Superimposition,Symbology,Visual Attention,and the Head-Up Display

Abstract

In two experiments we examined a number of related factors postulated to influence head-up display (HUD) performance. We addressed the benefit of reduced scanning and the cost of increasing the number of elements in the visual field by comparing a superimposed HUD with an identical display in a head-down position in varying visibility conditions. We explored the extent to which the characteristics of HUD symbology support a division of attention by contrasting conformal symbology (which links elements of the display image to elements of the far domain) with traditional instrument landing system (ILS) symbology. Together the two experiments provide strong evidence that minimizing scanning between flight instruments and the far domain contributes substantially to the observed HUD performance advantage. Experiment 1 provides little evidence for a performance cost attributable to visual clutter. In Experiment 2 the pattern of differences in lateral tracking error between conformal and traditional ILS symbology supports the hypothesis that, to the extent that the symbology forms an object with the far domain, attention may be divided between the superimposed image and its counterpart in the far domain.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Becklen, R. , & Cervone, D. (1983). Selective looking and the noticing of unexpected events. Memory and Cognition, 11, 601–608.

Boucek, G. P. , Pfaff, T. A. , & Smith, W. D. (1983). The use of holographic head-up display of flight path symbology in varying weather conditions (SAE Tech. Paper 831445). Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.

Bray, R. S. (1980). A head-up display format for application to transport aircraft approach and landing (NASA Tech. Memorandum 81199). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.

Bray, R. S. , & Scott, B. C. (1981). A head-up display for low visibility approach and landing (AIAA-81-0130). Washington, DC: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.

Duncan, J. (1984). Selective attention and the organization of visual information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 501–517.

Eriksen, C. W. , & Eriksen, B. A. (1974). Effects of noise letter upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception and Psychophysics, 16, 143–149.

Fischer, E. (1979). The role of cognitive switching in head-up displays (NASA Contractor Report 3137). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.

Fischer, E. , Haines, R. F. , & Price, T. A. (1980). Cognitive issues in head-up displays (NASA Tech. Paper 1711). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.

Jensen, R. S. (1981). Prediction and quickening in perspective display for curved landing approaches. Human Factors, 23, 333–364.

10.

Kramer, A. F. , & Jacobson, A. (1991). Perceptual organization and focused attention: The role of objects and proximity in visual processing. Perception and Psychophysics, 50, 267–284.

11.

Larish, I. A. , & Wickens, C. D. (1991). Divided attention with superimposed and separated imagery: Implications for head-up displays (University of Illinois Institute of Aviation Tech. Report ARL-91-4/NASA-HUD-91-1). Savoy, IL: Aviation Research Laboratory.

12.

Lauber, J. K. , Bray, R. S. , Harrison, R. L. , Hemingway, J. C. , & Scott, B. C. (1982). An operational evaluation of head-up displays for civil transport aircraft (NASA Tech. Paper 1815). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.

13.

Martin-Emerson, R. , & Wickens, C. D. (1992). The vertical visual field and implications for the head-up display. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting (pp. 1408–1412). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

14.

Naish, J. M. (1964). Combination of information in superimposed visual fields. Nature, 202, 641–646.

15.

Naish, J. M. (1979). A review of some head-up display formats (NASA Tech. Paper 1499). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.

16.

Naish, J. M. , & Miller, D. L. (1980). An experimental evaluation of head-up display formats (NASA Tech. Paper 1550). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.

17.

Neisser, U. , & Becklen, R. (1975). Selective looking: Attending to visually specified events. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 480–494.

18.

Weintraub, D. J. , & Ensing, M. J. (1992). The book of HUD: A head-up display state of the art report (CSERIAC State of the Art Report). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Lab.

19.

Weintraub, D. J. , Haines, R. F. , & Randle, R. J. (1984). The utility of head-up displays: Eye-focus versus decision time. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 28th Annual Meeting (pp. 529–533). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

20.

Wickens, C. D. (1992). Engineering psychology and human performance (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.

21.

Wickens, C. D. , Haskell, I. , & Harte, K. (1989). Ergonomic design for perspective flight-path displays. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 9(4), 3–8.

22.

Wickens, C. D. , & Long, J. (1995). Object vs. space-based models of visual attention: Implications for the design of head-up displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1, 179–193.

23.

Yantis, S. (1992). Multielement visual tracking: Attention and perceptual organization. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 295–340.