Investigating Visual Alerting in Complex Command and Control Environments

Abstract

A series of experiments was conducted to investigate visual alerting in complex command and control environments, where operators must use several displays to perform tasks. In the first experiment, the speed of detection of two alerts, one in the form of a short bar and the other a border surrounding the perimeter of the display, were compared under flashing and static states. Findings showed that bar alerts were detected faster than border alerts and that adding a flashing attribute did not provide a benefit. The second study monitored which display participants were attending to when the alert appeared, and the results revealed that alert detection was not always superior when alerts and attention were on the same display. The third experiment investigated display configuration to ensure that the previous findings were not a result of the specific tasks performed on each display. The results are discussed in the context of the limitations of spatial attention.

Great expectations: Top-down attention modulates the costs of clutter and eccentricity.

“…Crebolder (2012), in one of these efforts, examined the effects of alert characteristics on detection rates and response times in a naval command and control task. Participants categorized naval ships as hostile or neutral while responding to the onset of visual alerts presented on either the left, right, or center display within the operator’s workspace.…”

“…Although the individual effects of expectancy (Sarter, Mumaw, & Wickens, 2007;Wickens et al, 2009), eccentricity (Crundall, Underwood, & Chapman, 2002;Stelzer & Wickens, 2006;Wickens et al, 2009;Wickens, Muthard et al, 2003), and salience/clutter (Ververs & Wickens, 1998;Wickens, Muthard et al, 2003) on detection performance are well-established in supervisory monitoring and control tasks, only a few studies have examined how these particular factors interact in more complex work domains. Crebolder (2012), in one of these efforts, examined the effects of alert characteristics on detection rates and response times in a naval command and control task. Participants categorized naval ships as hostile or neutral while responding to the onset of visual alerts presented on either the left, right, or center display within the operator's workspace.…”

Attentional costs and failures in air traffic control notifications

“…Motion is better detected in the periphery than color or shape cues (Bartram, Ware, & Calvert, 2001), and studies have examined the impact of various motion features such as velocity, amplitude, smoothness, and movement type (e.g., linear, zoom, flashing, fading) on the speed and accuracy of notification detection (Bartram, Ware, & Calvert, 2003;McCrickard, Catrambone, Chewar, & Stasko, 2003;McCrickard, Catrambone, & Stasko, 2001;Ware, Bonner, Cater, & Knight, 1992). Visual alerting has been studied in command and control (C2) environments specifically, such as pilot in-the-loop flight simulations (Iani & Wickens, 2007;Nikolic & Sarter, 2001;Stelzer & Wickens, 2006), ATC environments (Loft, Smith, & Bhaskara, 2011), and tactical categorisation tasks (Crebolder, 2012). Guidelines have been proposed for designing animated visual signals (Athènes et al, 2000), but more research is needed regarding the attentional costs and failures of alerting in data-rich dynamic displays to determine the optimal design that balances noticing against intrusiveness.…”