Tactical Routing Using Two-Dimensional and Three-Dimensional Views of Terrain

When and how should 3-D views be used? We report the results of two experiments in which participants had to plan a route across terrain shown in a 3-D perspective view or in a 2-D (top-down) plan view. We used a non-stereoscopic 3-D perspective view that displayed terrain from 45 degrees above the ground plane onto a flat screen, and a 2-D plan view that displayed the same terrain as a topographic map. The task was to create a chain of antennas across the map so that consecutive antennas could “see” each other. We found that antenna placement was performed better with the 2-D plan view, but that initial planning of the antenna route was performed better with the 3-D perspective view. We introduce the concept of “orient and operate” to explain the findings.

[2]  Michael B. Cowen,et al.  Use of Perspective View Displays for Operational Tasks , 1999 .

[3]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Display Formatting Techniques for Improving Situation Awareness in the Aircraft Cockpit , 1991 .

[4]  Bradley S. Boyer.  3-D Weather Displays for Aircraft Cockpits. , 1994 .

[5]  Stephen R. Ellis,et al.  Perspective Traffic Display Format and Airline Pilot Traffic Avoidance , 1987 .

[6]  E. Schiller,et al.  Track Location Enhancements for Perspective View Displays , 2000 .

[7]  Suzanne V. Bemis,et al.  Operator Performance as a Function of Type of Display: Conventional versus Perspective , 1988 .

[8]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  The Proximity Compatibility Principle: Its Psychological Foundation and Relevance to Display Design , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[9]  David D. Woods,et al.  Visual Momentum: A Concept to Improve the Cognitive Coupling of Person and Computer , 1984, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[10]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Three-Dimensional Displays for Terrain and Weather Awareness in the National Airspace System , 1995 .

[11]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  The implications of data-link for representing pilot request information on 2D and 3D air traffic control displays , 1996 .

[12]  Heinrich H. Bülthoff,et al.  Viewpoint Effects in Naming Silhouette and Shaded Images of Familiar Objects , 1998 .

[13]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Two- and Three-Dimensional Displays for Aviation: A Theoretical and Empirical Comparison , 1993 .

[14]  Tyler T Prevett,et al.  Exploring the dimensions of egocentricity in aircraft navigation displays , 1995 .

[15]  L. Kaufman,et al.  Handbook of perception and human performance , 1986 .

[16]  Harvey S. Smallman,et al.  Information Availability in 2D and 3D Displays , 2001, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[17]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Effects of elevation angle disparity, complexity, and feature type on relating out-of-cockpit field of view to an electronic cartographic map , 1999 .

[18]  Michael B. Cowen,et al.  Using Two-Dimensional and Perspective Views of Terrain , 2000 .

[19]  K. F Van Orden,et al.  Visuospatial task performance as a function of two- and three-dimensional display presentation techniques , 2000 .

[20]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Free Flight Cockpit Displays of Traffic and Weather: Effects of Dimensionality and Data Base Integration , 1997 .

[21]  C D Wickens,et al.  Electronic maps for terminal area navigation: effects of frame of reference and dimensionality. , 1996, The International journal of aviation psychology.

[22]  L. van Breda,et al.  Perspective information in the cockpit as a target acquisition aid , 1998 .

[23]  J. Cutting,et al.  Minimodularity and the perception of layout. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[24]  O. Sabouraud.  [Space perception]. , 1978, Revue d'oto-neuro-ophtalmologie.

[25]  Woodrow Barfield,et al.  Perspective versus Plan View Air Traffic Control Displays: Survey and Empirical Results , 1991 .