In this study a multiple-view two-dimensional (2D) display was compared with a three-dimensional (3D) monocular display and a 3D stereoscopic display using a simulated telerobotic task. As visual aids, three new types of visual enhancement cues were provided and evaluated for each display type. The results showed that the multiple-view 2D display was superior to the 3D monocular and the 3D stereoscopic display in the absence of the visual enhancement depth cues. When participants were provided with the proposed visual enhancement cues, the stereoscopic and monocular displays became equivalent to the multiple-view 2D display. Actual or potential applications of this study include the design of visual displays for teleoperation systems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aretz, A. J. (1991). The design of electronic map displays. Human Factors, 33, 85–101.
2.
Barfield, W., & Rosenberg, C. (1995). Judgments of azimuth and elevation as a function of monoscopic and binocular depth cues using a perspective display. Human Factors, 37, 173–181.
3.
Bemis, S. V., Leeds, J. L., & Winer, E. A. (1988). Operator performance as a function of type of display: Conventional versus perspective. Human Factors, 30, 163–169.
4.
DeLucia, P. R. (1995). Effects of pictorial relative size and ground-intercept information on judgments about potential collisions in perspective displays. Human Factors, 37, 528–538.
5.
Ellis, S. R. (1993). Pictorial communication: Pictures and the synthetic universe. In R. Ellis, M. Kaiser, & J. Grunwald (Eds.), Pictorial communication in virtual and real environments (2nd ed., pp. 265–282). London: Taylor & Francis.
6.
Ellis, S. R., McGreevy, M. W., & Hitchcock, R. J. (1987). Perspective traffic display format and airline pilot traffic avoidance. Human Factors, 29, 371–382.
7.
Endsley, M. R. (1995). Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37, 65–84.
8.
Gregory, R. L. (1977). Eye and brain.London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
9.
Haskell, I. D., & Wickens, C. D. (1993). A theoretical and empirical comparison of two- and three-dimensional displays for aviation. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 87–109.
10.
Hollands, J. G., Pierce, B. J., & Magee, L. E.(1998). Displaying information in two and three dimensions. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 2, 307–320.
11.
Kim, W. S., Ellis, S. R., Tyler, M. E., Hannaford, B., & Stark, L. W. (1987). Quantitative evaluation of perspective and stereoscopic displays in three-axis manual tracking tasks. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 17, 61–71.
12.
Kim, W. S., Tendick, F., & Stark, L. (1987). Visual enhancements in pick-and-place tasks: Human operators controlling a simulated cylindrical manipulator. IEEE Journal of Robotics and Automation, RA-3, 418–425.
13.
Kim, W. S., Tendick, F., & Stark, L. (1993). Visual enhancements in pick-and-place tasks: Human operators controlling a simulated cylindrical manipulator. In R. Ellis, M. Kaiser, & J. Grunwald (Eds.), Pictorial communication in virtual and real environments (2nd ed., pp. 265–282). London: Taylor & Francis.
14.
Massimino, M. J., & Sheridan, T. B. (1994). Teleoperator performance with varying force and visual feedback. Human Factors, 36, 145–157.
15.
McCormick, E. P., Wickens, C. D., Banks, R., & Yeh, M. (1998). Frame of reference effects on scientific visualization subtasks. Human Factors, 40, 443–451.
16.
McLean, G. F., Prescott, B., & Podhorodeski, R. (1994). Teleoperated system performance evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 24, 796–803.
17.
Meserth, T. A., & Hollands, J. G. (1999). Comparing 2D and 3D displays for trend estimation: The effects of display augmention. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 43rd Annual Meeting (pp. 1308–1312). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
18.
Prevett, T. T., & Wickens, C. D. (1994). Perspective displays and frame of reference: Their independence to realize performance advantages over planar displays in terminal area navigational task (ARL-94--8/NASA-94--3). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Aviation Research Laboratory.
19.
SAS Institute, Inc. (1989). SAS/STAT® user's guide, version 6 (4th ed., Vol. 2). Cary, NC: Author.
20.
Sheridan, T. B. (1992). Telerobotics, automation, and human supervisory control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
Sollenberger, R. J., & Milgram, P. (1993). Effects of stereoscopic and rotational displays in a three-dimensional path-tracing task. Human Factors, 35, 483–501.
22.
Vertut, J., & Coiffet, P. (1986). Robot technology, Vol. 3A: Teleoperation and robotics: Evolution and development.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
23.
Wickens, C. D., Liang, C.-C., Prevett, T. T., & Olmos, O. (1994). Egocentric and exocentric displays for terminal area navigation (ARL-94-1/NASA-94-1). Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois Aviation Research Laboratory.
24.
Wickens, C. D., Liang, C.-C., Prevett, T. 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.
25.
Wickens, C. D., Merwin, D. H., & Lin, E. L. (1994). Implication of graphics enhancements for the visualization of scientific data: Dimensional integrality, stereopsis, motion, and mesh. Human Factors, 36, 44–61.
26.
Wierwille, W. W., & Casali, J. G. (1983). A validated rating scale for global mental workload measurement applications. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 27th Annual Meeting (pp. 129–133). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
27.
Winer, B. J., Brown, D. R., & Michels, K. M. (1991). Statistical principles in experimental design (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
28.
Woods, D. D., & Roth, E. M. (1984). Visual momentum: A concept to improve the cognitive coupling of person and computer. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 21, 229–244.
29.
Yeh, M. (1992). Spatial judgments with monoscopic and stereoscopic presentation of perspective displays. Human Factors, 34, 583–600.
