Superimposition, symbology, visual attention, and the head-up display

Martin-Emerson, R.; Wickens, C. D.

Home/Archive/NASA NTRS

NASA NTRS · 20040121943

Superimposition, symbology, visual attention, and the head-up display

Martin-Emerson, R.·Wickens, C. D.

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In two experiments we examined a number of related factors postulated to influence head-up display (HUD) performance. We addressed the benefit of reduced scanning and the cost of increasing the number of elements in the visual field by comparing a superimposed HUD with an identical display in a head-down position in varying visibility conditions. We explored the extent to which the characteristics of HUD symbology support a division of attention by contrasting conformal symbology (which links elements of the display image to elements of the far domain) with traditional instrument landing system (ILS) symbology. Together the two experiments provide strong evidence that minimizing scanning between flight instruments and the far domain contributes substantially to the observed HUD performance advantage. Experiment 1 provides little evidence for a performance cost attributable to visual clutter. In Experiment 2 the pattern of differences in lateral tracking error between conformal and traditional ILS symbology supports the hypothesis that, to the extent that the symbology forms an object with the far domain, attention may be divided between the superimposed image and its counterpart in the far domain.

Explore related subjects

Attention Visual Fields Data Display Task Performance and Analysis Computer Graphics Aviation/instrumentation Aerospace Medicine Human Engineering Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S Human Saccades Cognition Equipment Design Reaction Time Visual Perception

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Martin-Emerson, R., Wickens, C. D.. 1997-12-01. Superimposition, symbology, visual attention, and the head-up display. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20040121943

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related reports

NASA NTRS2001

A dissociation between attention and selection

It is widely assumed that the allocatian of spatial attention results in the "selection" of attended objects or regions of space. That is, once a stimulus is attended, all its feature dimensions are processed irrespective of their relevance to behavioral goals. This assumption is based in part on experiments showing significant interference for attended stimuli when the response to an irrelevant dimension conflicts with the response to the relevant dimension (e.g., the Stroop effect). Here we show that such interference is not due to attending per se. In two spatial cuing experiments, we found that it was possible to restrict processing of attended stimuli to task-relevant dimensions. This new evidence supports two novel conclusions: (a) Selection involves more than the focusing of attention per se: and (b) task expectations play a key role in detertnining the depth of processing of the elementary feature dimensions of attended stimuli.

Attention↗

NASA NTRS2001

Processing bottlenecks in dual-task performance: structural limitation or strategic postponement?

Recent evidence indicates that a central bottleneck causes much of the slowing that occurs when two tasks are performed at the same time. This bottleneck might reflect a structural limitation inherent in the cognitive architecture. Alternatively, the bottleneck might reflect strategic (i.e., voluntary) postponement, induced by instructions to emphasize one task over the other. To distinguish structural limitations from strategic postponement, we examine a new paradigm in which subjects are told to place equal emphasis on both tasks and to emit both responses at about the same time. An experiment using this paradigm demonstrated patterns of interference that cannot easily be attributed to strategic postponement, preparation effects, or conflicts in response production. The data conform closely to the predictions of structural central bottleneck models.

Attention↗

NASA NTRS2001

Contingent attentional capture or delayed allocation of attention?

Under certain circumstances, external stimuli will elicit an involuntary shift of spatial attention, referred to as attentional capture. According to the contingent involuntary orienting account (Folk, Remington, & Johnston, 1992), capture is conditioned by top-down factors that set attention to respond involuntarily to stimulus properties relevant to one's behavioral goals. Evidence for this comes from spatial cuing studies showing that a spatial cuing effect is observed only when cues have goal-relevant properties. Here, we examine alternative, decision-level explanations of the spatial cuing effect that attribute evidence of capture to postpresentation delays in the voluntary allocation of attention, rather than to on-line involuntary shifts in direct response to the cue. In three spatial cuing experiments, delayed-allocation accounts were tested by examining whether items at the cued location were preferentially processed. The experiments provide evidence that costs and benefits in spatial cuing experiments do reflect the on-line capture of attention. The implications of these results for models of attentional control are discussed.

Attention↗