Two experiments were performed to examine how frame of reference (world referenced vs. screen-referenced) and target expectancy can modulate the effects of target cuing in directing attention for see-through helmet-mounted displays (HMDs). In the first experiment, the degree of world referencing was varied by the spatial accuracy of the cue; in the second, the degree of world referencing was varied more radically between a world-referenced HMD and a hand-held display. Participants were asked to detect, identify, and give azimuth information for targets hidden in terrain presented in the far domain (i.e., the world) while performing a monitoring task in the near domain (i.e., the display). The results of both experiments revealed a cost-benefit trade-off for cuing such that the presence of cuing aided the target detection task for expected targets but drew attention away from the presence of unexpected targets in the environment. Analyses support the observation that this effect can be mediated by the display: The world-referenced display reduced the cost of cognitive tunneling relative to the screen-referenced display in Experiment 1; this cost was further reduced in Experiment 2 when participants were using a hand-held display. Potential applications of this research include important design guidelines and specifications for automated target recognition systems as well as any terrain-and-targeting display system in which superimposed symbology is included, specifically in assessing the costs and benefits of attentional cuing and the means by which this information is displayed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Azuma, R. T. (1997). A survey of augmented reality. Presence, 6(4), 355–385.
2.
Conejo, R., & Wickens, C. D. (1997). The effects of highlighting validity and feature type on air-to-ground target acquisition performance (University of Illinois Institute of Aviation Tech. Report No. ARL-97-II/NAWC-ONR-97-1). Savoy, IL: Aviation Research Laboratory.
3.
Drascic, D., & Milgram, P. (1996). Perceptual issues in augmented reality. In M. T. Bolas, S. S. Fisher, & J. O. Merritt (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Society for Optical Engineers (SPIE): Stereoscopic Displays and Virtual Reality Systems III (Vol. 2653, pp. 123–134). Bellingham. WA: SPIE.
4.
Egeth, H. E., & Yantis, S. (1997). Visual attention: Control, representation, and time course. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 269–297.
5.
Fadden, S., Ververs, P. M., & Wickens, C. D. (1998). Costs and benefits of head-up display use: A meta-analytic approach. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting (pp. 16–20). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
6.
Fadden, S., & Wickens, C. D. (1997). Maximizing traffic awareness with a head-up flightpath highway display (University of Illinois Institute of Aviation Tech. Report No. ARL-97-1/FAA-97-1). Savoy, IL: Aviation Research Laboratory.
7.
Flannagan, P., McAnally, K. I., Martin, R. L., Meehan, J. W., & Oldfield, S. R. (1998). Aurally and visually guided visual search in a virtual environment. Human Factors, 40, 461–468.
8.
Foyle, D. C., Andre, A. D., McCann, R. S., Wenzel, E. M., Begault, D. R., & Battiste, V. (1996). Taxiway navigation and situation awareness (T-NASA) system: Problem, design philosophy, and description of an integrated display suite for low-visibility airport surface operations. SAE Transactions: Journal of Aerospace, 105, 1411–1418.
9.
Foyle, D. C., McCann, R. S., & Shelden, S. G. (1995). Attentional issues with superimposed symbology formats for scene-linked displays. In R. S. Jensen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology. Columbus: Ohio State University.
10.
Hettinger, L. J., Nelson, W. T., & Haas, M. W. (1994). Comparison of target detection performance using a helmet-mounted display and a conventional flight simulator dome display. In Proceedings of 1994 Symposium on Human Interaction with Complex Systems (pp. 299–306). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE.
11.
Jonides, J. (1981). Voluntary versus automatic control over the mind's eye's movement. In J. Long & A. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance IX (pp. 187–203. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12.
Levy, J., Foyle, D. C., & McCann, R. S. (1998). Attentional allocation and head-up displays. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting (pp. 11–15). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
13.
Martin-Emerson, R., & Wickens, C. D. (1997). Superimposition, symbology, visual attention, and the head-up display. Human Factors, 39, 581–601.
14.
McCann, R. S., Foyle, D. C., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Attentional limitations with head-up displays. In Society for Information Display International Symposium Digest of Technical Papers, XXII. San Jose, CA: Society for Information Display.
15.
Mosier, K., Skitka, L., Heers, S., & Burdick, M. (1998). Automation bias: Decision making and performance in high technology cockpits. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8, 47–63.
16.
Muller, M. W., & Rabbitt, R. D. (1989). Spatial cueing and the relation between the accuracy of “where” and “what” decisions in visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41A, 747-773.
17.
National Research Council. (1997). Tactical display for soldiers: Human factors considerations.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
18.
Ockerman, J. J., & Pritchett, A. R. (1998, May). Preliminary study of wearable computers for aircraft inspection. Paper presented at the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction in Aeronautics, Montreal, Canada.
19.
Parasuraman, R., Molloy, R., & Singh, I. L. (1993). Performance consequences of automation-induced “complacency.”International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 3, 1-23.
20.
Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition (pp. 55–85. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
21.
Sampson, J. B. (1993). Cognitive performance by individuals using a head-mounted display while walking. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 37th Annual Meeting (pp. 338–342). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
22.
Seagull, F. J., & Gopher, D. (1997). Training head movement in visual scanning: An embedded approach to the development of piloting skills with helmet-mounted displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3(3), 163–180.
23.
Swennsen, R. G., Hessel, S. J., & Herman, P. G. (1977). Omissions in radiology: Faulty search of stringent reporting criteria?Radiology, 123, 563-567.
24.
Ververs, P. M., & Wickens, C. D. (1998a). Conformal flight path symbology for head-up displays: Defining the distribution of visual attention in three-dimensional space (University of Illinois Institute of Aviation Tech. Report No. ARL-98-5/NASA-98-1). Savoy, IL: Aviation Research Laboratory.
25.
Ververs, P. M., & Wickens, C. D. (1998b). Head-up displays: Effects of clutter, display intensity, and display location on pilot performance. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8, 377–403.
26.
Wickens, C. D. (1992). Engineering psychology and human performance.New York: Harper-Collins.
27.
Wickens, C. D. (1997). Attentional issues in head-up displays. In Engineering psychology and cognitive ergonomics: Integration of theory and application (pp. 3–21). London: Avebury Technical.
28.
Wickens, C. D., Liang, C.-C., Prevett, T., & Olmos, O. (1996). Electronic maps for terminal area navigation: Effects of frame of reference and dimensionality. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 6, 241–271.
29.
Wickens, C. D., & Long, J. (1995). Object versus space-based models of visual attention: Implications for the design of head-up displays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1, 179–193.
30.
Wickens, C. D., Mavor, A. S., Parasuraman, R., & McGee, J. P. (Eds). (1998). The future of air traffic control: Human operators and automation.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
31.
Yeh, M., & Wickens, C. D. (1997). Performance issues in helmet mounted displays (University of Illinois Institute of Aviation Tech. Report No. ARL-97-9/ARMY-FED-LAB-97-1). Savoy, IL: Aviation Research Laboratory.
32.
Yeh, M., Wickens, C. D., & Seagull, J. (1998). Effects of frame of reference and viewing condition on attentional issues with helmet-mounted displays (University of Illinois Institute of Aviation Tech. Report No. ARL-98-1/ARMY-FED-LAB-98-1). Savoy, IL: Aviation Research Laboratory.
