Maps help navigators determine their position in the world. We define navigational checking as an aviator's task of continually comparing a map with the forward field of view (FFOV). We report two experiments using static three-dimensional (3D) images as the map and FFOV. Participants were asked to judge as quickly and accurately as possible whether the map and FFOV matched or mismatched. Elevation angle, azimuth angle, type of mismatch trial, and image complexity were manipulated; both response time and accuracy were recorded. Results were generally as predicted. Of greatest interest, we found a fairly linear performance decrement associated with the difference in foreshortening between the two views (a trigonometric conversion of elevation angle disparity), a somewhat nonlinear performance decrement associated with azimuth angle disparity, and no interaction between the two. Finally, we address how elevation and azimuth might influence 3D map display design.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Antunano, M. J., Mohler, S. R., & Gosbee, J. W. (1989). Geographic disorientation: Approaching and landing at the wrong airport. Aviation, Space & Environmental Medicine, 55, 996–1004.
2.
Aretz, A. J. (1991). The design of electronic map displays. Human Factors, 33, 85–101.
3.
Aretz, A. J., & Wickens, C. D. (1992). The mental rotation of map displays. Human Factors, 33, 355–376.
4.
Barfield, W., Sandford, J., & Foley, J. (1988). The mental rotation and perceived realism of computer-generated three-dimensional images. Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 29, 669–684.
5.
Bennett, C. A., Winterstein, S. H., & Kent, R. E. (1967). Image quality and target recognition. Human Factors, 9, 5–32.
6.
Bethell-Fox, C. E., & Shepard, R. N. (1988). Mental rotation: Effects of stimulus complexity and familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 12–23.
7.
Cochran, E. L., Pick, A. D., & Pick, H. L. (1983). Task-specific strategies of mental “rotation” of facial representations. Memory and Cognition, 11, 41–48.
8.
Cooper, L. A. (1975). Mental rotation of random two-dimensional shapes. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 20–43.
9.
Cooper, L. A., & Podgorny, P. (1976). Mental transformations and visual comparison processes: Effects of complexity and similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 503–514.
10.
Cuqlock-Knopp, G. V., & Whitaker, L. A. (1993). Spatial ability and land navigation under degraded visual conditions. Human Factors, 35, 511–520.
11.
Eley, M. G. (1988). Determining the shapes of land surfaces from topographical maps. Ergonomics, 31, 355–376.
12.
Eley, M. G. (1991). Selective encoding in the interpretation of topographic maps. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 403–422.
13.
Eley, M. G. (1993). The differential susceptibility of topographic map interpretation to influence from training. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7, 23–42.
14.
Ellis, S. R., Kim, W. S., Tyler, M., McGreevy, M. W., & Stark, L. (1985). Visual enhancements for perspective displays: Perspective parameters. In Proceedings of the 1985 International Conference on Systems, Man & Cybernetics (pp. 297–305). Wachtberg Werthoven, West Germany: Forschungs-institüt für Anthropotechnik.
15.
Fitts, P. M. (1966). Cognitive aspects of information processing III: Set for speed versus accuracy. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 103–112.
16.
Folk, M. D., & Luce, R. D. (1987). Effects of stimulus complexity on mental rotation rate of polygons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 395–404.
17.
Goldberg, J. H., Maceachren, A. M., & Korval, X. P. (1992). Mental image transformations in terrain map comparison. Cartographica, 29(2), 46–59.
18.
Green, P., & Williams, M. (1992). Perspective in orientation/navigation displays: A human factors test. In Proceedings of the Vehicular Navigation and Information Systems Conference (pp. 221–226). Oslo, Norway: IEEE Vehicular Technology Society.
19.
Hall, D. L., & Friedman, A. (1994). Shape discriminations of three-dimensional objects depend on the number and location of bends. Perception and Psychophysics, 56, 288–300.
20.
Hays, W. L. (1991). Statistic. (4th ed.). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
21.
Hendrix, C., & Barfield, W. (1997). Spatial discrimination in three-dimensional displays as a function of computer graphics eyepoint elevation and stereoscopic viewing. Human Factors, 39, 602–617.
22.
Hickox, J. C., & Wickens, C. D. (1996). Navigational checking: A model of elevation angle effects, image complexity, and feature type (University of Illinois Institute of Aviation Tech. Report ARL-96-4/NAWC-ONR-96-1). Savoy: University of Illinois, Aviation Research Laboratory.
23.
Hill, F. S., Jr. (1990). Computer graphics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Macmillan.
24.
Hooper, Y. E., & Coury, B. G. (1994). Graphical displays for orientation information. Human Factors, 36, 62–78.
25.
Johnston, D. M. (1968). Effectiveness of filters in improving air-to-ground target identification performance on a television display. Human Factors, 10, 489–492.
26.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1976). Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 441–480.
27.
Kibbe, M. P., & Stiff, J. S. (1993). Operator performance in pattern matching as a function of reference material structure (Tech. Report NAWCWPNS TP 8145). China Lake, CA: Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division.
28.
Kim, W. S., Ellis, S. R., Tyler, M. E., Hannaford, B., & Stark, L. W. (1987). Quantitative evaluation of perspective and stereoscopic displays in three-axis manual tracking tasks. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man & Cybernetics, 17, 61–72.
29.
McClumpha, A. J., & Selcon, S. J. (1989). Objective and subjective assessment of image recognition. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting (pp. 1505–1509). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
30.
Murray, J. E., Jolicoeur, P., McMullen, P. A., & Ingleton, M. (1993). Orientation-invariant transfer of training in the identification of rotated natural objects. Memory and Cognition, 21, 604–610.
31.
Niall, K. K. (1997). “Mental rotation,” pictured rotation, and tandem rotation in depth. Acta Psychologica, 95, 31–83.
32.
O'Hare, D., & Roscoe, S. N. (1991). Flightdeck performance. The human factor. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
33.
Pachella, R. (1974). The interpretation of reaction time measures in information processing research. In B. H. Kantowitz (Ed.), Human information processing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
34.
Pylyshyn, Z. W. (1979). The rate of “mental rotation of images”: A test of holistic analogue hypothesis. Memory and Cognition, 7, 19–28.
35.
Schmidt, J. K., & Kysor, K. P. (1987). Designing airline passenger safety cards. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting (pp. 51–55). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
36.
Schreiber, B. T., Wickens, C. D., Renner, G., & Alton, J. (1996). Navigational checking: Implications for electronic map design. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 40th Annual Meeting (pp. 20–24). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
37.
Shepard, R., & Metzler, J. (1971). Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science, 171, 701–703.
38.
Shinar, D., & Gilead, E. (1987). Contrast sensitivity as a predictor of complex target detection. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting (pp. 1194–1197). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
39.
Silverman, W. P. (1974). The effect of irrelevant surround on speeded visual discriminations varying in complexity. Perception and Psychophysics, 15, 320–324.
40.
Toye, R. C. (1986). The effect of viewing position on the perceived layout of space. Perception and Psychophysics, 40, 85–92.
41.
Venturino, M., & Geiselman, E. (1992). Quantifying the goodness of mental representation of spatial relationships. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting (pp. 1363–1368). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
42.
Warren, D. H., Rossano, M. J., & Wear, T. D. (1990). Perception of map-environment correspondence: The roles of features and alignment. Ecological Psychology, 2(2), 131–150.
43.
Wickens, C. D., Liang, C.-C., Prevett, T., & Olmos, O. (1994). Egocentric and exocentric displays for terminal area navigation (University of Illinois Institute of Aviation Tech. Report ARL-94-1/NASA-94-1). Savoy: University of Illinois, Aviation Research Laboratory.
44.
Yeh, Y.-Y., & Silverstein, L. D. (1992). Spatial judgments with monoscopic and stereoscopic presentation of perspective displays. Human Factors, 34, 583–600.
45.
Yuille, J. C., & Steiger, J. H. (1982). Nonholistic processing in mental rotation: Some suggestive evidence. Perception and Psychophysics, 31, 201–209.
