We describe two experiments that examine 3D pathway displays in a head-up location for aircraft landing and taxi. We address both guidance performance and pilot strategies in dividing, focusing, and allocating attention between flight path information and event monitoring. In Experiment 1 the 3D pathway head-up display (HUD) was compared with a conventional 2D HUD. The former was found to produce better guidance, with few costs to event detection. Some evidence was provided that attentional tunneling of the pathway HUD inhibits the detection of unexpected traffic events. In Experiment 2, the pathway display was compared in a head-up versus a head-down location. Excellent guidance was achieved in both locations. A slight HUD cost for vertical tracking in the air was offset by a HUD benefit for event detection and for lateral tracking during taxi (i.e., on the ground). The results of both experiments are interpreted within the framework of object- and space-based theories of visual attention and point to the conclusion that pathway HUDs combine the independent advantages of pathways and HUDs, particularly during ground operations. Actual or potential applications include understanding the costs and benefits of positioning a 3D pathway display
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Duncan, J. (1984). Selective attention and the organization of visual information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 501–517.
2.
Fadden, S. (1999). Supporting pilot performance with an integrated flight path head-up display. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois.
3.
Fadden, S., Ververs, P., & Wickens, C. D. (1998). Costs and benefits of head-up display use: A meta-analytic approach. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting (pp. 16–20). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
4.
Fadden, S., & Wickens, C. D. (1997). Maximizing traffic awareness with a head-up flight path highway display (Technical Report ARL-97-1/FAA-97-1). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois Institute of Aviation, Aviation Research Laboratory.
5.
Fischer, E., Haines, R. F., & Price, T. A. (1980). Cognitive issues in head-up displays (NASA Technical Paper 1711). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.
6.
Flemisch, F. O., & Onken, R. (2000). Detecting usability problems with eye tracking in airborne battle management support. Paper presented at the NATO RTO HFM Symposium on Usability of Information in Battle Management Operations, Oslo, Norway.
7.
Flohr, E., & Huisman, H. (1997). Perspective primary flight displays in the 4D ATM environment. In Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 882–886). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Applied Mechanics, and Aviation.
8.
Foyle, D. C., Andre, A. D., McCann, R. S., Wenzel, E. M., Begault, D. R., & Battiste, V. (1996). Taxiway navigation and situation awareness (T-NASA) system: Problem, design philosophy, and description of an integrated display suite for low-visibility airport surface operations (SAE Paper 965551). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
9.
Hammer, J. M. (1999). Human factors of functionality and intelligent avionics. In D. Garland, J. Wise, & V. D. Hopkin (Eds.), Handbook of human factors in aviation (pp. 549–565). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
10.
Haskell, I. D., & Wickens, C. D. (1993). Two- and three-dimensional displays for aviation: A theoretical and empirical comparison. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 87–109.
11.
Hofer, E. F., Braune, R. J., Boucek, G. P., & Pfaff, T. A. (2000). Attention switching between near and far domains: An exploratory study of pilots' attention switching with head-up and head-down tactical displays in simulated flight operations (D6-36668). Seattle: Boeing Commercial Airplane Co.
12.
Jensen, R. S. (1981). Prediction and quickening in perspective displays for curved landing approaches. Human Factors, 23, 355–363.
13.
Kramer, A. F., & Jacobson, A. (1991). Perceptual organization and focused attention: The role of objects and proximity in visual processing. Perception & Psychophysics, 50, 267–284.
14.
Kubbat, W. J., Lenhart, P. M., & von Viebahn, H. (1998). 4D flight guidance displays, a gate to gate solution. Paper presented at the 17th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, Seattle, WA.
15.
Lasswell, J. W., & Wickens, C. D. (1995). The effects of display location and dimensionality on taxi-way navigation (Technical Report ARL-95-5/NASA-95-2). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois Institute of Aviation, Aviation Research Laboratory.
16.
Levy, J. L., Foyle, D. C., & McCann, R. S. (1998). Performance benefits with scene-linked HUD symbology: An attention phenomenon? In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meetin g (pp. 11–15). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
17.
Lintern, G., Roscoe, S. N., & Sivier, J. E. (1990). Display principles, control dynamics, and environmental factors in pilot training and transfer. Human Factors, 32, 299–317.
18.
Martin-Emerson, R., & Wickens, C. D. (1997). Superimposition, symbology, visual attention, and the head-up display. Human Factors, 39, 581–601.
19.
McCann, R. S., Foyle, D. C., Andre, A. D., & Battiste, V. (1996). Advanced navigation aids in the flight deck: Effects on ground taxi performance under low visibility conditions (SAE Paper 965552). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
20.
McClellan, J. M. (1999, May). Heads up! The flight dynamics HGS guides Falcon 2000 pilots to category IIIa landings with visibility as low as 700 feet. Flying, pp. 68--73.
21.
Neisser, U., & Becklen, R. (1975). Selective looking: Attention to visually specified events. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 480–494.
22.
Newman, R. L. (1995). Head-up displays: Designing the way ahead.Brookfield, VT: Avery.
23.
Olmos, O., Wickens, C. D., & Chudy, A. (2000). Tactical displays for combat awareness: An examination of dimensionality and frame of reference concepts and the application of cognitive engineering. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 10, 247–271.
24.
Reising, J. M., Liggett, K. K., Solz, T. J., & Hartsock, D. C. (1995). A comparison of two head-up display formats used to fly curved instrument approaches. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting (pp. 1–5). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
25.
Sachs, G., Dobler, K., & Hermle, P. (1998). Synthetic vision flight tests for curved approach and landing. Paper presented at the 17th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, Seattle, WA.
26.
Scott, W. B. (1999, February 1). Automatic GCAS: “You can't fly any lower.”Aviation Week & Space Technology, pp. 76–80.
27.
Theunissen, E. (1997). Integrated design of a man-machine interface for 4D navigation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands.
28.
Tufano, D. R. (1997). Automotive HUDs: The overlooked safety issues. Human Factors, 39, 303–311.
29.
Ververs, P. M., & Wickens, C. D. (1998a). Head-up displays: Effects of clutter, display intensity, and display location on pilot performance. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8, 377–403.
30.
Ververs, P. M., & Wickens, C. D. (1998b). Conformal flight path symbology for head-up displays: Defining the distribution of visual attention in three-dimensional space (Technical Report ARL-98-5/NASA-98-1). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois Institute of Aviation, Aviation Research Laboratory.
31.
von Viebahn, H. (1998). The 4D-display. Paper presented at the 17th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, Seattle, WA.
32.
Weintraub, D. J., & Ensing, M. J. (1992). Human factors issues in head-up display design: The book of HUD (CSERIAC State of the Art Report 92-2). Dayton, OH: Crew System Ergonomics Information Analysis Center.
33.
Wickens, C. D. (1986). The effects of control dynamics on performance. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and performance, Vol. II (pp. 39-1–39-60). New York: Wiley.
34.
Wickens, C. D. (1997). Attentional issues in head-up displays. In D. Harris (Ed.), Engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics: Transportation systems, Vol. 1 (pp. 3–21). Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
35.
Wickens, C. D., Haskell, I., & Harte, K. (1989). Ergonomic design for perspective flight-path displays. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 9(4), 3–8.
36.
Wickens, C. D., & Long, J. (1995). Object- vs. space-based models of visual attention: Implications for the design of head-up displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1(3), 179–194.
37.
Wickens, C. D., & Prevett, T. (1995). Exploring the dimensions of egocentricity in aircraft navigation displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1, 110–135.
38.
Wilckens, V. (1973). Improvements in pilot/aircraft integration by advanced contact analog displays. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference on Manual Control (pp. 175–192). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
