2000
DOI: 10.21236/ada436771
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of Display Frames of Reference on Spatial Judgments and Change Detection

Abstract: Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and R… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
8
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
3
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Overall, results of the current study are consistent with automation research that operators may develop overreliance on the automatic system and this complacency may negatively affect their task performances (Parasuraman et al, 1993). Thomas and Wickens (2000) showed that, when participants had access to information gathered from automatically panning cameras, they tended to prematurely close the automatic panning feature prior to finishing examining the entire environment. Participants manually panning the cameras, on the other hand, had significantly higher target detection performance, which indicated more adequate panning.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…Overall, results of the current study are consistent with automation research that operators may develop overreliance on the automatic system and this complacency may negatively affect their task performances (Parasuraman et al, 1993). Thomas and Wickens (2000) showed that, when participants had access to information gathered from automatically panning cameras, they tended to prematurely close the automatic panning feature prior to finishing examining the entire environment. Participants manually panning the cameras, on the other hand, had significantly higher target detection performance, which indicated more adequate panning.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…An improved user interface should benefit the operator's integration of information from different sources. It is worth noting, however, that integrating information from different frames of reference (e.g., exocentric and egocentric) can be challenging to the operator, and the potential human performance issues associated with such displays need to be carefully evaluated (Olmos, Wickens, & Chudy, 2000;Thomas & Wickens, 2000). In addition, operators may be susceptible to saliency effects and anchoring heuristic/bias.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition to issues involving situation awareness, previous work has identified a number of other issues caused by a restricted field-of-view, such as cognitive tunneling-an individual failing to recognize landmarks, even those which are in view [39], errors in distance and depth judgments [47], and an impaired ability to detect targets or obstacles [3,43].…”
Section: Narrow View Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hypothesis 1: The use of a wide-angle or panoramic view will improve users' task performance relative to a narrow camera view by reducing the effects of cognitive tunneling [39].…”
Section: Hypothesesmentioning
confidence: 99%