Good Vibrations: Tactile Feedback in Support of Attention Allocation and Human-Automation Coordination in Event-Driven Domains

Abstract

Observed breakdowns in human-machine communication can be explained, in part, by the nature of current automation feedback, which relies heavily on focal visual attention. Such feedback is not well suited for capturing attention in case of unexpected changes and events or for supporting the parallel processing of large amounts of data in complex domains. As suggested by multiple-resource theory, one possible solution to this problem is to distribute information across various sensory modalities. A simulator study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of visual, tactile, and redundant visual and tactile cues for indicating unexpected changes in the status of an automated cockpit system. Both tactile conditions resulted in higher detection rates for, and faster response times to, uncommanded mode transitions. Tactile feedback did not interfere with, nor was its effectiveness affected by, the performance of concurrent visual tasks. The observed improvement in task-sharing performance indicates that the introduction of tactile feedback is a promising avenue toward better supporting humanmachine communication in event-driven, information-rich domains.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ballard, J. W. , & Hessinger, R. W. (1954). Human-engineered electromechanical tactual sensory control system. Electrical Manufacturing, 54, 118–121.

Butter, C. M. , Buchtel, H. A. , & Sanctucci, R. (1989). Spatial attentional shifts: Further evidence for the role of polysensory mechanisms using visual and tactile stimuli. Neuropsychologia, 1231-1240.

Chapman, C. E. , Bushnell, M. C. , Miron, D. , Duncan, G. H. , & Lund, J. P. (1987). Sensory perception during movement in man. Experimental Brain Research, 68, 516–524.

Davenport, W. G. (1969). Vigilance for simultaneous auditory and vibrotactile signals. Australian Journal of Psychology, 21(2), 159–165.

Diederich, A. (1995). Intersensory facilitation of reaction time: Evaluation of counter and diffusion coactivation models. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 39, 197–215.

Endsley, M. R. (1988). Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting (pp. 97–101). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Gilliland, K. , & Schlegel, R. E. (1994). Tactile stimulation of the human head for information display. Human Factors, 36, 700–717.

Gilson, R. D. , & Fenton, R. E. (1974). Kinesthetic-tactual information presentations: Inflight studies. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 4, 531–535.

Kirman, J. H. (1986). Vibrotactile frequency recognition: Forward and backward masking effects. Journal of General Psychology, 113(2), 147–158.

10.

Martin, M. (1980). Attention to words in different modalities: Four channel presentation with physical and semantic selection. Acta Psychologica, 44, 99–115.

11.

Nikolic, M. I. , Sklar, A. E. , & Sarter, N. B. (1998). Multisensory feedback in support of pilot-automation coordination: The case of uncommanded mode transitions. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting (pp. 239–243). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

12.

Pashler, H. E. (1998). The psychology of attention. Cambridge: MIT Press.

13.

Post, L. J. , & Chapman, C. E. (1991). The effects of cross-modal manipulations of attention on the detection of vibrotactile stimuli in humans. Somatosensory and Motor Research, 8, 149–157.

14.

Sarter, N. B. (in press). The need for multisensory feedback in support of effective attention allocation in highly dynamic event-driven environments: The case of cockpit automation. International Journal of Aviation Psychology.

15.

Sarter, N. B. , Billings, C. E. , & Woods, D. D. (1997). Automation surprises. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (2nd ed., pp. 1926–1943). New York: Wiley.

16.

Sarter, N. B. , & Woods, D. D. (1995). How in the world did we ever get into that mode? Mode error and awareness in supervisory control. Human Factors, 37, 5–19.

17.

Shiffrin, R. M. , Craig, J. C. , & Cohen, E. (1973). On the degree of attention and capacity limitation in tactile processing. Perception and Psychophysics, 13(2), 328–336.

18.

Treisman, A. M. , & Davies, A. (1973). Divided attention to ear and eye. In S. Kornblum (Ed.), Attention and performance, 4. (pp. 101–117). New York: Academic.

19.

Verrillo, R. T. (1962). Investigation of some parameters of the cutaneous threshold for vibration. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 34, 1768–1773.

20.

Verrillo, R. T. (1983). Vibrotactile subjective magnitude as a function of hand preference. Neuropsychologia, 21(4), 383–395.

21.

Wickens, C. D. (1980). The structure of attentional resources. In R. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII (pp.239–257). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

22.

Wickens, C. D. (1991). Processing resources and attention. In D. Damos (Ed.), Multiple-task performance (pp. 3–34. London: Taylor & Francis.

23.

Wickens, C. D. (1999). Engineering psychology and human performance (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.

24.

Zlotnik, M. A. (1988). Applying electro-tactile display technology to fighter aircraft - flying with feeling again. In Proceedings of the IEEE 1988 National Aerospace and Electronics Conference NAECON 1988 (pp. 191–197). New York: IEEE Aerospace and Electronics Systems Society.