Head-Up Display (HUD) Utility, II: Runway to Hud Transitions Monitoring Eye Focus and Decision Times

Weintraub, Daniel J.; Haines, Richard F.; Randle, Robert J.

doi:10.1177/154193128502900621

Cited by 44 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In spite of their general success however, some disconcerting issues have been raised regarding the clutter caused by overlapping imagery (Oppitek, 1973) and in one simulator evaluation, this clutter was assumed to be responsible for pilots failing to notice a plane taxiing onto the runway, on the final approach to landing (Fischer, Haines, and Price, 1980). Weintraub and his colleagues (Weintraub and Ensing, 1992;Weintraub, Haines, and Randle, 1985) have noted that an objective evaluation of the costs and benefits of HUDs must be based upon a controlled evaluation of the three dimensions by which HUDS differ from conventional instrumentation: their location, the fact that they are collimated to optical infinity, and the fact that their symbology is often different from that of conventional aircraft instruments. Most HUD evaluations have not applied these controls.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Conformal Symbology, Attention Shifts, and the Head-Up Display

Wickens

Long

1994

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thirty-two pilots flew instrument approaches in a high-fidelity simulator. Location of flight symbology was manipulated head-up vs. headdown while controlling for optical distance and symbology format. Pilots were assigned to one of two symbology sets, conformal and nonconformal. Each pilot flew half of the trials with the symbology presented in a head-up location and half with the symbology located headdown. Airspeed tracking for both groups was displayed with non-conformal digital symbology. An unexpected far domain event was presented on one trial per pilot. The results revealed that, for flight path control, there was generally a cost associated with headdown location. The magnitude of this cost was larger for conformal than for non-conformal symbology. Head-up presentation resulted in faster transition from instrument to visual flight reference, but poorer airspeed tracking and slower response to the far domain unexpected event and greater error tracking digital airspeed. The results are interpreted with the theoretical framework of object-based and space-based theories of visual attention, and the tradeoffs between clutter of overlapping imagery and information access cost.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Conformal Symbology, Attention Shifts, and the Head-Up Display

Wickens

Long

1994

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several reports indicate that optically overlaid information cannot be processed in parallel [22][23][24]. Others have reported that there is a time cost associated with cognitive switching among the environment and the [25][26][27].…”

Section: Effect Of Information Overlay On Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative effectiveness of augmented reality in object assembly

Tang

Owen

Biocca

et al. 2003

Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

370

178

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although there has been much speculation about the potential of Augmented Reality (AR), there are very few empirical studies about its effectiveness. This paper describes an experiment that tested the relative effectiveness of AR instructions in an assembly task. Task information was displayed in user's field of view and registered with the workspace as 3D objects to explicitly demonstrate the exact execution of a procedure step. Three instructional media were compared with the AR system: a printed manual, computer assisted instruction (CAI) using a monitor-based display, and CAI utilizing a head-mounted display. Results indicate that overlaying 3D instructions on the actual work pieces reduced the error rate for an assembly task by 82%, particularly diminishing cumulative errors -errors due to previous assembly mistakes. Measurement of mental effort indicated decreased mental effort in the AR condition, suggesting some of the mental calculation of the assembly task is offloaded to the system.

show abstract

“…This could be either through attentional capture, also called cognitive tunneling (Fischer & Haines, 1980;Weintraub, Haines, & Randle, 1985;Wickens & Long, 1995), or merely by the fact that light transmission through the HUD is not 100%. A commercial HUD will let about 85% to 90% of the incoming light pass through the glass plate.…”

Section: Hud Use In Commercial Flight Operationsmentioning

confidence: 98%