Object versus space-based models of visual attention: Implications for the design of head-up displays.

Abstract

Thirty-two pilots flew instrument approaches in a high-fidelity simulator, first inside and then outside of the clouds. They used 2 symbology sets, presenting flight guidance information that was either conformal or nonconformal with the background. Half of the trials presented the symbology in a head-up location, and half presented the symbology head-down. Airspeed tracking was displayed with nonconformal digital symbology. An unexpected far domain event was presented on 1 trial per pilot. For flightpath control, there was a benefit for head-up location for conformal, but not for nonconformal symbology. The head-up display viewed over the background eliminated advantages to tracking airspeed and nonconformal symbology that had been present while in the clouds. Head-up display also produced a slower response to the far domain unexpected event. The results are interpreted within 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. These are incorporated in a processing model that can guide the appropriate choice of symbology for head-up displays.

Visual search and target cueing: A comparison of head-mounted versus hand-held displays on the allocation of visual attention

“…This hypothesis is based on the findings regarding the problems of low salience of rare event detection with the superimposed imagery, characteristic of head-up displays (Martin-Emerson & Wickens, 1997;Wickens & Long, 1995).…”

“…However in the head down position, it appears less "natural" and direct, and requires a greater degree of cognitive transformation, to use the cue to identify a direct position in space. Indeed in the HUD research, we have found that the benefits of conformal cueing (locating the runway) are considerably enhanced when presented in a head up, rather than at a head down location (Wickens & Long, 1995;Fadden & Wickens, 1997).…”

Attention and Trust Biases in the Design of Augmented Reality Displays

“…The difficulty dividing attention between two sources of information presented by overlapping imagery has been examined extensively in the HUD and HMD domains and is represented in the cases in which the symbology presented in the forward field of view captures the pilots' attention at the cost of processing other information in the far domain beyond the symbology, i.e., attentional tunneling (Fadden et al, 1998;Larish & Wickens, 1991;MartinEmerson & Wickens, 1992McCann et al, 1992;National Research Council, 1997;Sampson, 1993;Wickens & Long, 1995). This miscalibration in attention may be a consequence of emphasizing certain display features [e.g., superimposing guidance symbology as in Ververs and Wickens (1998a)] such that operators overutilize the information provided by the system, which allows performance of the task with less cognitive effort.…”

“…In fact, Dopping-Hepenstal (1981) noted that military pilots fixated more frequently on information presented on a HUD at the cost of scanning the outside scene but at the same time were more confident in their abilities. Fadden et al (1998) conducted a meta-analysis of research that has compared the use of head-up versus head-down displays in air and ground vehicles and found that as more information is added to the HUD, there is a cost in detecting events in the world (e.g., noticing the presence of an airplane on the runway during a landing task) relative to the head-down display, particularly if these events are unexpected and not salient (Larish & Wickens, 1991;Wickens & Long, 1995;Wickens, 1997).…”

“…Additionally, the presentation of such cues are often associated as representing characteristics of importance and reliability (Berg, 1990;Montgomery & Sorkin, 1996). In the design of augmented reality displays, there is evidence that the compellingness of an information source can be induced by: (1) superimposing information at the same location (Fadden, Ververs, & Wickens, 1998;McCann, Foyle, & Johnston, 1992;National Research Council, 1997;Wickens & Long, 1995), (2) presenting highly accurate attentional guidance (cueing) information (Yeh, Wickens, & Seagull, 1998;Ockerman & Pritchett, 1998), and (3) increasing the apparent realism of the imagery by presenting information using an immersed perspective (Olmos, Wickens, & Chudy, 1997;. We consider each of these potential sources of increased compellingness below and examine their effects on the calibration of attention.…”