Visual Accommodation and Virtual Images: Do Attentional Factors Mediate the Interacting Effects of Perceived Distance,Mental Workload,and Stimulus Presentation Modality?

Abstract

A study was conducted to examine the effect on the visual accommodation response of processing information presented either visually or aurally while viewing a real-world scene. A number of different conditions were tested in which a mental processing task, a virtual image overlaying the real world (as is the case with head-up displays), or both were present. These manipulations provided two factors that have previously been demonstrated to have some influence on the accommodation response: mental effort and perceived distance. They also allowed the investigation of the influence of the source modality of the information to be processed. The results suggested that these influences may have a cumulative effect on the visual accommodation response, possibly mediated by attentional factors.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alpern, M. , & David, H. (1958) Effects of illuminance quantity on accommodation of the eyes. Industrial Medicine & Surgery, 27, 551–555.

Brickner, M. S. (1989). Apparent limitations of head-up displays and thermal imaging systems. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 703–707). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.

Campbell, F. W. (1954) The minimum quantity of light required to elicit the accommodation reflex in man. Journal of Physiology (London), 123, 357–366.

Campbell, F. W. , & Westheimer, G. (1960) Dynamics of accommodation responses of the human eye. Journal of Physiology, 151, 285–295.

Charman, W. N. (1974) On the position of the plane of stationarity in laser refraction. American Journal of Optometry & Physiological Optics, 51, 832–837.

Charman, W. N. , & Whitefoot, H. (1977) Pupil diameter and the depth-of-field of the human eye as measured by laser speckle. Optica Acta, 24, 1211–1216.

Edgar, G. K. , Pope, J. C. D. , & Craig, I. R. (1994). Visual accommodation problems with head-up and helmet-mounted displays? Displays, 65(2), 68–75.

Fincham, E. F. (1951) The accommodation reflex and its stimulus. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 35, 381–393.

Fischer, E. , Haines, R. F. , & Price, T. A. (1980). Cognitive issues in head-up displays (Tech. Paper 1711). Moffett Field, CA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

10.

Foyle, D. C. , McCann, R. S. , & Sanford, B. D. (1993). Attentional effects with superimposed symbology: Implications for head-up displays (HUD). In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 37th Annual Meeting (pp. 1340–1344). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

11.

Francis, E. L. , Thompson, T. C. , & Owens, D. A. (1995). Ocular accommodation varies with visual vs. auditory attention. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 36(4), S458.

12.

Hart, S. G. , & Brickner, M. S. (1987). Helmet-mounted pilot night vision systems: Human factors issues. In Proceedings of the Spatial Displays and Spatial Instruments Conference (pp. 13-1–13-21). Moffett Field, CA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

13.

Heath, G. G. (1956). Components of accommodation. American Journal of Optometry and Archives of American Academy of Optometry, 33(11), 569–579.

14.

Hennessy, R. T. , Iiada, T. , Shina, K. , & Leibowitz, H. W. (1976) The effect of pupil size on accommodation. Vision Research, 16, 587–589.

15.

Hennessy, R. T. , & Leibowitz, H. W. (1972) Laser optometer incorporating the Badal principle. Behavioural Research Methods & Instrumentation, 4, 237–239.

16.

Hull, J. C. , Gill, R. T. , & Roscoe, S. N. (1982). Locus of the stimulus to visual accommodation: Where in the world or where in the eye? Human Factors, 24, 311–319.

17.

Iavecchia, J. H. , Iavecchia, H. P. , & Roscoe, S. R. (1988) Eye accommodation to head-up virtual images. Human Factors, 30, 698–702.

18.

Jaschinski-Kruza, W. , & Toenies, U. (1988) Effect of a mental arithmetic task on dark focus of accommodation. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 8, 432–437.

19.

Johnson, C. A. (1976). Effects of luminance and stimulus distance on accommodation and visual resolution. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 66(2), 138–142.

20.

Kotulak, J. C. , & Morse, S. E. (1995a) The effect of perceived distance on accommodation under binocular steady-state conditions. Vision Research, 35, 791–795.

21.

Kotulak, J. C. , & Morse, S. E. (1995b) Oculomotor responses with aviator helmet-mounted displays and their relation to in-flight symptoms. Human Factors, 37, 699–710.

22.

Leibowitz, H. W. , Gish, K. W. , & Sheehy, J. B. (1988) Role of vergence accommodation in correcting for night myopia. American Journal of Optometry and Physiological Optics, 65, 383–386.

23.

Leitner, E. F. , & Haines, R. F. (1981). Magnitude of visual accommodation to a head-up display (Tech. Paper 1796). Moffett Field, CA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

24.

Malmstrom, F. V. , Randle, R. J. , Bendix, J. S. , & Weber, R. J. (1980) The visual accommodation response during concurrent mental activity. Perception and Psychophysics, 28, 440–448.

25.

Newman, R. L. (1987). Responses to Roscoe, “The trouble with HUDs and HMDs.” Human Factors Society Bullletin, 30(10), 3–5.

26.

Norman, J. , & Ehrlich, S. (1986) Visual accommodation and virtual image displays: Target detection and recognition. Human Factors, 28, 135–131.

27.

Owens, D. A. , & Leibowitz, H. W. (1975) The fixation point as a stimulus for accommodation. Vision Research, 15, 1161–1163.

28.

Roscoe, S. N. (1979) When day is done and shadows fall, we miss the airport most of all. Human Factors, 21, 721–731.

29.

Roscoe, S. N. (1984) Judgments of size and distance with imaging displays. Human Factors, 26, 617–629.

30.

Roscoe, S. N. (1987a). The eyes prefer real images. In Proceedings of the Spatial Displays and Spatial Instruments Conference (pp. 21-1–21-9). Moffett Field, CA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

31.

Roscoe, S. N. (1987b). The trouble with HUDs and HMDs. Human Factors Society Bulletin, 30(7), 1–3.

32.

Roscoe, S. N. (1987c). The trouble with virtual images revisited. Human Factors Society Bulletin, 30(11), 3–5.

33.

Roscoe, S. N. , Corl, L. , & Couchman, D. H. (1994) Eye accommodation: Use of vernier optometers in behavioral research. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 4, 359–371.

34.

Rosenfield, M. , & Ciuffreda, K. J. (1990) Proximal and cognitively induced accommodation. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 10, 252–256.

35.

Schor, C. M. , & Task, H. L. (1996) Effects of overlay symbology in night vision goggles on accommodation and attention shift. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 67, 1039–1047.

36.

Silverstein, L. , & Wilbert, J. (1987). Responses to Roscoe, “The trouble with HUDs and HMDs.” Human Factors Society Bulletin, 30(10), 5–6.

37.

Weintraub, D. J. (1987). HUDs, HMDs and common sense: Polishing virtual images. Human Factors Society Bulletin, 30(10), 1–3.

38.

Weintraub, D. J. , & Ensing, M. (1992). Human factors issues in head-up display design: The book of HUD. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: CSERIAC.

39.

Wickens, C. D. , & Long, J. (1995) Object vs. space-based models of visual attention: Implications for the use of head-up displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1, 179–183.

40.

Winn, B. , Gilmartin, B. , Mortimer, L. C. , & Edwards, N. R. (1991) The effect of mental effort on open- and closed-loop accommodation. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, 11, 335–339.