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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |