Visual task performance using a monocular see-through head-mounted display (HMD) while walking.

A monocular see-through head-mounted display (HMD) allows the user to view displayed information while simultaneously interacting with the surrounding environment. This configuration lets people use HMDs while they are moving, such as while walking. However, sharing attention between the display and environment can compromise a person's performance in any ongoing task, and controlling one's gait may add further challenges. In this study, the authors investigated how the requirements of HMD-administered visual tasks altered users' performance while they were walking. Twenty-four university students completed 3 cognitive tasks (high- and low-working memory load, visual vigilance) on an HMD while seated and while simultaneously performing a paced walking task in a controlled environment. The results show that paced walking worsened performance (d', reaction time) in all HMD-administered tasks, but visual vigilance deteriorated more than memory performance. The HMD-administered tasks also worsened walking performance (speed, path overruns) in a manner that varied according to the overall demands of the task. These results suggest that people's ability to process information displayed on an HMD may worsen while they are in motion. Furthermore, the use of an HMD can critically alter a person's natural performance, such as their ability to guide and control their gait. In particular, visual tasks that involve constant monitoring of the HMD should be avoided. These findings highlight the need for careful consideration of the type and difficulty of information that can be presented through HMDs while still letting the user achieve an acceptable overall level of performance in various contexts of use.

[1]  C. Bard,et al.  Attentional demands for static and dynamic equilibrium , 2004, Experimental Brain Research.

[2]  Andrew Sears,et al.  Capturing the effects of context on human performance in mobile computing systems , 2007, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[3]  Daniel J. Hannon,et al.  Direction of self-motion is perceived from optical flow , 1988, Nature.

[4]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Head Up versus Head Down: The Costs of Imprecision, Unreliability, and Visual Clutter on Cue Effectiveness for Display Signaling , 2003, Hum. Factors.

[5]  Steven B. Most,et al.  What you see is what you set: sustained inattentional blindness and the capture of awareness. , 2005, Psychological review.

[6]  Byron J. Pierce,et al.  Perceptual Issues in the Use of Head-Mounted Visual Displays , 2006, Hum. Factors.

[7]  C. Wall,et al.  Optokinetic nystagmus as a measure of visual function in severely visually impaired patients. , 2007, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[8]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Object versus space-based models of visual attention: Implications for the design of head-up displays , 1995 .

[9]  R. Parasuraman.  Memory load and event rate control sensitivity decrements in sustained attention. , 1979, Science.

[10]  J. M. Ritchie,et al.  The role of non-intrusive operator logging to support the analysis and generation of product engineering data using immersive VR , 2006 .

[11]  C. Spence.  Crossmodal spatial attention , 2010, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[12]  W. Warren,et al.  The role of central and peripheral vision in postural control duringwalking , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[13]  Edward E. Smith,et al.  Verbal Working Memory Load Affects Regional Brain Activation as Measured by PET , 1997, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[14]  Stephen E. Morse,et al.  Oculomotor Responses with Aviator Helmet-Mounted Displays and Their Relation to In-Flight Symptoms , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[15]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Multiple resources and performance prediction , 2002 .

[16]  P. Lachenbruch.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.) , 1989 .

[17]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Multiple Resources and Mental Workload , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[18]  Penelope M. Sanderson,et al.  Multisensory Integration With a Head-Mounted Display: Background Visual Motion and Sound Motion , 2010, Hum. Factors.

[19]  W Poewe,et al.  Influence of Concurrent Tasks on Gait: A Dual-Task Approach , 1995, Perceptual and motor skills.

[20]  Charles Spence,et al.  Perceptual load affects exogenous spatial orienting while working memory load does not , 2007, Experimental Brain Research.

[21]  D. Sternad,et al.  Local dynamic stability versus kinematic variability of continuous overground and treadmill walking. , 2001, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[22]  G. L. Pellecchia,et al.  Postural sway increases with attentional demands of concurrent cognitive task. , 2003, Gait & posture.

[23]  Robert Fox,et al.  Binocular Rivalry and Head-Worn Displays , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[24]  T. Peters.  Image-guidance for surgical procedures , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[25]  H. Pashler.  Dual-task interference in simple tasks: data and theory. , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[26]  Penelope M. Sanderson,et al.  Multisensory Integration With a Head-Mounted Display: Role of Mental and Manual Load , 2010, Hum. Factors.

[27]  C. Spence,et al.  Assessing the effect of verbal working memory load on visuo-spatial exogenous orienting , 2007, Neuroscience Letters.

[28]  U. Neisser,et al.  Selective looking: Attending to visually specified events , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[29]  Robert S. Laramee,et al.  Rivalry and interference with a head-mounted display , 2002, TCHI.

[30]  C. Chabris,et al.  Gorillas in Our Midst: Sustained Inattentional Blindness for Dynamic Events , 1999, Perception.

[31]  George M. Gould,et al.  A METHOD OF DETERMINING OCULAR DOMINANCE , 1910 .

[32]  M. Woollacott,et al.  Attention and the control of posture and gait: a review of an emerging area of research. , 2002, Gait & posture.

[33]  Joel S. Warm,et al.  Vigilance Requires Hard Mental Work and Is Stressful , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[34]  R. Blake,et al.  A new interocular suppression technique for measuring sensory eye dominance. , 2010, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[35]  H Stanislaw,et al.  Calculation of signal detection theory measures , 1999, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[36]  J. Mattingley,et al.  Optokinetic nystagmus as an assessment of visual attention to divided stimuli , 2006, Journal of Clinical Neuroscience.

[37]  Jukka Häkkinen,et al.  Examining mobile phone text legibility while walking , 2004, CHI EA '04.

[38]  Maria Olkkonen,et al.  Estimating text legibility of a mobile display on the basis of translational vibration caused by walking , 2005 .

[39]  A. Baddeley.  Recent developments in working memory , 1998, Current Opinion in Neurobiology.

[40]  Mordekhai Velger.  Helmet-Mounted Displays and Sights , 1998 .

[41]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  Target Cuing in Visual Search: The Effects of Conformality and Display Location on the Allocation of Visual Attention , 1999, Hum. Factors.

[42]  Iain D. Gilchrist,et al.  Working Memory and the Suppression of Reflexive Saccades , 2002, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[43]  Michael P. Browne,et al.  Performance and comfort of monocular head-mounted displays in flight simulators , 2010, Defense + Commercial Sensing.

[44]  James B. Sampson,et al.  Cognitive Performance of Individuals Using a Head—Mounted Display While Walking , 1993 .

[45]  Penelope M. Sanderson,et al.  Multisensory Integration with a Head-Mounted Display: Sound Delivery and Self-Motion , 2008, Hum. Factors.

[46]  Chris Baber,et al.  Wearable Computers: A Human Factors Review , 2001, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[47]  Jeffrey M. Hausdorff,et al.  The role of executive function and attention in gait , 2008, Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society.

[48]  B. Kerr,et al.  Cognitive spatial processing and the regulation of posture. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.