Downloads & Free Reading Options - Results

In the present experiment, we compared three types of computer-generated displays of battlefield information in order to address the possible influence of any of four potential causes of display-induced cognitive tunneling, which had been found in the Immersed display condition of Thomas, Wickens, & Merlo, 1999. First, it is possible that information within the initial 90 forward field of view (FFOV) of the 3-D egocentric view in the Immersed display suite acquired too much salience, and information outside the FFOV was overlooked. Second, it is possible that the Immersed participants were simply not using the manual panning function to view the entire 360 of the environment because of the information access cost associated with it, and thus never seeing information outside of the initial FFOV. Third, it is possible that there was simply too much information to store in working memory in the amount of time taken to complete each scene, which resulted in some relevant information never getting encoded. Finally, it is possible that Immersed participants were not accurately integrating information across the two views provided in the display. Participants viewed one of three types of displays of battlefield information and were asked to make spatial judgments, provide counts of visible enemy units, detect changes to these enemy units, and select paths through the environment. The Tethered display is equivalent to the one used in Thomas et al (1999). However, there were two versions of the Immersed display in this experiment; the first (self-pan) allowed participants to actively pan the environment (similar to the Immersed condition used by Thomas et al), while the second (auto-pan) automatically panned the environment as the participants observed passively.