Objective: Experiments were conducted to assess the impact of display size on flight control, airspace surveillance, and goal-directed target search. Background: Research of 3-D displays has shown that display scale compression influences the perception of flight path deviation, though less is known about the causes that drive this effect. In addition, research on attention-based tasks has shown that information displaced to significant eccentricities can amplify effort, but it is unclear whether the effect generates a performance difference in complex displays. Method: In Experiment 1, 16 pilots completed a low-fidelity flight control task under single- and dual-axis control. In Experiment 2, the control task from Experiment 1 was scaled up to a more realistic flight environment, and pilots performed hazard surveillance and target search tasks. Results: For flight control, pilots exhibited less path error and greater stick activity with a large display, which was attributed both to greater enhanced resolution and to the fact that larger depictions of error lead to greater urgency in correcting deviations. Size did not affect hazard surveillance or search, as pilots were adaptive in altering scanning patterns in response to the enlargement of the displays. Conclusion: Although pilots were adaptive to display changes in search and surveillance, display size reduction diminished estimates of flight path deviation and control performance because of lowered resolution and control urgency. Application: Care should be taken when manipulating display size, as size reduction can diminish control performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abbott, T. S., & Moen, G. C. (1981). Utilization of traffic situation display for self-spacing task (Tech. Paper 1885, Tech. Rep. 81-B-4). Hampton, VA: NASA Langley Research Center, AVRADCOM Research and Technology Laboratories.
2.
Alexander, A. L., Wickens, C. D., & Hardy, T. J. (2003). Examining the effects of guidance symbology, display size, and field of view on flight performance and situation awareness. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 47th Annual Meeting (pp. 154–158). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
3.
Bahill, A. T., Alder, D., & Stark, L. (1975). Most naturally occurring human saccades have magnitudes of 15 degrees or less. Investigative Ophthalmology, 14, 468–469.
4.
Bellenkes, A. H., Wickens, C. D., & Kramer, A. F. (1997). Visual scanning and pilot expertise: The role of attentional flexibility and mental model development. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 68, 569–579.
5.
Carpenter, S. (2001). Sights unseen. APA Monitor, 32, 54–57.
6.
Carswell, C. M., & Wickens, C. D. (1985). Lateral task segregation and the task-hemispheric integrity effect. Human Factors, 27, 695–700.
7.
DiVita, J., Obermayer, R., Nugent, W., & Linville, J. M. (2004). Verification of the change blindness phenomenon while managing critical events on a combat information display. Human Factors, 46, 205–218.
8.
Enoch, J. M. (1959). Effects of the size of a complex display upon visual search. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 49, 280–286.
9.
Ericksen, B. A., & St. James, J. D. (1986). Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model. Perception and Psychophysics, 40, 225–240.
10.
Fracker, M. L., & Wickens, C. D. (1989). Resources, confusions, and compatibility in dual axis tracking: Displays, controls, and dynamics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 80–96.
11.
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.
12.
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
13.
Kroft, P., & Wickens, C. D. (2003). Displaying multi-domain graphical database information: An evaluation of scanning, clutter, display size, and user interactivity. Information Design Journal, 11, 44–52.
14.
Levin, D. T., & Simons, D. J. (1997). Failure to detect changes to attended objects in motion pictures. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 4, 501–506.
15.
Liu, Y., & Wickens, C. D. (1994). Mental workload and cognitive task automaticity: An evaluation of subjective and time estimation metrics. Ergonomics, 37, 1843–1854.
16.
Martin-Emerson, R., & Wickens, C. D. (1997). Superimposition, symbology, visual attention, and the head-up display. Human Factors, 39, 581–601.
17.
McRuer, D. T., & Jex, H. R. (1967). A review of quasi-linear pilot models. IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, 8, 231–249.
18.
Mumaw, R. J., Sarter, N. D., & Wickens, C. D. (2001). Analysis of pilots' monitoring and performance on an automated flight deck. In Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (n.p.). Columbus: Ohio State University.
19.
Muthard, E. K., & Wickens, C. D. (2002). Change detection after preliminary flight decisions: Linking planning errors to biases in plan monitoring. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46th Annual Meeting (pp. 91–95). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
20.
Onstott, E. D. (1976). Task interference in multi-axis aircraft stabilization. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference on Manual Control (pp. 1–24). Champaign: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
21.
Pringle, H. L., Irwin, D. E., Kramer, A. F., & Atchley, P. (2001). The role of attentional breadth in perceptual change detection. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 8, 89–95.
22.
Prinzel, L. J., Comstock, R. C., Glaab, L. J., Kramer, L. J., & Arthur, J. J. (2004). The efficacy of head-down and head-up synthetic vision display concepts for retro- and forward-fit of commercial aircraft. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 14, 53–77.
23.
Recarte, M. A., & Nunes, L. (2002). Mental load and loss of control over speed in real driving: Towards a theory of attentional speed control. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, 5, 111–122.
24.
Rensink, R. A. (2002). Change detection. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 245–277.
25.
Rensink, R. A., O'Regan, J. K., & Clark, J. J. (1997). To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science, 8, 368–373.
26.
Schnell, T., Kwon, Y., Merchant, S., & Etherington, T. (2004). Improved flight technical performance in flight decks equipped with synthetic vision information system displays. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 14, 53–77.
27.
Simmons, T. (2001). What's the optimum computer display size?Ergonomics in Design, 9 (4), 19–25.
28.
Simons, D. J. (2000). Current approaches to change blindness. Visual Cognition, 7, 1–15.
29.
Teichner, W. H., & Mocharnuk, J. B. (1979). Visual search for complex targets. Human Factors, 21, 259–275.
30.
Wickens, C. D. (1986). The effects of control dynamics on performance. In K. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and performance (Vol. 2, pp. 39.1–39.60). New York: Wiley.
31.
Wickens, C. D. (1992). Computational models of human performance (Tech. Rep. ARL-92--4/NASA-A3I-92--1). Savoy: University of Illinois, Aviation Research Laboratory.
32.
Wickens, C. D., Liang, C. C., Prevett, T. T., & Olmos, O. (1996). Egocentric and exocentric displays for terminal area navigation. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 6, 241–271.
33.
Wickens, C. D., & Sandry, D. (1982). Task-hemispheric integrity in dual task performance. Acta Psychologica, 52, 227–247.
34.
Wickens, C. D., Thomas, L. C., & Young, R. (2000). Frames of reference for display of battlefield information: Judgment-display dependencies. Human Factors, 42, 660–675.
