In the study of variables which may affect peripheral visual perception are several ways of assessing deterioration of this perception. One is evaluation of deformation of the useful visual field. Two techniques of analysis have been considered, by calculation of deformation indices, as proposed by Rantanen in 2003 and by carrying out an elliptical interpolation from the location within the visual field of signals perceived by a subject. This latter means, proposed by Rogé in 2002, enables description of whole field with the aid of two parameters. Comparison of the two techniques clarifies their advantages and disadvantages.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ChanH. S.CourtneyA. J. (1993) Effects of cognitive foveal load on a peripheral single-target detection task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77, 515–533.
2.
EdwardsD. C.GoolkasianP. A. (1974) Peripheral vision location and kinds of complex processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 244–249.
3.
HockeyG. R. J. (1970) Changes in attention allocation in a multicomponent task under loss of sleep. British Journal of Psychology, 61, 473–480.
4.
IkedaM.TakeuchiT. (1975) Influence of foveal load on the functional visual field. Perception & Psychophysics, 18, 255–260.
5.
JohnsonC. A.KeltnerJ. L.BalestreryF. (1978) Effects of target size and eccentricity on visual detection and resolution. Vision Research, 18, 1217–1222.
MackworthN. H. (1976) Stimulus density limits the useful field of view. In MontyR. A.SendersJ. W. (Eds.), Eye movements and psychological processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 307–321.
8.
NobleM.SandersA. F. (1980) Searching for traffic signals while engaged in compensatory tracking. Human Factors, 22, 89–102.
9.
RantanenE. M. (2003) Measurement of the visual field. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96, 92–94.
10.
RantanenE. M.GoldbergJ. H. (1999) The effect of mental workload on the visual field size and shape. Ergonomics, 42, 816–834.
11.
RogéJ.KielbasaL.MuzetA. (2002) Deformation of the useful visual field with state of vigilance, task priority, and central task complexity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 118–130.
12.
RogéJ.PébayleT.HannachiS. E.MuzetA. (2003) Effect of sleep deprivation and driving duration on the useful visual field in younger and older subjects during simulator driving. Vision Research, 43, 1465–1472.
13.
RogéJ.PébayleT.KiehnL.MuzetA. (2002) Alteration of the useful visual field as a function of state of vigilance in simulated car driving. Transportation Research, Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 5, 189–200.
14.
ScialfaC.KlineD.LymanB. (1987) Age differences in target identification as a function of retinal location and noise level: examination of the useful field of view. Psychology and Aging, 2, 14–19.
15.
WardN. J.PakesA.CroneP. R. (1995) Effects of background scene complexity and field dependence on the legibility of head-up displays for automotive applications. Human Factors, 37, 735–745.
16.
WilliamsL. J. (1982) Cognitive load and the functional field of view. The Human Factors Society, 12, 684–692.
17.
WilliamsL. J. (1988) Tunnel vision or general interference? Cognitive load and attentional bias are both important. American Journal of Psychology, 101, 171–191.
