Synthetic Vision Systems: The Effects of Guidance Symbology, Display Size, and Field of View

Alexander, Amy L.; Wickens, Christopher D.; Hardy, Thomas J.

doi:10.1518/001872005775571005

Cited by 48 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 29 publications

(46 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…First, the joint effect predicted by PPT on observed scores was cor- nition and human factors literature is full of examples where PPT could provide additional and potentially counter intuitive information regarding the tasks at hand. For example, recent studies have analyzed the difference between 2-D and 3-D displays in aviation (e.g., Alexander, Wickens, & Hardy, 2005;Thomas & Wickens, 2006), with mixed conclusions (that each display is more beneficial for a particular type of task). However, a reanalysis using PPT could lead to a better understanding of why each particular display is more useful for a particular task; that is, do different displays invoke different strategies, depending on the task, or do they influence the consistency of behavior, again depending on the task?…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential performance theory (PPT): Describing a methodology for analyzing task performance

Trafimow

Rice

2009

Behavior Research Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Potential performance theory (PPT) was developed by Trafimow and Rice (2008) as a general theory of task performance that specifies the relationships among actual performance, true performance, and randomness. Although Trafimow and Rice performed mathematical simulations of the theory's consequences given various starting points, and even performed an illustrative experiment, they did not fully explore the potential of PPT as a methodological tool. We believe that there are such implications and that they are important. Consequently, our main goals are to work out these implications in detail, perform an experiment to demonstrate them, and illustrate how the conclusions drawn from traditional methods are misleading in the absence of the proposed methods. Furthermore, we introduce new mathematical equations that further enhance the use of PPT. To aid in demonstrating this new methodology, we use an example paradigm, whereby participants perform a high-fidelity target-detection task; however, we want to be clear that our goal is to demonstrate the proposed PPT methodology, rather than to contribute extensively to the literature on this particular paradigm. A SUMMARY OF PPTPPT is based on the idea that a person's observed performance on a task is influenced by two variables: (1) the combination of the nonrandom factors that are relevant to the performance of the task, which PPT terms strategy, and (2) random factors. For those people whose strategy is better than randomness, it is easy to demonstrate that lack of consistency (randomness) decreases task performance (see Trafimow & Rice, 2008, Figure 1). PPT quantifies what the person's expected task performance would be if random factors were completely eliminated-that is, if the person were to execute a perfectly consistent pattern of behavior. In addition, PPT quantifies what the person's task performance would be under any level of consistency that the researcher desires to consider.PPT is based, in part, on classical true-score theory. According to classical true-score theory, observed performance is determined by two factors: a person's "true" score and random error (for reviews, see Allen & Yen, 1979;Cohen & Swerdlik, 1999;Crocker & Algina, 1986;Lord & Novick, 1968). Interestingly, although random error is, by definition, random, it can have systematic effects on correlation coefficients. As random error increases, correlations between variables decrease. Classical true-score theorists derived a "correction" formula that provides the expected value for the true correlation if the measures of the variables are perfectly reliable and have no random error. Specifically, the expected value for the true correlation coefficient is based on the observed correlation coefficient, adjusted for the reliability of the measures of the relevant variables. Equation 1 gives the correction formula, where R is the true correlation between variables X and Y, and r XX and r YY are the reliabilities of the measures of the two variables, respectively. R r r r XX YY(1) Because task ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential performance theory (PPT): Describing a methodology for analyzing task performance

Trafimow

Rice

2009

Behavior Research Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The experiment was needed due to inconsistencies in the research literature. Several past studies found no performance differences created by reduced display size [1,11,13,18,21,22]. However, there were some conflicting results, with some investigations indicating a benefit of larger displays, albeit in different task demand situations not directly generalizable to the dismounted robot control situation.…”

Section: Display Sizementioning

confidence: 96%

A tactile option to reduce robot controller size

Redden

Elliott

Pettitt

et al. 2008

J Multimodal User Interfaces

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In response to operational requirements for smaller robotic controller devices for use by dismounted US Army soldiers, three types of robot controller navigation map display configurations were evaluated for effects on beyond line-of-sight robotic navigation tasks. We predicted better performance with the larger split screen display that presents both a map display and a camera-based driving display on a 6.5 inch screen. Two smaller alternatives were also evaluated. One alternative was a 3.5 inch display that allowed the operator to toggle back and forth between the driving display and the map display. The third option added a torso-mounted tactile display to the toggle-based display in order to provide direction information simultaneously with the camera display and thus reduce the need to toggle as frequently to the map display. Each display option was evaluated based on objective performance data, expert-based observations, and scaled subjective soldier questionnaire items. Findings indicated that operators' navigation performance with the multimodal 3.5 inch toggle display was as effective as their performance with a 6.5 inch split screen display. Operator performance was significantly lower with the 3.5 inch toggle display that did not have the tactile display.

show abstract

“…Several past studies have found no performance differences created by reduced display size (Alexander, Wickens, and Hardy, 2005;Minkov, Perry and Oron-Gilad, 2007;Muthard and Wickens, 2004;Redden et al 2008;Stark, Comstock, Prinzel, Burdette, and Scerbo, 2001;Stelzer and Wickens, 2006). However, there were conflicting results with some investigations indicating a benefit of larger displays.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Scaling Robotic Displays: Visual and Multimodal Options for Navigation by Dismounted Soldiers

Redden¹,

Pettitt²,

Carstens³

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. ii REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGEForm Public reporting burden for this 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 information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)January 2009 ARL-TR-4708 SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S) DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENTApproved for public release; distribution unlimited. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ABSTRACTThis study investigates the impact of three types of navigation map displays on navigation performance, using Soldiers from the Officer Candidate School (OCS) at Fort Benning, GA. After training to use the TALON Robot system, each Soldier completed navigation exercises using three navigation display configurations: a 6.5 in. split screen display with a driving display on top and a map display on bottom, allowing simultaneous or near simultaneous viewing; a 3.5 in. display in which the Soldier could toggle between the driving and map displays; and a multimodal 3.5 in. display using a tactile belt that transmitted directional information to the Soldier concurrently with the driving camera display (Soldiers could also toggle to the map display to determine TALON's specific location). The terrain, targets, and hazards were counterbalanced to control for the effect of learning. Display configuration and usability for robotic driving were evaluated based on objective performance data, data collector observations, and Soldier questionnaires. Findings indicated that Soldiers navigated equally effectively using the multimodal 3.5 in. and 6.5 in. split screen displays. Their performance with both the multimodal and split screen displays was better than with the 3.5 in. display that required toggling between the driving and map displays.

show abstract

Synthetic Vision Systems: The Effects of Guidance Symbology, Display Size, and Field of View

Cited by 48 publications

References 29 publications

Potential performance theory (PPT): Describing a methodology for analyzing task performance

Potential performance theory (PPT): Describing a methodology for analyzing task performance

A tactile option to reduce robot controller size

Scaling Robotic Displays: Visual and Multimodal Options for Navigation by Dismounted Soldiers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About