Cargando…

Augmented Visual Feedback: Cure or Distraction?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of augmented feedback on participants’ workload, performance, and distribution of visual attention. BACKGROUND: An important question in human–machine interface design is whether the operator should be provided with direct solutions. We f...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Eisma, Yke Bauke, Borst, Clark, van Paassen, René, de Winter, Joost
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8521352/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32489117
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018720820924602
_version_ 1784584882259755008
author Eisma, Yke Bauke
Borst, Clark
van Paassen, René
de Winter, Joost
author_facet Eisma, Yke Bauke
Borst, Clark
van Paassen, René
de Winter, Joost
author_sort Eisma, Yke Bauke
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of augmented feedback on participants’ workload, performance, and distribution of visual attention. BACKGROUND: An important question in human–machine interface design is whether the operator should be provided with direct solutions. We focused on the solution space diagram (SSD), a type of augmented feedback that shows directly whether two aircraft are on conflicting trajectories. METHOD: One group of novices (n = 13) completed conflict detection tasks with SSD, whereas a second group (n = 11) performed the same tasks without SSD. Eye-tracking was used to measure visual attention distribution. RESULTS: The mean self-reported task difficulty was substantially lower for the SSD group compared to the No-SSD group. The SSD group had a better conflict detection rate than the No-SSD group, whereas false-positive rates were equivalent. High false-positive rates for some scenarios were attributed to participants who misunderstood the SSD. Compared to the No-SSD group, the SSD group spent a large proportion of their time looking at the SSD aircraft while looking less at other areas of interest. CONCLUSION: Augmented feedback makes the task subjectively easier but has side effects related to visual tunneling and misunderstanding. APPLICATION: Caution should be exercised when human operators are expected to reproduce task solutions that are provided by augmented visual feedback.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8521352
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85213522021-10-19 Augmented Visual Feedback: Cure or Distraction? Eisma, Yke Bauke Borst, Clark van Paassen, René de Winter, Joost Hum Factors Displays and Controls OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of augmented feedback on participants’ workload, performance, and distribution of visual attention. BACKGROUND: An important question in human–machine interface design is whether the operator should be provided with direct solutions. We focused on the solution space diagram (SSD), a type of augmented feedback that shows directly whether two aircraft are on conflicting trajectories. METHOD: One group of novices (n = 13) completed conflict detection tasks with SSD, whereas a second group (n = 11) performed the same tasks without SSD. Eye-tracking was used to measure visual attention distribution. RESULTS: The mean self-reported task difficulty was substantially lower for the SSD group compared to the No-SSD group. The SSD group had a better conflict detection rate than the No-SSD group, whereas false-positive rates were equivalent. High false-positive rates for some scenarios were attributed to participants who misunderstood the SSD. Compared to the No-SSD group, the SSD group spent a large proportion of their time looking at the SSD aircraft while looking less at other areas of interest. CONCLUSION: Augmented feedback makes the task subjectively easier but has side effects related to visual tunneling and misunderstanding. APPLICATION: Caution should be exercised when human operators are expected to reproduce task solutions that are provided by augmented visual feedback. SAGE Publications 2020-06-03 2021-11 /pmc/articles/PMC8521352/ /pubmed/32489117 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018720820924602 Text en Copyright © 2020, The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Displays and Controls
Eisma, Yke Bauke
Borst, Clark
van Paassen, René
de Winter, Joost
Augmented Visual Feedback: Cure or Distraction?
title Augmented Visual Feedback: Cure or Distraction?
title_full Augmented Visual Feedback: Cure or Distraction?
title_fullStr Augmented Visual Feedback: Cure or Distraction?
title_full_unstemmed Augmented Visual Feedback: Cure or Distraction?
title_short Augmented Visual Feedback: Cure or Distraction?
title_sort augmented visual feedback: cure or distraction?
topic Displays and Controls
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8521352/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32489117
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0018720820924602
work_keys_str_mv AT eismaykebauke augmentedvisualfeedbackcureordistraction
AT borstclark augmentedvisualfeedbackcureordistraction
AT vanpaassenrene augmentedvisualfeedbackcureordistraction
AT dewinterjoost augmentedvisualfeedbackcureordistraction