When beauty is only skin deep: 3-D realistic icons are harder to identify than conventional 2-D military symbols

Proceedings of the XIVth Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association and 44th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Association, 'Ergonomics for the New Millennium'

Volumn , Issue , 2000, Pages 480-483

  Smallman, Harvey S ^a   St John, Mark ^a   Oonk, Heather M ^a   Cowen, Michael B ^b  

^a Pac Sci/Engineering Group Inc   (United States)

^b Naval Command   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MILITARY OBJECTS; MILITARY PLATFORMS;

AIRCRAFT; DATA REDUCTION; DISPLAY DEVICES; MILITARY OPERATIONS; PERSONNEL TRAINING; STANDARDS;

RADAR IMAGING;

EID: 1842685395     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (13)

1. Andre, A. D., and Wickens, C. D. (1995) When users want what's NOT best for them. Ergonomics in Design, 10-14.
2. Bailey, R. W. (1993) Performance vs. preference. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 37th Annual Meeting (pp. 282-286). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
3. Biederman, I. (1987) Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. Psychological Review, 94(2), 115-147.
4. Christ, R. E., and Corso, G. M. (1983) The effects of extended practice on the evaluation of visual display codes. Human Factors, 25, 71-84.
5. Florence, D., and Geiselman, R. E. (1986) Human performance evaluation of alternative graphic display symbologies. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63, 399-406.
6. Geiselman, R. E., and Christen, F. G. (1982) Perceptual discriminability as a basis for selecting graphic symbols. Human Factors, 24, 329-337.
7. Jolicoeur, P., and Humphrey, K. G. (1998) Perception of rotated two-dimensional and three-dimensional objects and visual shapes. In V. Walsh and J. J. Kulikowski (Eds.), Perceptual Constancies: Why things look as they do (pp. 69-123). New York: Cambridge University Press.
8. Liter, J. C., Tjan, B. S., Bulthoff, H. H., and Kohnen, N. (1997) Viewpoint effects in naming silhouette and shaded images of familiar objects. Max-Planck-Institut fur Biologische Kybernetik. (Technical Report No.54), Tubingen, Germany
9. Marr, D., and Nishihara, H. K. (1978) Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 200, 269-294.
10. Military-Standard-2525B. Common warfare symbology, 15 December 1996.
11. Oldfield, R. C., and Wingfield, A. (1965) Response latencies in naming objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17, 273-281.
12. Snodgrass, J. G., and McCullough, B. (1986) The role of visual similarity in picture categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 12, 147-154.
13. Watt, R.J. (1987) Scanning from coarse to fine spatial scales in the human visual system after the onset of a stimulus. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 4, 2006-2021.