Research on when and how to use three-dimensional (3D) perspective views on flat screens for operational tasks such as air traffic control is complex. We propose a functional distinction between tasks: those that require shape understanding versus those that require precise judgments of relative position. The distortions inherent in 3D displays hamper judging relative positions, whereas the integration of dimensions in 3D displays facilitates shape understanding. We confirmed these hypotheses with two initial experiments involving simple block shapes. The shape-understanding tasks were identification or mental rotation. The relative-position tasks were locating shadows and determining directions and distances between objects. We then extended the results to four experiments involving complex natural terrain. We compare our distinction with the integral/separable task distinction of Haskel and Wickens (1993). Applications for this research include displays for air traffic control, geoplots for military command and control, and potentially, any display of 3D information.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andre, A. D., & Wickens, C. D. (1995, October). When users want what's not best for them. Ergonomics in Design, pp. 10--14.
2.
Andre, A. D., Wickens, C. D., Moorman, L., & Boschelli, M. M. (1991). Display formatting techniques for improving situation awareness in aircraft cockpit. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1, 205–218.
3.
Aretz, A. J. (1991). The design of electronic map displays. Human Factors, 33, 85–101.
4.
Baumann, J. M., Blanksteen, S. I., & Dennehy, M. T. (1997). Recognition of descending aircraft in a perspective naval combat display. In Journal of Virtual Environments [On-line]. Available at: http://www.hitl.washington.edu/scivw/JOVE/Articles/mdjbsb.html.
5.
Bemis, S. V., Leeds, J. L., & Winer, E. A. (1988). Operator performance as a function of types of display: Conventional versus perspective. Human Factors, 30, 163–169.
6.
Boyer, F.Campbell, M., May, P., Merwin, D., & Wickens, C. D. (1995). Three-dimensional displays for terrain and weather awareness in the national airspace system. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting (pp. 6–10). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
7.
Boyer, B. S., & Wickens, C. D. (1994). 3D weather displays for aircraft cockpits (Technical Report ARL-94-11/NASA-94-4). Savoy, IL: Aviation Research Laboratory.
8.
Bruno, N. & Cutting, J. E. (1988). Minimodality and the perception of layout. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 161–170.
9.
Burnett, M. S., & Barfield, W. (1991). Perspective versus plan view air traffic control displays: Survey and empirical results. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting (pp. 87–91). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
10.
Card, S. K., Mackinlay, J., & Shneiderman, B. (1999). Readings in information visualization: Using vision to think. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
11.
Ellis, S. R., McGreevy, M. W., & Hitchcock, R. J. (1987). Perspective traffic display format and airline pilot traffic avoidance. Human Factors, 29, 371–382.
12.
Extreme 3D [Computer Software]. (1996). San Francisco, CA: Macromedia.
13.
Frisby, J. P. (1980). Seeing: Illusion, brain, and mind.Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
14.
Gillam, B. (1995). The perception of spatial layout from static optical information. In W. Epstein & S. Rogers (Eds.), Perception of space and motion (2nd ed., pp. 23–67). San Diego: Academic.
15.
Guth, P. (2000). MICRODEM [Computer software]. Available at: http://www.usna.edu/NAOE/research/gis/gis_software_pack-ages.html. Annapolis, MD: U.S. Naval Academy.
16.
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.
17.
Hickox, J. G., & Wickens, C. D. (1999). Effects of elevation angle disparity, complexity and feature type on relating out-of-cock-pit field of view to an electronic cartographic map. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 284–301.
18.
Humphrey, K. & Jolicoeur, P. (1993). An examination of the effects of axis foreshortening, monocular depth cues, and visual field on object identification. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46A, 137–159.
19.
Liter, J. C., Tjan, B. S., Bulthoff, H. H., & Kohnen, N. (1997). Viewpoint effects in naming silhouette and shaded images of familiar objects (Technical Report No. 54). Tubingen, Germany: Max-Planck Institüt für Biologische Kybernetik.
20.
McCleary, G. F., Jr., Jenks, G. F., & Ellis, S. R. (1993). Cartography and map displays. In S. R. Ellis, M. Kaiser, & A. J. Grunwald (Eds.), Pictorial communication in virtual and real environments (pp. 76–96). London: Taylor & Francis.
21.
Naikar, N.Skinner, M., Leung, Y., & Pearce, B. (1998). Technologies for enhancing situation awareness in aviation systems: Perspective display research (Technical Report No. DSTO-TR-0630). Melbourne, Australia: Air Operations Division, Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory, Defence Science and Technology Organisation.
22.
O'Brien, J. V., & Wickens, C. D. (1997). Free flight cockpit displays of traffic and weather: Effects of dimensionality and database integration. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 41st Annual Meeting (pp. 18–22). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
23.
Rosch, E. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 328–350.
24.
Sedgwick, H. A. (1986). Space perception. In K. R. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. P. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance (Vol. 1, pp. 2101–2157). New York: Wiley.
25.
Shepard, R. N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171, 701–703.
26.
3D StudioMax (Version 3.1) [Computer Software]. (1999). San Francisco, CA: Autodesk.
27.
Van Breda, L., & Veltman, H. S. (1998). Perspective information in the cockpit as a target acquisition aid. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4, 55–68.
28.
Wickens, C. D., Campbell, M., Liang, C. C., & Merwin, D. H. (1995). Weather displays for air traffic control: The effect of 3D perspective (Technical Report ARL-95-1/FAA-95-1). Savoy, IL: Aviation Research Laboratory.
29.
Wickens, C. D., & Carswell, C. M. (1995). The proximity compatibility principle: Its psychological foundation and relevance to display design. Human Factors, 37, 473–494.
30.
Wickens, C. D., Liang, 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.
31.
Wickens, C. D., & May, P. (1994). Terrain representation of air traffic control: A comparison of perspective with plan view displays (Technical Report ARL-94-10/FAA-94-2). Savoy, IL: Aviation Research Laboratory.
32.
Wickens, C. D., Miller, S., & Tham, M. (1996). The implications of data-link for representing pilot request information on 2D and 3D air traffic control displays. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 18, 283–293.
33.
Wickens, C. D., & Prevett, T. T. (1995). Exploring the dimensions of egocentricity in aircraft navigation displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2, 110–135.
34.
Wickens, C. D., Todd, S., & Seidler, K. (1989). Three-dimensional displays: Perception, implementation and applications (Technical Report ARL-89-11/CSERIAC-89-1). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois Institute of Aviation.
35.
Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
