Display Formatting Techniques for Improving Situation Awareness in the Aircraft Cockpit

Andre, Anthony D.; Wickens, Christopher D.; Moorman, Laura

doi:10.1207/s15327108ijap0103_2

Cited by 60 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This result, combined with our previous findings with terrain (Andre et al, 1991) and simple block and ball stimuli (Andre and Wickens, 1995) suggest that 2-D views are generally superior to 3-D views for making precise relative position judgments. Threedimensional perspective views, however, appear superior for understanding the shapes of objects and the rough layout of scenes and terrain (Andre et al, 1991;Andre and Wickens, 1995). Together, these findings have important implications for the design of visualization software from maps to structural illustrations.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…Andre and Wickens (1995) caution that sometimes "users want what's not best for them." Across an array of tasks, many studies have found benefits for 3-D perspective over 2-D (Andre, Wickens Moorman, and Boschelli, 1991;Bemis, Leeds, and Winer, 1988;Burnett and Barfield, 1991;Ellis, McGreevey, and Hitchcock, 1987;Haskell and Wickens, 1993;Van Breda and Veltman, 1998). Other studies have found rough parity (Winckens, Liang, Prevett, and Olmos, 1996), and still other studies have found 2-D superior to 3-D (Boyer, Campbell, May, Merwin, and Wickens, 1996;O'Brien and Wickens, 1997;Ware and Lowther, 1997).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Navigating Two-Dimensional and Perspective Views of Terrain

John¹,

Harvey²,

Smallman³

et al. 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many Command and Control tasks consist of the display of three-dimensional (3-D) objects and environments displayed on flat screens. The question is how to display such information so that it is understood and interpreted in the most effective manner for each different task. We considered the basic qualities and capabilities of two-dimensional (2-D) and 3-D views. We then proposed a distinction between tasks that require shape understanding and tasks that require precise judgments of relative position. We hypothesized that 3-D views are useful for understanding object shape, but 2-D views are more useful for understanding the relative position of objects. In a previous report, we confirmed these hypotheses in two experiments involving simple block shapes. We then extended the results to three experiments involving complex terrain where participants viewed a 7-by 9-mile piece of terrain in 3-D from a 45-degree angle, a 90-degree angle, or in 2-D as a topographic map. In this report, we describe a fourth experiment involving terrain. Participants were asked to estimate the latitude, longitude, and altitude distances between two points on a 7-x 9-mile piece of terrain. We found that these judgments of relative position were most accurate for terrain rendered as a 2-D topographic map. Adding grid and contour lines to the 90-degree angle 3-D views improved performance to the level of the topographic maps. Adding the grid and contour lines to the 45-degree angle 3-D views also improved performance, though not to the level of the topographic maps.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Navigating Two-Dimensional and Perspective Views of Terrain

John¹,

Harvey²,

Smallman³

et al. 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Across an array of tasks, a number of studies have found benefits for 3D perspective over 2D (Bemis, Leeds, & Winer, 1988;Ellis, McGreevy, & Hitchcock, 1987;Hickox & Wickens, 1999 (Andre, Wickens, Moorman, & Boschelli, 1991;Baumann, Blanksteen, & Dennehy, 1997;Burnett & Barfield, 1991;Haskell & Wickens, 1993;Van Breda & Veltman, 1998;Wickens, Liang, Prevett, & Olmos, 1996;Wickens & Prevett, 1995), and still other studies have found 2D superior to 3D (Boyer, Campbell, May, Merwin, & Wickens, 1995;Boyer & Wickens, 1994;O'Brien & Wickens, 1997;Wickens, Campbell, Liang, & Merwin, 1995;Wickens & May, 1994;Wickens, Miller, & Tham, 1996). The details of tasks and interfaces vary widely in these studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Use of 2D and 3D Displays for Shape-Understanding versus Relative-Position Tasks

John¹,

Cowen

Smallman³

et al. 2001

Hum Factors

167

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on when and how to use three-dimensional (3D) perspective views on flat screens for operational tasks such as air traffic control is complex. We propose a functional distinction between tasks: those that require shape understanding versus those that require precise judgments of relative position. The distortions inherent in 3D displays hamper judging relative positions, whereas the integration of dimensions in 3D displays facilitates shape understanding. We confirmed these hypotheses with two initial experiments involving simple block shapes. The shape-understanding tasks were identification or mental rotation. The relative-position tasks were locating shadows and determining directions and distances between objects. We then extended the results to four experiments involving complex natural terrain. We compare our distinction with the integral/separable task distinction of Haskel and Wickens (1993). Applications for this research include displays for air traffic control, geoplots for military command and control, and potentially, any display of 3D information.

show abstract

“…In other words, spatial awareness of information de pended on how essential the information was to the task. Andre, Wickens, Moorman, and Boschelli (1991) investigated the effects of particular displays on navi gation awareness. They presented participants with either a planar inside-out display (i.e., a two-dimen sional representation with a stationary aircraft), a planar outside-in display (i.e., a two-dimensional representation with a stationary environment), or a perspective outside-in display (i.e., a two-dimensional rendering of three-dimensional space with a station ary environment).…”

Section: Research Examining Spatial Awarenessmentioning

confidence: 99%