Restrictions of field-of-view are known to impair human performance for a range of different tasks. However, such effects on human locomotion through a complex environment are still not clear. Effects of both horizontal (30°, 75°, 112°, 120°, 140°, 160°, and 180°) and vertical (18° and 48°) field-of-view restrictions on the walking speed and head movements of participants maneuvering through an obstacle course were investigated. All field-of-view restrictions tested significantly increased time to complete the entire course, compared to the unrestricted condition. The time to traverse the course was significantly longer for a vertical field-of-view of 18° than for a vertical field-of-view of 48°. For a fixed vertical field-of-view size, the traversal time was constant for horizontal field-of-view sizes ranging between 75° and 180° and increased significantly for the 30° horizontal field-of-view condition. In the restricted viewing conditions, the angular velocity of head movements made while stepping over an obstacle increased significantly over that for the unrestricted field-of-view condition, but no difference was found between the different field-of-view sizes. Implications of the current findings for the development of devices with field-of-view restrictions are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlfanoP. L.MichelG. F. (1990) Restricting the field of view: Perceptual and performance effects. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, 35–45.
2.
AmblardB.CarblancA. (1980) Role of foveal and peripheral visual information in maintenance of postural equilibrium in man. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 51, 903–912.
3.
AmblardB.CremieuxJ.MarchandA. R.CarblancA. (1985) Lateral orientation and stabilization of human stance: Static versus dynamic visual cues. Experimental Brain Research, 61, 21–37.
4.
ArthurK. W. (2000) Effects of field of view on performance with head-mounted displays. Chapel Hill, NC: Univer. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
5.
ChevaldonnéM.BallazC.MérienneF.NeveuM.ChevassusN.GuillaumeF.ArbezC. (2006) Field-of-view tests for a virtual cockpit application. Journal of Electronic Imaging, 15, 020501–1–020501–3.
6.
Creem-RegehrS. H.WillemsenP.GoochA. A.ThompsonW. B. (2005) The influence of restricted viewing conditions on egocentric distance perception: Implications for real and virtual indoor environments. Perception, 34, 191–204.
7.
DolezalH. (1982) Living in a world transformed: Perceptual and performatory adaptation to visual distortion. New York: Academic Press.
8.
GallimoreJ. J.BrannonN. G.PattersonF. R. (1998) The effects of field-of-view on pilot head movement during low level flight. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 42nd Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Pp. 6–10.
9.
HollandsM. A.PatlaA. E.VickersJ. N. (2002) “Look where you're going!”: Gaze behaviour associated with maintaining and changing the direction of locomotion. Experimental Brain Research, 143, 221–230.
10.
JenningsS.CraigG. (2000) Effects of field-of-view on pilot performance in night vision goggles flight trials: Preliminary findings. In LewandowskiR. J.HaworthL. A.GirolamoH. J. (Eds.), Helmet- and head-mounted displays V. (SPIE-4021). Bellingham, WA: The International Society for Optical Engineering. Pp. 335–342.
11.
KasperE.HaworthL. A.SzoboszlayZ. P.KingR. D.HalmosZ. L. (1997) Effects of in-flight field-of-view restriction on rotorcraft pilot head movement. In LewandowskiR. J.HaworthL. A.GirolamoJ. J. (Eds.), Head-mounted displays II. (SPIE-305S). Bellingham, WA: The International Society for Optical Engineering. Pp. 34–45.
12.
KnappJ. M.LoomisJ. M. (2004) Limited field-of-view of head-mounted displays is not the cause of distance underestimation in virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 13, 572–577.
13.
LathamR. (1999) Head-mounted display survey. Real Time Graphics, 7(2), 8–12.
14.
LinJ. J. W.DuhH. B. L.ParkerD. E.Abi-RachedH.FurnessT. A. (2002) Effects of field-of-view on presence, enjoyment, memory, and simulator sickness in a virtual environment. Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality 2002 (VR.02). Washington, DC: IEEE Press. Pp. 164–171.
15.
LoftusA.MurphyS.McKennaI.Mon-WilliamsM. (2004) Reduced fields of view are neither necessary nor sufficient for distance underestimation but reduce precision and may cause calibration problems. Experimental Brain Research, 158, 328–335.
16.
MohagheghiA. A.MoraesR.PatlaA. E. (2004) The effects of distant and on-line visual information on the control of approach phase and step over an obstacle during locomotion. Experimental Brain Research, 155, 459–468.
17.
PatlaA. E.VickersJ. N. (2005) How far ahead do we look when required to step on specific locations in the travel path during locomotion?Experimental Brain Research, 148, 133–138.
18.
PattersonR.WinterbottomM. D.PierceB. J. (2006) Perceptual issues in the use of head-mounted visual displays. Human Factors, 48, 555–573.
19.
PauschR.CreaT.ConwayM. (1992) A literature survey for virtual environments: Military flight simulator visual systems and simulator sickness. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 1, 344–363.
20.
PsotkaJ.LewisS. A. (1995) Effects of field of view on judgments of self-location: Distance estimations using plainview representations as a function of observer eye staion points (ESP) and geometric field-of-view (FOVg). (Report ARI Research Note 98–24) Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Studies.
21.
RCTA, Inc. (2001) Minimum operational performance standards for integrated night vision imaging system equipment. (Report DO-275) Washington, DC: Author.
22.
SzoboszlayZ. P.HaworthL. A.ReynoldsT. L.LeeA.HalmosZ. (1995) Effect of field-of-view restriction on rotocraft pilot workload and performance: Preliminary results. In LewandowskiR. J.StephensW.HaworthL. A. (Eds.), Helmet- and head-mounted displays and symbology design requirements II. (SPIE-2465). Bellingham, WA: The International Society for Optical Engineering. Pp. 142–153.
23.
TuranoK.HerdmanS. J.DagnelieG. (1993) Visual stabilization of posture in retinitis pigmentosa and in artificially restricted visual fields. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 34, 3004–3010.
24.
Van ErpJ. B. F.PadmosP. (2004) Image parameters for driving with indirect viewing systems. Ergonomics, 46, 1471–1499.
25.
WadeL. R.WeimarW. H.DavisJ. (2004) Effect of personal protective eyewear on postural stability. Ergonomics, 47, 1614–1623.
26.
WagenaarW. A. (1969) Note on the construction of diagram-balanced Latin squares. Psychological Bulletin, 72, 384–386.
27.
WattS. J.BradshawM. F.RushtonS. K. (2000) Field of view affects reaching, not grasping. Experimental Brain Research, 135, 411–416.
28.
WellsM. J.VenturinoM. (1990) Performance and head movements using a helmet-mounted display with different sized fields-of-view. Optical Engineering, 29, 870–877.
29.
WellsM. J.VenturinoM.OsgoodR. K. (2006) Effect of field-of-view size on performance at a simple simulated air-to-air mission. In CarolloJ. T. (Eds.), Helmet-mounted displays. (SPIE-1116). Bellingham, WA: The International Societv for Optical Engineering. Pp. 126–130.
30.
WernerE. B. (1991) Manual of visual fields. New York: Churchill Livingstone.
31.
WuB.OoiT. L.HeZ. J. (2004) Perceiving distance accurately by a directional process of integrating ground information. Nature, 428, 73–77.
