Objective: We investigated the influence of ongoing task display “compellingness” on attention allocation patterns and assessed its interaction with interrupting task salience and importance. Background: There are some concerns that the compellingness of flight deck tunnel displays renders the task they support more resistant to interruptions, thus preventing the pilot from noticing cues signaling the need to divert attention to other tasks. Methods: Forty pilots flew three curved approaches in a high-fidelity simulation using a synthetic vision system (SVS) display. In addition to the primary task of flying, during the last approach they were required to select the approach path on the basis of environmental information concerning weather. The display layout supporting the primary flight task (tunnel vs. baseline display), the nature of the cue signaling the need to divert attention to the path selection task (visual vs. auditory-visual cue), and the cost of not performing the secondary task were manipulated to investigate their influence on task prioritization. Results: The modality and priority of the cue affected the frequency of the switch to the secondary task. Furthermore, pilots flying with a tunnel display were more likely to detect the change in the weather and were easily interrupted by the secondary task when priority was high. Conclusion: Our results suggest that some of the concerns regarding the negative consequences of the compelling nature of the tunnel display may not be as pronounced as thought. Applications: This study highlights the utility of the tunnel display in improving flight safety.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Banbury, S.P., Macken, W.J., Tremblay, S., & Jones, D.M. (2001). Auditory distraction and short-term memory: Phenomena and practical implications. Human Factors, 43, 12-29.
2.
Chou, C.D., Madhavan, D., & Funk, K. (1996). Studies of cockpit task management errors. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 6, 307-320.
3.
Damos, D. (1997). Using interruptions to identify task prioritization in Part 121 air carrier operations. In R. S. Jensen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 871-876). Columbus, OH: Department of Aerospace Engineering, Ohio State University.
4.
Dismukes, R.K., Loukopoulos, L.D., & Jobe, K.K. (2001). The challenges of managing concurrent and deferred tasks. In R. S. Jensen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (CD-ROM) . Columbus, OH: Department of Aerospace Engineering, Ohio State University.
5.
Funk, K.H. (1991). Cockpit task management: Preliminary definitions, normative theory, error taxonomy, and design recommendations. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1, 271-285.
6.
Goodrich, M.A., Quigley, M., & Cosenzo, K. (2005). Task switching and multi-robot teams. Paper presented at the Third International Multi-Robot Systems Workshop, March 14-16, Washington, DC.
7.
Ho, C.-Y., Nikolic, M.I., Waters, M.J., & Sarter, N.B. (2004). Not now! Supporting interruption management by indicating the modality and urgency of pending tasks. Human Factors, 46, 399-409.
8.
Latorella, K.A. (1998). Effects of modality on interrupted flight deck performance: Implications for data link. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting (pp. 87-91). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
9.
Liao, J., & Moray, N. (1993). A simulation study of human performance deterioration and mental workload. Le Travail Humain, 56, 321-344.
10.
McFarlane, D.C., & Latorella K.A. (2002). The scope and importance of human interruption in human-computer interaction design. Human-Computer Interaction, 17, 1-61.
11.
Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 134-140.
12.
Navon, D., & Gopher, D. (1979). On the economy of the human processing system . Psychological Review, 86, 214-255.
13.
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.
14.
Prinzel, L., Comstock, R., Glaab, L., Kramer, L., Jarvis, J., & Barry, 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, 53-78.
15.
Raby, M., & Wickens, C.D. (1994). Strategic workload management and decision biases in aviation. International Journal of Aviation Psychology , 4, 211-240.
16.
Rubinstein, J.S., Meyer, D.E., & Evans, J.E. (2001). Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 763-797.
17.
Schutte, P.C., & Trujillo, A.C. (1996). Flight crew task management in nonnormal situations. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 40th Annual Meeting (pp. 244-248). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
18.
Society of Automotive Engineers. (2005). Aerospace recommended practice ARP 5589: Human engineering considerations for perspective flight guidance displays. Warrendale, PA : Author.
19.
Spence, C., & Driver, J. (1996). Audiovisual links in endogenous covert spatial orienting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1005-1030.
20.
Spence, C., & Driver, J. (1997). Audiovisual links in exogenous covert spatial orienting. Perception and Psychophysics, 59, 1-22.
21.
Thomas, L.C., & Wickens, C.D. (2004). Eye-tracking and individual differences in off-normal event detection when flying with a synthetic vision system display. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting (pp. 223-227). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
22.
Wickens, C.D. (2005). Attentional tunneling and task management (Tech. Rep. AHFD-05-23/NASA). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois, Institute of Aviation, Aviation Human Factors Division .
23.
Wickens, C.D., Alexander, A.L., & Hardy, T.J. (2003). The primary flight display and its pathway guidance: Workload, performance, and situation awareness (Tech. Rep. AHFD-03-02/NASA) . Savoy, IL: University of Illinois, Institute of Aviation, Aviation Human Factors Division.
24.
Wickens, C.D., Alexander, A.L., Horrey, W.J., Nunes, A., & Hardy, T.J. (2004). Traffic and flight guidance depiction on a synthetic vision system display: The effect of clutter on performance and visual attention allocation. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting (pp. 218-222). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
25.
Wickens, C.D., Goh, J., Helleberg, J., Horrey, W.J., & Talleur, D.A. (2003). Attentional models of multitask pilot performance using advanced display technology. Human Factors, 45, 360-380.
26.
Wickens, C.D., Thomas, L.C., & Young, R.B. (2000). Frames of reference for the display of battlefield information: Judgment-display dependencies. Human Factors , 42, 660-675.
27.
Woods, D.D. (1995). The alarm problem and directed attention in dynamic fault management. Ergonomics, 38, 2371-2394.
28.
Yantis, S. (1993). Stimulus-driven attentional capture. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2, 156-161.
