Effects of field-of-view restrictions on speed and accuracy of manoeuvring

Perceptual and Motor Skills

Volumn 105, Issue 3 II SPEC. ISS., 2007, Pages 1245-1256

  Toet, Alexander ^a   Jansen, Sander E M ^a   Delleman, Nico J ^a  

^a TNO   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BINOCULAR VISION; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DARKNESS; DISTANCE PERCEPTION; EYE PROTECTIVE DEVICE; FEMALE; HUMAN; LOCOMOTION; MALE; MOVEMENT (PHYSIOLOGY); OPTICAL INSTRUMENTATION; ORIENTATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; SENSORY DEPRIVATION; SPECTACLES; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISION; VISUAL FIELD;

ADULT; DARKNESS; DISTANCE PERCEPTION; EYE PROTECTIVE DEVICES; EYEGLASSES; FEMALE; HUMANS; LENSES; LOCOMOTION; MALE; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MOVEMENT; ORIENTATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; SENSORY DEPRIVATION; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; VISION, BINOCULAR; VISUAL FIELDS; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 40949131088     PISSN: 00315125     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2466/PMS.105.4.1245-1256     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. ALFANO, P. L., & MICHEL, G. F. (1990) Restricting the field of view: perceptual and performance effects. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 70, 35-45.
2. AMBLARD, B., & CARBLANC, A. (1980) Role of foveal and peripheral visual information in maintenance of postural equilibrium in man. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 51, 903-912.
3. ARTHUR, K. W. (2000) Effects of field of view on performance with head-mounted displays. Chapel Hill, NC: Univer. of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
4. CHEVALDONNÉ, M., BALLAZ, C., MÉRIENNE, F., NEVEU, M., CHEVASSUS, N., GUILLAUME, F., & ARBEZ, C. (2006) Field-of-view tests for a virtual cockpit application. Journal of Electronic Imaging, 15, 020501-1-020501-3.
5. CREEM-REGEHR, S. H., WILLEMSEN, P., GOOCH, A. A., & THOMPSON, W. B. (2005) The influence of restricted viewing conditions on egocentric distance perception: implications for real and virtual indoor environments. Perception, 34, 191-204.
6. DELLEMAN, N. J. (2004) About agents and avatars - simulation-based design ergonomics from a human movement perspective. Paris, France/Soesterberg, The Netherlands: Paris Descartes Univer./TNO Human Factors. [Inaugural address]
7. DOLEZAL, H. (1982) Living in a world transformed: perceptual and performatory adaptation to visual distortion. New York: Academic Press.
8. FORTENBAUGH, F. C., HICKS, J. C., HAO, L., & TURANO, K. A. (2007) Losing sight of the bigger picture: peripheral field loss compresses representations of space. Vision Research, 47, 2506-2520.
9. GALLIMORE, J. J., BRANNON, N. G., & PATTERSON, F. R. (1998) The effects of field-of-view on pilot head movement during low level flight. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting, 2. Chicago, IL. Pp. 6-10.
10. GAMBERINI, L., COTTONE, P., SPAGNOLLI, A., VAROTTO, D., & MANTOVANI, G. (2003) Responding to a fire emergency in a virtual environment: different patterns of action for different situations. Ergonomics, 46, 842-858.
11. KASPER, E., HAWORTH, L. A., SZOBOSZLAY, Z. P., KING, R. D., & HALMOS, Z. L. (1997) Effects of in-flight field-of-view restriction on rotorcraft pilot head movement. In R. J. Lewandowski, L. A. Haworth, & J. J. Girolamo (Eds.), Head-mounted displays II (SPIE-2465) Bellingham, WA: The International Society for Optical Engineering. Pp. 34-45.
12. LATHAM, R. (1999) Head-mounted display survey. Real Time Graphics, 7(2), 8-12.
13. NASH, E. B., EDWARDS, G. W., THOMPSON, J. A., & BARFIELD, W. (2000) A review of presence and performance in virtual environments. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 12, 1-41.
14. PATTERSON, R., WINTERBOTTOM, M. D., & PIERCE, B. J. (2006) Perceptual issues in the use of head-mounted visual displays. Human Factors, 48, 555-573.
15. PAUSCH, R., CREA, T., & CONWAY, M. (1992) A literature survey for virtual environments: military flight simulator visual systems and simulator sickness. Presence: Tele-operators and Virtual Environments, 1, 344-363.
16. PSOTKA, J., & LEWIS, S. A. (1995) Effects of field of view on judgements of self-location: distance estimations using plainview representations as a function of observer eye station points (ESP) and geometric field of view (FOVg) (Report ARI Research Note 98-24) Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Studies.
17. RIESER, J. J., HILL, E. W., TALOR, C. R., BRADFIELD, A., & ROSEN, S. (1992) Visual experience, visual field size, and the development of nonvisual sensitivity to the spatial structure of outdoor neighborhoods explored by walking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121,210-221.
18. SZOBOSZLAY, Z. P., HAWORTH, L. A., REYNOLDS, T. L., LEE, A., & HALMOS, Z. (1995) Effect of field-of-view restriction on rotocraft pilot workload and performance: preliminary results. In R. J. Lewandowski, W. Stephens, & L. A. Haworth (Eds.), Helmet- and head-mounted displays and symbology design requirements II (SPIE-2465) Bellingham, WA: The International Society for Optical Engineering. Pp. 142-153.
19. TURANO, K., HERDMAN, S. J., & DAGNELIE, G. (1993) Visual stabilization of posture in retinitis pigmentosa and in artificially restricted visual fields. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 34, 3004-3010.
20. WAGENAAR, W. A. (1969) Note on the construction of digram-balanced Latin squares. Psychological Bulletin, 72, 384-386.
21. WATT, S. J., BRADSHAW, M. F., & RUSHTON, S. K. (2000) Field of view affects reaching, not grasping. Experimental Brain Research, 135, 411-416.
22. WELLS, M. J., & VENTURINO, M. (1990) Performance and head movements using a helmetmounted display with different sized fields-of-view. Optical Engineering, 29, 870-877.
23. WERNER, E. B. (1991) Manual of visual fields. New York: Churchill Livingstone.
24. WHITTON, M., COHN, J., FEASEL, J., ZIMMONS, P., RAZZAQUE, S., POULTON, S., MCLEOD, B., & BROOKS, F. (2006) Comparing VE locomotion interfaces. Proceedings of IEEE Virtual Reality 2005. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society. Pp. 123-130.