In 2 experiments, U.S. Army soldiers viewed computer-generated displays that presented battlefield information from 3 different frames of reference: a 2D plan view display (with contour lines), a 3D exocentric perspective display, and an interactive 3D immersed display. In Experiment 1, soldiers made geographical judgments. The results suggested that both 3D displays suffered from ambiguity of distance estimates but that the 3D immersed display was most accurate for judging whether a location is directly visible from another. In Experiment 2, the 3D exocentric display was compared with a 3D immersed view, coupled with a small 2D inset map, in a more continuous battlefield scenario in which judgments of enemy activity were made. The findings of 3D ambiguity were replicated from Experiment 1. The accuracy of judgments of enemy activity suffered with the immersed display when information necessary to answer correctly did not appear in the initial forward view and required panning to acquire, reflecting the cognitive demands of integration across different views. This display also hindered soldiers' ability to report changes in enemy activity from one scene to the next. The results of this research will help to provide guidelines for the appropriate choice of computer display technology to assist in designing battlefield visualization aids. Caution should be exercised in choosing immersive viewpoints.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andre, A. D., & Wickens, C. D. (1995). When users want what's not best for them: A review of performance-preference dissociations. Ergonomics in Design, 3(4), 10–13.
2.
Aretz, A. J. (1991). The design of electronic map displays. Human Factors, 33, 85–101.
3.
Banks, R., Wickens, C. D., & Hah, S. (1998). Commander's display of terrain information: Manipulations of display dimensionality and frame of reference to support battlefield visualization. In Proceedings of the 2nd Annual FedLab Symposium: Advanced displays and interactive displays (pp. 69–73). College Park, MD: U.S. Army Research Federated Laboratory Consortium.
4.
Barfield, W., Rosenberg, C., & Furness, T. A. I. (1995). Situation awareness as a function of frame of reference, computer-graphics eyepoint elevation, and geometric field of view. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 5, 233–256.
5.
Bornstein, B. H., & Zickafoose, D. J. (1999). I know it. I saw it: The stability of the confidence-accuracy relationship across domains. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 76–88.
6.
Drascic, D., & Milgram, P. (1996). Perceptual issues in augmented reality. In M. T. Bolas, S. S. Fisher, & J. O. Merritt (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Society for Optical Engineers (SPIE): Stereoscopic displays and virtual reality systems III (pp. 123–134). Bellingham, WA: SPIE.
7.
Ellis, S. R., Kaiser, M., & Grunwald, A. J. (1993). Pictorial communication in virtual and real environments (2nd ed.). London: Taylor & Francis.
8.
Ellis, S. R., McGreevy, M. W., & Hitchcock, R. J. (1987). Perspective traffic display format and airline pilot traffic avoidance. Human Factors, 29, 371–382.
9.
Gregory, R. L. (1977). Eye and brain.London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
10.
Hickox, J. C., & Wickens, C. D. (1999). Effects of elevation angle disparity, complexity and feature type on relating out-of-cockpit view to an electronic cartographic map. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 284–301.
11.
Hogarth, R. M., & Einhorn, H. (1992). Order effects in belief updating: The belief adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 1–55.
12.
McCormick, E., Wickens, C. D., Banks, R., & Yeh, M. (1998). Frame of reference effects on scientific visualization subtasks. Human Factors, 40, 443–451.
13.
McGreevy, M. W., & Ellis, S. R. (1986). The effect of perspective geometry on judged direction in spatial information instruments. Human Factors, 28, 439–456.
14.
Melzer, J. E., & Moffitt, K. (1997). Head mounted displays: Designing for the user.New York: McGraw-Hill.
15.
Merwin, D., O'Brien, J. V., & Wickens, C. D. (1997). Perspective and coplanar representation of air traffic: Implications for conflict and weather avoidance. In Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 362–367). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Applied Mechanics, and Aviation.
16.
Olmos, O., Liang, C. C., & Wickens, C. D. (1997). Electronic map evaluation in simulated visual meteorological conditions. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 7, 37–66.
17.
Olmos, O., Wickens, C. D., & Chudy, A. W. (2000d). Tactical displays for combat awareness. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 10, 247–271.
18.
Peters, M. (1995). Revised Vandenberg and Kuse mental rotation tests: Forms MRT-A to MRT-D (Tech. Report). Guelph, Ontario, Canada: University of Guelph, Department of Psychology.
19.
Ray, C. K.w (1994). A new way to see terrain. Military Review, 2, 81–89.
20.
Ruddle, R. A., Payne, S. T., & Jones, D. M. (1999). The effects of maps on navigation and search strategies in very large scale virtual environments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 54–75.
21.
Schreiber, B. T., Wickens, C. D., Renner, G. J., Alton, J., & Hickox, J. C. (1998). Navigational checking using 3D maps: The influence of elevation angle, azimuth, and foreshortening. Human Factors, 40, 209–223.
22.
Thomas, L. C., Wickens, C. D., & Merlo, J. (1999). Immersion and battlefield visualization: Frame of reference effects on navigation tasks and cognitive tunneling (Tech. Report No. ARL-99--3/FED-LAB-99-2). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois, Institute of Aviation, Aviation Research Lab.
23.
Tolcott, M. A., Marvin, F. F., & Bresnick, T. A. (1989). The confirmation bias in military situation assessment (Tech. Report). Reston, VA: Decision Sciences Consortium.
24.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.
25.
Vandenberg, S. G., & Kuse, A. R. (1978). Mental rotations, a group test of three-dimensional spatial visualization. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47, 599–604.
26.
Vicente, K. J., Hayes, B. C., & Williges, R. C. (1987). Assaying and isolating individual differences in searching a hierarchical file system. Human Factors, 29, 349–359.
27.
Vincow, M. A., & Wickens, C. D. (1998). Frame of reference and navigation through document visualizations: Flying through information space. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting (pp. 511–515). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
28.
Wickens, C. D. (1999). Frames of reference for navigation. In D. Gopher & A. Koriat (Eds.), Attention and performance (Vol. 16, pp. 113–144) Orlando, FL: Academic.
29.
Wickens, C. D. (2000). Human factors issues in vector moving map displays. Journal of Navigation, 53, 1–14.
30.
Wickens, C. D., & Hollands, J. (2000). Engineering psychology and human performance (3rd ed.). New York: Addison, Wesley, Longman.
31.
Wickens, C. D., Liang, C. C., Prevett, T., & Olmos, O. (1996). Electronic maps for terminal area navigation: Effects of frame of reference and dimensionality. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 6, 241–271.
32.
Wickens, C. D., Merwin, D. H., & Lin, E. (1994). Implications of graphics enhancements for the visualization of scientific data: Dimensional integrality, stereopsis, motion, and mesh. Human Factors, 36, 44–61.
33.
Wickens, C. D., & Prevett, T. (1995). Exploring the dimensions of egocentricity in aircraft navigation displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1, 110–135.
34.
Williams, H., Hutchinson, S., & Wickens, C. D. (1996). A comparison of methods for promoting geographic knowledge in simulated aircraft navigation. Human Factors, 38, 50–64.
35.
Woods, D. D. (1984). Visual momentum: A concept to improve the cognitive coupling of person and computer. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 21, 229–244.
36.
Yeh, M., Wickens, C. D., & Seagull, F. J. (1999). Target cueing in visual search: The effects of conformality and display location on the allocation of visual attention. Human Factors, 21, 524–542.
37.
Yu, P. C., & Andre, A. D. (1999). A simulator evaluation of four perspective scene viewpoints. In Proceedings of the Silicon Valley Ergonomics Conference and Exposition-ErgoCon 99 (pp. 233–242). San Jose, CA: San Jose State University.
