Inattentional blindness to unexpected hazard in augmented reality head-up display assisted driving: The impact of the relative position between stimulus and augmented graph

References

• AblaBmeier M, Poitschke T, Bengler FWK, Rigoll G. 2007. Eye gaze studies comparing head-up and head-down displays in vehicles. Paper presented at 2007 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo; Beijing, IEEE. doi:10.1109/icme.2007.4285134.
   Google Scholar
• Arefin MS, Phillips N, Plopski A, Gabbard JL, Swan IJ. 2022. The effect of context switching, focal switching distance, binocular and monocular viewing, and transient focal blur on human performance in optical see-through augmented reality. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graphics. 28(5):2014–2025. doi:10.1109/tvcg.2022.3150503.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Beanland V, Filtness AJ, Jeans R. 2017. Change detection in urban and rural driving scenes: effects of target type and safety relevance on change blindness. Accid Anal Prev. 100:111–122. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2017.01.011.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolton A, Burnett G, Large DR. 2015. An investigation of augmented reality presentations of landmark-based navigation using a head-up display. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications; Nottingham, UK. doi:10.1145/2799250.2799253.
   Google Scholar
• Braun CC, Mine PB, Clayton Silver N. 1995. The influence of color on warning label perceptions. Int J Ind Ergon. 15(3):179–187. doi:10.1016/0169-8141(94)00036-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cepeda NJ, Cave KR, Bichot NP, Kim M-S. 1998. Spatial selection via feature-driven inhibition of distractor locations. Percept Psychophys. 60(5):727–746. doi:10.3758/bf03206059.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Charlton SG, Starkey NJ. 2013. Driving on familiar roads: automaticity and inattention blindness. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 19:121–133. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2013.03.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chintamani K, Cao A, Ellis RD, Pandya AK. 2010. Improved telemanipulator navigation during display-control misalignments using augmented reality cues. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A. 40(1):29–39. doi:10.1109/tsmca.2009.2030166.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Choudhary P, Velaga NR. 2019. Effects of phone use on driving performance: a comparative analysis of young and professional drivers. Saf Sci. 111:179–187. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2018.07.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornett D. 2014. Inattentional blindness and auditory attention: effects of cognitive load on visual awareness [thesis]. Louisiana (UK): LSU master’s theses. doi:10.31390/gradschool_theses.2540.
   Google Scholar
• Eyraud R, Zibetti E, Baccino T. 2015. Allocation of visual attention while driving with simulated augmented reality. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 32:46–55. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2015.04.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleetwood M. 2005. Refining theoretical models of visual sampling in supervisory control tasks: examining the influence of alarm frequency, effort, value, and salience [thesis]. Houston (US): DSpace at Rice University.
   Google Scholar
• Gabbard JL, Fitch GM, Kim H. 2014. Behind the glass: driver challenges and opportunities for AR automotive applications. Proc IEEE. 102(2):124–136. doi:10.1109/jproc.2013.2294642.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabbard JL, Mehra DG, Swan JE. 2019. Effects of AR display context switching and focal distance switching on human performance. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph. 25(6):2228–2241. doi:10.1109/tvcg.2018.2832633.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Guo H, Zhao F, Wang W, Jiang X. 2014. Analyzing drivers’ attitude towards HUD system using a stated preference survey. Adv Mech Eng. 6:380647. doi:10.1155/2014/380647.
   Google Scholar
• Häuslschmid R, Osterwald S, Lang M, Butz A. 2015. Augmenting the driver’s view with peripheral information on a windshield display. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces; Atlanta, GA. doi:10.1145/2678025.2701393.
   Google Scholar
• Holland BS, Copenhaver MD. 1988. Improved Bonferroni-type multiple testing procedures. Psychol Bull. 104(1):145–149. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.104.1.145.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huckauf A, Urbina MH, Grubert J, Böckelmann I, Doil F, Schega L, Tümler J, Mecke R. 2010. Perceptual issues in optical-see-through displays. Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Applied Perception in Graphics and Visualization; New York (NY). doi:10.1145/1836248.1836255.
   Google Scholar
• Hwang Y, Park B-J, Kim K-H. 2016. The effects of augmented-reality head-up display system usage on drivers risk perception and psychological change. Etri J. 38:757–766. doi:10.4218/etrij.16.0115.0770.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kia K, Hwang J, Kim I-S, Ishak H, Kim JH. 2021. The effects of target size and error rate on the cognitive demand and stress during augmented reality interactions. Appl Ergon. 97:103502. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103502.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kim H, Gabbard JL. 2022. Assessing distraction potential of augmented reality head-up displays for vehicle drivers. Hum Factors. 64(5):852–865. HFEJ.:001872081984484. doi:10.1177/0018720819844845.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kim K, Hwang Y. 2016. The usefulness of augmenting reality on vehicle head-up display. Adv Intell Syst Comput. 484:655–662. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-41682-3_55.
   Google Scholar
• Kruijff E, Swan JE, Feiner S. 2010. Perceptual issues in augmented reality revisited. In: 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality; Seoul, South Korea. doi:10.1109/ismar.2010.5643530.
   Google Scholar
• MacKenzie KJ. 2012. Vergence and accommodation to multiple-image-plane stereoscopic displays: “real world” responses with practical image-plane separations? J Electron Imaging. 21(1):011002. doi:10.1117/1.jei.21.1.011002.
   Google Scholar
• Medenica Z, Kun AL, Paek T, Palinko O. 2011. Augmented reality vs. street views: a driving simulator study comparing two emerging navigation aids. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services; New York (NY). doi:10.1145/2037373.2037414.
   Google Scholar
• Merenda C, Kim H, Tanous K, Gabbard JL, Feichtl B, Misu T, Suga C. 2018. Augmented reality interface design approaches for goal-directed and stimulus-driven driving tasks. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph. 24(11):2875–2885. doi:10.1109/tvcg.2018.2868531.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ng-Thow-Hing V, Bark K, Beckwith L, Tran C, Bhandari R, Sridhar S. 2013. User-centered perspectives for automotive augmented reality. Paper presented at 2013 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality - Arts, Media, and Humanities; Adelaide, SA, Australia. doi:10.1109/ismar-amh.2013.6671262.
   Google Scholar
• Nuthmann A. 2014. How do the regions of the visual field contribute to object search in real-world scenes? Evidence from eye movements. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 40(1):342–360. doi:10.1037/a0033854.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oh HJ, Ko SM, Ji YG. 2016. Effects of superimposition of a head-up display on driving performance and glance behavior in the elderly. Int J Hum-Comput Interact. 32(2):143–154. doi:10.1080/10447318.2015.1104155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pammer K, Sabadas S, Lentern S. 2018. Allocating attention to detect motorcycles: the role of inattentional blindness. Hum Factors. 60(1):5–19. doi:10.1177/0018720817733901.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pylyshyn ZW. 2006. Some puzzling findings in multiple object tracking (MOT): II. Inhibition of moving nontargets. Vis Cogn. 14(2):175–198. doi:10.1080/13506280544000200.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Regan MA, Hallett C, Gordon CP. 2011. Driver distraction and driver inattention: definition, relationship and taxonomy. Accid Anal Prev. 43(5):1771–1781. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2011.04.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schall M, Jr. Rusch M, Lee J, Vecera S, Rizzo M. 2010. Attraction without distraction: effects of augmented reality cues on driver hazard perception. J Vis. 10(7):236–236. doi:10.1167/10.7.236.
   Google Scholar
• Scialfa CT, Joffe KM. 1998. Response times and eye movements in feature and conjunction search as a function of target eccentricity. Percept Psychophys. 60(6):1067–1082. doi:10.3758/bf03211940.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smith M, Gabbard JL, Burnett G, Doutcheva N. 2017. The effects of augmented reality head-up displays on drivers’ eye scan patterns, performance, and perceptions. Int J Mobile Hum Comput Interact. 9(2):1–17. doi:10.4018/ijmhci.2017040101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith M, Gabbard JL, Burnett G, Hare C, Singh H, Skrypchuk L. 2021. Determining the impact of augmented reality graphic spatial location and motion on driver behaviors. Appl Ergon. 96:103510. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103510.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smith M, Jordan L, Bagalkotkar K, Sai Manjuluri S, Nittala R, Gabbard J. 2020. Hit the brakes!: augmented reality head-up display impact on driver responses to unexpected events. Paper presented at 12th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications; Washington (DC). p. 46–49. doi:10.1145/3409251.3411720.
   Google Scholar
• Smith M, Streeter J, Burnett G, Gabbard JL. 2015. Visual search tasks: the effects of head-up displays on driving and task performance. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications; Nottingham, UK. doi:10.1145/2799250.2799291.
   Google Scholar
• Sojourner RJ, Antin JF. 1990. The effects of a simulated head-up display speedometer on perceptual task performance. Hum Factors. 32(3):329–339. doi:10.1177/001872089003200306.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tangmanee K, Teeravarunyou S. 2012. Effects of guided arrows on head-up display towards the vehicle windshield. In: 2012 Southeast Asian Network of Ergonomics Societies Conference (SEANES). doi:10.1109/seanes.2012.6299572.
   Google Scholar
• Wang Y, Wu Y, Chen C, Wu B, Ma S, Wang D, Li H, Yang Z. 2022. Inattentional blindness in augmented reality head-up display-assisted driving. Int J Hum-Comput Int. 38(9):837–850. doi:10.1080/10447318.2021.1970434.
   Google Scholar
• Wickens CD. 2015. Noticing events in the visual workplace: the SEEV and NSEEV models. In: Hoffman RR, Hancock PA, Scerbo MW, Parasuraman R, Szalma JL, editors. The Cambridge handbook of applied perception research. Cambridge (US): Cambridge University Press. p. 749–768. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511973017.046.
   Google Scholar
• Yanko MR, Spalek TM. 2013. Route familiarity breeds inattention: a driving simulator study. Accid Anal Prev. 57:80–86. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2013.04.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar