Costs and benefits of head up displays - An attention perspective and a meta analysis

Fadden, Steven; Wickens, Christopher D.; Ververs, Patricia May

doi:10.2514/6.2000-5542

Cited by 18 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, a metaanalysis of the HUD literature carried out by Fadden et al (2000) showed that responses to unexpected events tend to be longer in overlay HUD conditions relative to HDD conditions. In the current study the events were all highly salient and occurred in close proximity to the superimposed display, and this may have afforded drivers the ability to detect and respond quickly, despite the clutter of the overlaid digits.…”

Section: Display Clutter From Overlaymentioning

confidence: 81%

“…There were, however, no differences in response times across modality (adjacent visual vs. auditory), A two-sample t test (one tailed) for overlay and adjacent HUD conditions did not yield any differences between the two display locations, t(75) = -0.86, p = .39, power = .72, suggesting that the presence of information overlap and clutter did not disrupt drivers' ability to detect and respond to the critical events. However, given that previous research has reliably demonstrated costs associated with superimposed (i.e., cluttered) head-up information and responses to truly surprising, unexpected events (e.g., Fadden et al, 2000), we examined the first occurrence of an incursion event for the overlay and adjacent conditions. It is assumed that the first occurrence of such events was truly surprising and unexpected, whereas subsequent ones were just temporally uncertain.…”

Section: Response Times To Critical Eventsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of studies have demonstrated benefits of reduced scanning using head-up displays (HUDs), as compared with head-down presentation of similar information, in terms of tracking performance on a primary task, response to displayrelated information, and response to events in the outside world (e.g., Sojourner & Antin, 1990;Wickens & Long, 1995). These benefits, however, may be reduced or even reversed in conditions of high workload (Gish & Staplin, 1995) or in response to unexpected events (Fadden, Wickens, & Ververs, 2000;Tufano, 1997;Weintraub & Ensing, 1992). This degradation may be attributable to the increased visual clutter inherent in the overlay of multiple displays.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Driving and Side Task Performance: The Effects of Display Clutter, Separation, and Modality

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In-vehicle technologies (IVTs) create additional tasks for the driver. To the extent that these devices degrade driving performance, there will be safety concerns. This study examines the effects of display clutter from overlay, display separation, and modality on driving and IVT task performance. In a fixed-base simulator, 22 drivers drove different routes and responded to infrequent, unexpected road hazards while engaging in a phone number task presented by different displays. Visual displays were located on a head-up (overlaid on the visual horizon or adjacently, just above the vehicle hood) or head-down display (HDD) located near the midconsole. Alternatively, digits were presented auditorily. In general, there were no differences in performance for the adjacent and overlay displays; however, there were costs associated with the HDD and auditory display for some measures. In particular, responses to hazard events were slowed when drivers used the HDD. Overall, the adjacent display best supported performance on all relevant tasks. Potential applications of this research include the design of IVTs with respect to location and modality.

show abstract

Section: Display Clutter From Overlaymentioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Response Times To Critical Eventsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Driving and Side Task Performance: The Effects of Display Clutter, Separation, and Modality

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nonetheless, another study suggest that the use of HUD could result in attention capture and increased reaction times to sudden events when compared to baseline performance [27]. Also, the HUD benefits do not hold under the high workload of unexpected events, during which HUD users experience detriment to both the driving task and roadway event response [12,5].…”

Section: Previous Work On In-car Text Entrymentioning

confidence: 99%

T9+hud

Villalobos-Zúñiga

Kujala

Oulasvirta

2016

Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We introduce T9+HUD, a text entry method designed to decrease visual distraction while driving and typing. T9+HUD combines a physical 3x4 keypad on the steering wheel with a head-up-display (HUD) for projecting output on the windshield. Previous work suggests this may be a visually less demanding way to type while driving than the popular case which requires shifts of visual attention away from the road. We present a prototype design and report first results from a controlled evaluation in a driving simulator. While driving, the T9+HUD text entry rate was equal compared to a dashboardmounted touchscreen device, but it reduced lane deviations by 70%. Furthermore, there was no significant difference between T9+HUD and baseline driving in lane-keeping performance. T9+HUD decreased glance time off road by 64% in comparison to the touchscreen QWERTY. We conclude that the data are favorable and warrant more research on attention-reducing text input methods for driving.

show abstract

“…This offers users a number of advantages over traditional dash-mounted or head-down display (HDD) designs, including shorter accommodation times and increased eyes-forward time, 2, 3 both of which translate to enhanced situational awareness and faster reaction time by users. [4][5][6] Traditionally, HUD systems have been laid out as shown in Fig. 1, where light from a source is encoded with an image and propagated through a collection of relay optics toward a transparent, partially reflective combiner.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%