergerA.KieferM. (2021). Comparison of Different Response Time Outlier Exclusion Methods: A Simulation Study. Frontiers in psychology, 12, 675558. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.675558
4.
DraschkowD.KallmayerM.NobreA. C. (2021). When natural behavior engages working memory. Current Biology, 31(4), 869-874.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.Cub.2020.11.013
5.
HoutmansM. J. M.SandersA. F. (1984). Perception of signals presented in the periphery of the visual field. Acta Psychologica, 55(2), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(84)90064-7
6.
JangJ.TrickettS.SchunnC.TraftonG. (2012). Unpacking the temporal advantage of distributing complex visual display. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 70, 812-827.
7.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
8.
KimK. H.ReedM. P.MartinB. J. (2010). A model of head movement contribution for gaze transitions. Ergonomics, 53(4), 447–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130903483713
9.
LargeD. R.CrundallE.BurnettG.HarveyC.KonstantopoulosP. (2016). Driving without wings: The effect of different digital mirror locations on the visual behaviour, performance and opinions of drivers. Applied Ergonomics, 55, 138–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.02.003
10.
LuF.DavariS.LisleL.LiY.BowmanD. A. (2020). Glanceable AR: Evaluating information access methods for head-worn Augmented Reality. 2020 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR), 930–939. https://doi.org/10.1109/VR46266.2020.00113
11.
Martin-EmersonR.WickensC. D. (1992). The vertical visual field and implications for the head-up display. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, 36(18), 1408–1412. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193129203601810
12.
MurataA.DoiT.KarwowskiW. (2018). Enhanced performance for in-vehicle display placed around back mirror by means of tactile warning. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 58, 605–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.07.003
13.
MurataA.KohnoY. (2018). Effectiveness of replacement of automotive side mirrors by in-vehicle LCD–Effect of location and size of LCD on safety and efficiency–. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 66, 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2018.03.010
14.
SchonsV.WickensC.D. (1993). Visual separation and information access in aircraft display layout (Technical Report ARL-93-7/NASA-A3I-93-1). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois, Aviation Research Laboratory.
15.
WardenA.C.WickensC.D.CleggB.A. (2022). Information access effort: The role of head movements for information presented at increasing eccentricity on flat panel and head-mounted displays
16.
WickensC.D. (2007). Attention to attention and its applications: A concluding view. In KramerA. F.WiegmannD. A.KirlikA. (Eds.), Attention: From theory to practice. Oxford University Press.
WickensC. D.CarswellC. M. (1995). The proximity compatibility principle: Its psychological foundation and relevance to display design. Human Factors, 37(3), 473-494. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049408
19.
WickensC.D.DixonS.SeppeltB.D. (2002). In vehicle display and control task interference (Technical Report No. ARLA2-7/NASA-02-5/GM-02-1). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois, Aviation Research Laboratory.
20.
WickensC.D.SeidlerK.S. (1997). Information access in a dual-task context: Testing a model of optimal strategy selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied3(3), 196-215
21.
YangJ. X.ParkT.WickensC. D.HelanderM. G. (2014). Effects of information access cost, confidence judgment and overconfidence bias on information retrieval strategy and task performance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 58(1), 864–868. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931214581182
22.
YangY.Z.WickensC.ParkT.SiahK.FongL. (2015) Effects of information access cost and accountability on medical residents’ information retrieval strategy and performance during pre-handover preparation: evidence from interview and simulation study. Human Factors, 571459-1471.
23.
YehM.MerloJ. L.WickensC. D.BrandenburgD. L. (2003). Head up versus head down: The costs of imprecision, unreliability, and visual clutter on cue effectiveness for display signaling. Human factors, 45(3), 390-407.
