Peripheral Visual Feedback: A Powerful Means of Supporting Effective Attention Allocation in Event-Driven, Data-Rich Environments

Abstract

Breakdowns in human-automation coordination in data-rich, event-driven domains such as aviation can be explained in part by a mismatch between the high degree of autonomy yet low observability of modern technology. To some extent, the latter is the result of an increasing reliance in feedback design on foveal vision--an approach that fails to support pilots in tracking system-induced changes and events in parallel with performing concurrent flight-related tasks. One possible solution to the problem is the distribution of tasks and information across sensory modalities and processing channels. A simulator study is presented that compared the effectiveness of current foveal feedback and two implementations of peripheral visual feedback for keeping pilots informed about uncommanded changes in the status of an automated cockpit system. Both peripheral visual displays resulted in higher detection rates and faster response times, without interfering with the performance of concurrent visual tasks any more than does currently available automation feedback. Potential applications include improved display designs that support effective attention allocation in a variety of complex dynamic environments, such as aviation, process control, and medicine.

Novel Multimodal Feedback Techniques for In-Car Mid-Air Gesture Interaction

“…aeroplane cockpits [27]) does not interfere with the performance of the primary visual task [27], and peripheral visual cues are highly effective in conveying information [14,36]. These findings have led to growing interest in ambient lighting in vehicles.…”

“…There is a body of research [39,13,29] showing that distributing information to non-visual modalities does not increase reaction time to cues when mental workload is increasing. Auditory feedback [29], tactile stimuli [38,39,13], and peripheral visual feedback [27,22] have shown to successfully cue driver attention without dividing visual attention. An additional advantage of providing feedback is that it is needed for gesturing to help the user understand: (1) system attention [6]; (2) the in/correctness of gesture execution; and (3) provide greater user satisfaction [26].…”

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Automation Design

“…Importantly, the haptic warnings did not interfere with the performance of concurrent visual tasks. Similarly, peripheral visual cues also helped pilots detect uncommanded mode transitions and did not interfere with concurrent visual tasks any more than did currently available automation feedback (Nikolic and Sarter, 2001). Haptic warnings may also be less annoying and acceptable compared to auditory warnings .…”

Using Informative Peripheral Visual and Tactile Cues to Support Task and Interruption Management

“…In contrast, processing informative tactile cues minimally affected performance on the primary task. The fact that performance on the arithmetic task suffered most when peripheral visual interruption cues were presented may be explained by the onset of proximal visual stimuli capturing and leading to a reorientation of foveal visual attention, which could have interfered with the visual attentional requirements of the arithmetic task (Nikolic & Sarter, 2001). With additional training, participants may be able to suppress this visual reorientation to a larger extent.…”

“…Given that operators' foveal visual and auditory channels are heavily taxed in most realworld domains, the peripheral visual channel and touch seem to be particularly promising candidates for presenting interruption cues (e.g., Hopp-Levine, Smith, Clegg, & Heggestad, 2006;Nikolic & Sarter, 2001;Sarter, 2002). These channels allow for the identification of a limited set of characteristic features (such as the brightness of visual cues or the frequency of vibrotactile cues) with minimal processing effort.…”