Does over-accommodation occur when using aircraft head-up displays?

Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine

Volumn 70, Issue 7, 1999, Pages 666-673

  Wolffsohn, J S ^a   Edgar, G K ^b   Stone, H E ^a   Williams, M ^a   McBrien, N A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^b BAE SYSTEMS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Aircraft; FLIR imagery; Head up displays; Ocular accommodation

Indexed keywords

ACCOMMODATION; ACCURACY; ADULT; AIRCRAFT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COGNITION; CONTROLLED STUDY; EYE TRACKING; FLIGHT; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INFRARED RADIATION; OPTICAL RESOLUTION; RESPONSE TIME; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL DISCRIMINATION; AEROSPACE MEDICINE; BIOENGINEERING; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DECISION MAKING; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PUPIL REFLEX; QUESTIONNAIRE; REACTION TIME; SOLDIER; WORKLOAD;

ACCOMMODATION, OCULAR; ADULT; AEROSPACE MEDICINE; COGNITION; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DECISION MAKING; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); HUMAN ENGINEERING; HUMANS; INFRARED RAYS; MILITARY PERSONNEL; QUESTIONNAIRES; REACTION TIME; REFLEX, PUPILLARY; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; WORKLOAD;

EID: 0032588601     PISSN: 00956562     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Behar I, Wiley RW, Levine RR, et al. Visual survey of apache aviators (VISAA). Ft. Rucker, AL: United States Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory. 1990; Report No. 90-15.
2. Benel RA. Vision through interposed surfaces: implications for vehicle control. Human factors in transport research. London: Academic Press, 1980:328-36.
3. Brickner MS. Apparent limitations of head-up displays and thermal imaging systems. Fifth International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, Columbus, OH. 1989:703-7.
4. Bullimore MA, Gilmartin B. The accommodative response, refractive error and mental effort: 1. the sympathetic nervous system. Doc Ophthalmol 1988; 69:385-97.
5. Gilmartin B. A review of the role of sympathetic innervation of the ciliary muscle in ocular accommodation. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics 1986; 6:23-37.
6. Granholm E, Asarnow RF, Sarkin AJ, Dykes KL. Pupillary responses index cognitive resource limitations. Psychophysiology 1996; 33:457-61.
7. Hancock PA. Effects of control order, augmented feedback, input device and practice on tracking performance and perceived workload. Ergonomics 1996; 39:1146-62.
8. Hart SG, Brickner MS. Helmet-mounted pilot night vision systems: human factors issues. Proceedings of the Spatial Displays and Spatial Instruments Conference, Asilomar 1987; 13:1-21.
9. Hennessy RT. Instrument myopia. J Opt Soc Am 1975; 65:111420.
10. Hess EH, Polt JM. Pupil size in relation to mental activity during simple problem-solving. Science 1964; 140:1190-2.
11. Hess EH, Polt JM. Pupil size as related to interest value of visual stimuli. Science 1960; 132:349-50.
12. Hull JC, Gill RT, Roscoe SN. Locus of the stimulus to visual accommodation: where in the world, or where in the eye? Hum Factors 1982; 24:311-9.
13. Huntoon RB, Rand TW, Lapis MB. Outside scene obscuration by a millimeter-wave radar image presented on a HUD. Proceedings of the International Society for Optical Engineering: Synthetic vision for vehicle guidance and control. Orlando. 1995; 2463:173-82.
14. lavecchia JH, lavecchia HP, Roscoe SN. Eye accommodation to head-up virtual images. Hum Factors 1988; 30:689-702.
15. Iwasaki T. Effects of a visual task with cognitive demand on dynamic and steady-state accommodation. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1993; 13:285-90.
16. Jiang BC, Morse SE. A comparison between the perceptual depthof-focus and the blur threshold of accommodation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sei 1997; 38(4):S984.
17. Kotulak JC, Morse SE. Oculomotor responses with aviator helmet-mounted displays and their relation to in-flight symptoms. Hum Factors 1995b; 37:699-710.
18. Kotulak JC, Schor M. The dissociability of accommodation from vergence in the dark. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sei 1986; 27:54451.
19. Kruger PB. The effect of cognitive demand on accommodation. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1980; 57:440-5.
20. Leitner EF, Haines RF. Magnitude of visual accommodation to a head-up display. Moffett Field, CA: NASA-Ames Research Center, 1981. NASA Report No.: TP-1796.
21. McBrien NA, Millodot M. The relationship between tonic accommodation and refractive error. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sei 1987; 28:997-1004.
22. McBrien NA, Millodot M. Clinical evaluation of the Canon Autoref R-l. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1985; 62:786-92.
23. Mon-Williams M, Wann JP, Rushton S. Binocular vision in a virtual world: visual deficits following the wearing of a headmounted display. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1993; 13:387-91.
24. Norman J, Ehrlich S. Visual accommodation and virtual image displays: target detection and recognition. Hum Factors 1986; 28:135-51.
25. Parry D. Advanced landing systems for civil transport. Avionics 1994 Nov; 26-30.
26. Schor CM, Task HL. Effects of overlay symbology in night vision goggles on accommodation and attention shift. Aviat Space Environ Med 1996; 67:1039-47.
27. Weintraub DJ, Ensing M. Human factors issues in head-up display design: the book of HUD. State-of-the-art 1987; Report No.: CSERIAC92-2.
28. Wierwille WW, Rahimi M, Casali JG. Evaluation of 16 measures of mental workload using a simulated flight task, emphasizing meditional activity. Hum Factors 1985; 27:489-502.
29. Wolffsohn JS, McBrien NA, Edgar GK, Stout T. The influence of cognition and age on accommodation, detection rate and response times when using a car head-up display (HUD). Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1998; 18:243-53.