Attention plays an important role in the design of human-machine interfaces. However, current knowledge about attention is largely based on data obtained when using devices of moderate display size. With advancement in display technology comes the need for understanding attention behavior over a wider range of viewing sizes. The effect of display size on test participants' visual search performance was studied. The participants (N = 12) performed two types of visual search tasks, that is, parallel and serial search, under three display-size conditions (16°, 32°, and 60°). Serial, but not parallel, search was affected by display size. In the serial task, mean reaction time for detecting a target increased with the display size.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BoersemaT.ZwagaH. J. G.JorensK. (1993) Visual search in simple simulations of realistic scenes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77, 867–881.
2.
CarrascoM.ChangI. (1995) The interaction of objective and subjective organizations in a localization search task. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 1134–1150.
3.
CarrascoM.EvertD. L.ChangI.KatzS. M. (1995) The eccentricity effect: Target eccentricity affects performance on conjunction searches. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 1241–1261.
4.
CarrasoM.FriederK. S. (1997) Cortical magnification neutralizes the eccentricity effect in visual search. Vision Research, 37, 63–82.
5.
EmotoM.MasaokaK.SugawaraM.NojiriY. (2006) The viewing angle dependency in the presence of wide field image viewing and its relationship to the evaluation indices. Displays, 27, 80–89.
6.
EmotoM.MasaokaK.SugawaraM.OkanoF. (2005) Viewing angle effects from wide field video projection images on the human equilibrium. Displays, 26, 9–14.
7.
KanwisherN. G. (1987) Repetition blindness: Type recognition without token individuation. Cognition, 27, 117–143.
8.
MackA.RockI. (1998) Inattentional blindness. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
9.
PosnerM. I. (1980) Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–25.
10.
PosnerM. I.SnyderC. R. R.DavidsonB. J. (1980) Attention and the detection of signals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 160–174.
11.
PotterM. C. (1975) Meaning in visual search. Science, 187(4180), 965–966.
12.
PotterM. C.LevyE. I. (1969) Recognition memory for a rapid sequence of pictures. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 10–15.
13.
RaymondJ. E.ShapiroK. L.ArnellK. M. (1992) Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: An attentional blink?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 849–860.
14.
StelzerE. M.WickensC. D. (2006) Pilots strategically compensate for display enlargements in surveillance and flight control tasks. Human Factors, 48, 166–181.
15.
TanD. S.CzerwinskiM. P.RobertsonG. G. (2006) Large displays enhance optical flow cues and narrow the gender gap in 3-D virtual navigation. Human Factors, 48, 318–333.
16.
TownsendJ. T. (1971) A note on the identifiability of parallel and serial processes. Perception & Psychophysics, 10, 161–163.
17.
TownsendJ. T. (1990) Serial vs. parallel processing: Sometimes they look like Tweedledum and Tweedledee but they can (and should) be distinguished. Psychological Science, 1, 46–54.
18.
TreismanA. M.GeladeG. (1980) A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.
19.
WickensC. D.LeeJ. D.LiuY.Gordon-BeckerS. (2004) Cognition. In An introduction to human factors engineering. (2nd ed.) New York: Pearson Education. Pp. 120–155.
20.
WolfeJ. M. (1998) Visual search. In PashlerH. (Ed.), Attention. East Sussex, UK: Psychological Press. Pp. 13–73.
21.
WolfeJ. M.O'NeillP.BennettS. C. (1998) Why are there eccentricity effects in visual search? Visual and attentional hypotheses. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 140–156.
