Objective: The potential advantage of visual momentum in the form of smooth rotation between two-dimensional (2-D) and three-dimensional (3-D) displays of geographic terrain was examined. Background: The relative effectiveness of 2-D and 3-D displays is task dependent, leading to the need for multiple frames of reference as users switch tasks. The use of smooth rotation to provide visual momentum has received little scrutiny in the task-switching context. A cognitive model of the processes involved in switching viewpoints on a set of spatial elements is proposed. Methods: In three experiments, participants judged the properties of two points placed on terrain depicted as 2-D or 3-D displays. Participants indicated whether Point A was higher than Point B, or whether Point B could be seen from Point A. Participants performed the two tasks in pairs of trials, switching tasks and displays within the pair. In the continuous transition condition the display dynamically rotated in depth from one display format to the other. In the discrete condition there was an instantaneous viewpoint shift that varied across experiments (Experiment 1: immediate; Experiment 2: delay; Experiment 3: preview). Results: Performance after continuous transition was superior to that after discrete transition. Conclusion: The visual momentum provided by smooth rotation helped users switch tasks. Application: The use of dynamic transition is recommended when observers examine multiple views of terrain over time. The model may serve as a useful heuristic for designers. The results are pertinent to command and control, geological engineering, urban planning, and imagery analysis domains.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andre, A.D., Wickens, C.D., Moorman, L., & Boschelli, M.M. (1991). Display formatting techniques for improving situation awareness in the aircraft cockpit. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1, 205-218.
2.
Aretz, A.J. (1991). The design of electronic map displays. Human Factors, 33, 85-101.
3.
Bederson, B.B., Hollan, J.D., Stewart, J., Rogers, D., Vick, D., Ring, L., et al. (1998). Azooming Web browser. In C. Forsythe, E. Grose , & J. Ratner (Eds.), Human factors and Web development (pp. 255-266). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
4.
Barnes, M.J. (2003). The human dimension of battlespace visualization: Research and design issues (ARLTech. Rep. ARL-TR-2885). Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Army Research Laboratory .
5.
Gattis, M. (2004). Mapping relational structure in spatial reasoning . Cognitive Science, 28, 589-610.
6.
Guth, P. (2001). MICRODEM (Version 5.1) [Computer software]. Annapolis, MD: U.S. Naval Academy, Oceanography Department .
7.
Hochberg, J., & Brooks, V. (1978). Film cutting and visual momentum. In J. W. Senders, D. F. Fisher, & R. A. Monty (Eds.), Eye movements and the higher psychological functions (pp. 293-313). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8.
Hörnig, R., Oberauer, K., & Weidenfeld, A. (2005). Two principles of premise integration in spatial reasoning. Memory and Cognition, 33, 131-139.
9.
Loftus, G.R., & Masson, M.E.J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review , 1, 476-490.
Neale, D.C. (1996). Spatial perception in desktop virtual environments . In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 40th Annual Meeting (pp. 1117-1121). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
13.
Neale, D.C. (1997). Factors influencing spatial awareness and orientation in desktop virtual environments. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 41st Annual Meeting (pp. 1278-1282). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society .
14.
Olmos, O., Liang, C.C., & Wickens, C.D. (1997). Electronic map evaluation in simulated visual meteorological conditions. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 7, 37-66.
15.
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 Psychology10, 247-271.
16.
Roth, S.F., Chuah, M.C., Kerpedjiev, S., Kolojejchick, J., & Lucas, P. (1997). Toward an information visualization workspace: Combining multiple means of expression. Human-Computer Interaction , 12, 131-186.
17.
Shepard, R.N., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171, 701-703.
18.
St. John, M., Cowen, M.B., Smallman, H.S., & Oonk, H.M. (2001). The use of 2D and 3D displays for shape-understanding versus relative-position tasks. Human Factors, 43, 79-98.
19.
St. John, M., Smallman, H.S., & Cowen, M.B. (2002). Evaluation of schemes for combining 2-D and 3-D views of terrain for a tactical routing task (Tech. Rep.). San Diego, CA: Pacific Science & Engineering Group .
20.
Wickens, C.D., & Hollands, J.G. (2000). Engineering psychology and human performance (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
21.
Wickens, C.D., Liang, C.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.
22.
Wickens, C.D., & Thomas, L.C. (2000). Frames of reference for the display of battlefield information: Judgement-display dependencies. Human Factors , 42, 660-675.
23.
Woods, D.D. (1984). Visual momentum: A conceptto improve the cognitive coupling of person and computer. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 21, 229-244.
