Perceived clutter in advanced cockpit displays: Measurement and modeling with experienced pilots

Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine

Volumn 79, Issue 11, 2008, Pages 1007-1018

  Kaber, David B ^a   Alexander, Amy L ^b   Stelzer, Emily M ^b   Kim, Sang Hwan ^a   Kaufmann, Karl ^a   Hsiang, Simon ^a  

^a North Carolina State University   (United States)

^b APTIMA INC   (United States)

Author keywords

Display clutter; Head up displays; Intelligent flight deck technologies; Psychophysical modeling

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AIRCRAFT; AIRPLANE PILOT; ARTICLE; COCKPIT DISPLAY; ENHANCED VISION SYSTEM; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FLIGHT PATHWAY GUIDANCE; HEAD UP DISPLAY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IMAGE DISPLAY; MALE; MEASUREMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIMARY FLIGHT DISPLAY SYMBOL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SAFETY; SIMULATION; SYNTHETIC VISION SYSTEM; TRAFFIC COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYMBOLOGY;

ADULT; AEROSPACE MEDICINE; AVIATION; COHORT STUDIES; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 55349127414     PISSN: 00956562     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3357/ASEM.2319.2008     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Ahlstrom U. Work domain analysis for air traffic controller weather displays. J Safety Res 2005; 36:159-69.
2. Aviram G, Rotman SR. Evaluating human detection performance of targets and false alarms, using a statistical texture image metric. Optical Engineering 2000; 39:2285-95.
3. Beijer D, Smiley A, Eizenman M. Driver and vehicle simulation, human performance, and information systems for highways; railroad safety; and visualization in transportation. Transportation Research Record 2004; 1899:96-103.
4. Campbell DE, Kelly JS. A simple characterization of majority rule. Economic Theory 2000; 15:689-700.
5. Ewing GJ, Woodruff CJ, Vickers D. Effects of 'local' clutter on human target detection. Spat Vis 2006; 19:37-60.
6. Freedman D, Brandstein MS. Contour tracking in clutter: a subset approach. International Journal of Computer Vision 2000; 38:173-86.
7. Gulyanitskii LF, Volkovich OV, Malyshko SA. An approach to formalization and analysis of group choice problems. Cybernetics and Systems Analysis 1994; 30:413-8.
8. Haworth LA, Newman RL. Test techniques for evaluating flight displays. Washington, DC: NASA; 1993. Tech. Memo. No: 103947.
9. Horrey WJ, Wickens CD. Driving and side task performance: the effects of display clutter, separation, and modality. Hum Factors 2004; 46:611-24.
10. Keller J, Leiden K, Small R. Cognitive task analysis of commercial jet aircraft pilots during instrument approaches for baseline and synthetic vision displays. In: Foyle DC, Goodman A, Hooey BL , eds. Proceedings of the 2003 NASA Aviation Safety Program Conference on Human Performance Modeling of Approach and Landing with Augmented Displays. Moffett Field, CA: NASA 2003. NASA Conference Proceedings No: NASA/CP-2003-212267.
11. Kemeny J, Snell JL. Mathematical models in the social sciences. Boston: Ginn and Co.; 1960.
12. Levy JL, Foyle DC, McCann RS. Performance benefits with scene-linked HUD symbology: an attentional phenomenon? Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society; October 5-9, 1998; Chicago, IL. Santa Monica, CA: HFES; 1998:11-15.
13. Meitzler T, Gerhart G, Singh H. A relative clutter metric. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems 1998; 34: 968-76.
14. Moberly NJ, Langham MP. Pedestrian conspicuity at night: failure to observe a biological motion advantage in a high-clutter environment. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2002; 16:477-85.
15. rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1991.
16. Muthard EK, Wickens CD. Display size contamination of attentional and spatial tasks: an evaluation of display minification and axis compression. Savoy, IL: University of Illinois, Aviation Human Factors Division; 2005. Tech. Report No: AHFD-05-12/NASA-05-3.
17. Prinzel LJ, Comstock JR, Jr, Glaab LJ, Kramer LJ, Arthur JJ, Barry JS. The efficacy of head-down and head-up synthetic vision display concepts for retro- and forward-fit of commercial aircraft. International Journal of Aviation Psychology 2004; 14:53-77.
18. Rosenholtz R, Li Y, Mansfield J, Jin Z. Feature congestion: a measure of display clutter. In: Proceedings of CHI 2005. Portland, OR: ACM; 2005.
19. Rotman SR, Tidhar G, Kowalczyk ML. Clutter metrics for target detection systems. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems 1994; 30:81-91.
20. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc . Aerospace recommended practices (ARP)-5288, transport category airplane head up display (HUD) systems. Warrendale, PA: SAE; 1999.
21. Schnell T, Kwon Y, Merchant S, Etherington T. Improved flight technical performance in flight decks equipped with synthetic vision information system displays. International Journal of Aviation Psychology 2004; 14:79-102.
22. Tullis T. Screen design. In: Helander M, Landauer TK, Prabhu P, eds. Handbook of human-computer interaction. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 1997:503-31.
23. Ververs PM, Wickens CD. Head-up displays: effects of clutter, display intensity, and display location on pilot performance. Int J Aviat Psychol 1998; 8:377-403.
24. Wang C, Griebel S, Brandstein M, Hsu B-J. Real-time automated video and audio capture with multiple cameras and microphones. Journal of VLSI Signal Processing Systems 2001; 29:81-99.
25. Wichmann FA, Hill NJ. The psychometric function: I. Fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit. Percept Psychophys 2001; 63:1314-29.
26. Wickens CD, Alexander AL, Ambinder MS, Martens M. The role of highlighting in visual search through maps. Spat Vis 2004; 17:373-88.
27. Wickens CD, McCarley JS, Alexander AL, Thomas LC, Ambinder MS, Zheng XS. Attention-situation awareness (A-SA) model of pilot error. In: Foyle DC, Hooey BL , eds. Human performance modeling in aviation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2007.
28. Wickens CD, Vincow M, Schopper R, Lincoln J. Computational models of human performance in the design and layout of controls and displays. Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH: SCERIAC; 1997. SCERIAC SOAR Report No: 97-22.
29. Xing J. Measure of information complexity and the implications for automation design. Washington, DC: U.S. DOT FAA; 2004. Tech. Report No: DOT/FAA/AM-04/17.