This study examined the legibility of information presented on head-up displays (HUDs) for automotive application as a function of background scene complexity, the position of the HUD within field of view relative to the background scene, and the perceptual capacity of the perceiver. Groups of field-dependent and fieldindependent subjects viewed video footage from the perspective of following a lead caron an open road with low, moderate, and high scene complexity. Subjects were required to track the lead vehicle and identify HUD-presented targets of a specified orientation and specified changes in a HUD-presented speedometer. The results indicate that (a) HUD legibility deteriorated with increased visual complexity of the background scene; (b) positioning the HUD on the roadway reduced the effect of background scene complexity on HUD legibility; and (c) field-dependent subjects made fewer correct and more false positive target identifications than did field-independent subjects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Benel, R. A., and Benel, D. C. R. (1981). Background influence on visual accommodation: Implications for target acquisition. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 25th Annual Meeting (pp. 277–281). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
2.
Boynton, R. M., and Bush, W. R. (1956). Recognition of forms against a complex background. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 46, 758–764.
3.
Cole, B. L., and Hughes, P. K. (1984). A field trial of attention and search conspicuity. Human Factors, 26, 299–313.
4.
Cole, B. L., and Hughes, P. K. (1990). Drivers don't search: They just notice. In D. Brogan (Ed.), Visual search: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Visual Search (pp. 407–417). London: Taylor & Francis.
5.
Cole, B. L., and Jenkins, S. E. (1984). The effect of variability of background elements on the conspicuity of objects. Vision Research, 24, 261–270.
6.
Dellis, E. (1988). Automotive head-up displays: Just around the corner. Automotive Engineering, 96, 107–110.
7.
Dewar, R. E. (1988). In-vehicle information and driver overload. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 9, 557–564.
8.
Engel, F. L. (1974). Visual conspicuity and selective background interference in eccentric vision. Vision Research, 14, 459–471.
9.
Goodenough, D. R. (1976). A review of individual differences in field dependence as a factor in auto safety. Human Factors, 18, 53–62.
10.
Harrison, A. (1994). Head-up displays for automotive applications (UMTRI-94–10). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.
11.
Hulfish, S. (1978). Relationship of role identification, self-esteem, and intelligence to sex differences in field independence. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47, 835–842.
12.
Inuzuka, Y., Osumi, Y., and Shinkai, H. (1991). Visibility of head-up display (HUD) for automobiles. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting (pp. 1574–1578). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
13.
Loo, R. (1978). Individual differences and the perception of traffic signs. Human Factors, 20, 65–74.
14.
McGill, W. J. (1960). Search distributions in magnified time. In Visual search techniques (Publication No. 712). Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Research Council.
15.
Melancon, J. G., and Thompson, B. (1989). Measurement characteristics of the finding embedded figures test. Psychology in the Schools, 26, 69–78.
16.
Monk, T. H., and Brown, B. (1975). The effect of target surround density on visual search performance. Human Factors, 17, 356–360.
17.
Okabayashi, S., Sakata, M., Furukawa, M., and Hatada, T. (1989). How head-up display affects recognition of objects in foreground in automobile use. In Proceedings of the International Society for Optical Engineering (pp. 283–295). San Diego, CA: Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers.
18.
Roscoe, S. N. (1987). The trouble with HUDs and HMDs. Human Factors Society Bulletin, 30, 1–3.
19.
Rush, G. M., and Moore, D. M. (1991). Effects of restructuring training and cognitive style. Educational Psychology, 11, 309–321.
20.
Sanders, M. S., and McCormick, E. J. (1993). Human factors in engineering and design (7th ed.). London: McGraw-Hill.
21.
Schlegel, R. E., (1993). Driver mental workload. In B. Peacock and W. Karwowski (Eds.), Automotive ergonomics (pp. 359–382). London: Taylor & Francis.
22.
Shinar, D. (1978). Field dependence and driver visual search behavior. Human Factors, 20, 553–559.
23.
Sojourner, R. J., and Antin, J. F. (1990). The effects of a simulated head-up display speedometer on perceptual task-performance. Human Factors, 32, 329–339.
24.
Stokes, A., Wickens, C., and Kite, K. (1990). Display technology: Human factors concepts. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.
25.
Swift, O. W., and Freeman, M. H. (1986). Application of head-up displays to cars. Displays, July, 107–110.
26.
Ward, N. J., and Parkes, A. M. (1994). Head-up-displays and their automotive application: An overview of human factors issues affecting safety. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 26, 703–717.
27.
Weintraub, O. J. (1987). HUDs, HMDs, and common sense: Polishing virtual images. Human Factors Society Bulletin, 30(10), 1–3.
28.
Weintraub, D. J., and Ensing, M. (1992). Human factors in head-up display design: The book of HUD. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Crew Systems Ergonomics Information Analysis Center.
