Suchergebnisse

Objective: The present study examined whether tactile change blindness and crossmodal visual-tactile change blindness occur in the presence of two transient types and whether their incidence is affected by the addition of a concurrent task. Background: Multimodal and tactile displays have been proposed as a promising means to overcome data overload and support attention management. To ensure the effectiveness of these displays, researchers must examine possible limitations of human information processing, such as tactile and crossmodal change blindness. Method: Twenty participants performed a unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) monitoring task that included visual and tactile cues. They completed four blocks of 70 trials each, one involving visual transients, the other tactile transients. A search task was added to determine whether increased workload leads to a higher risk of change blindness. Results: The findings confirm that tactile change detection suffers in terms of response accuracy, sensitivity, and response bias in the presence of a tactile transient. Crossmodal visual-tactile change blindness was not observed. Also, change detection was not affected by the addition of the search task and helped reduce response bias. Conclusion: Tactile displays can help support multitasking and attention management, but their design needs to account for tactile change blindness. Simultaneous presentation of multiple tactile indications should be avoided as it adversely affects change detection. Application: The findings from this research will help inform the design of multimodal and tactile interfaces in data-rich domains, such as military operations, aviation, and healthcare.

Objective: The goal of the present study was to develop and empirically evaluate three countermeasures to tactile change blindness (where a tactile signal is missed in the presence of a tactile transient). Each of these countermeasures relates to a different cognitive step involved in successful change detection. Background: To date, change blindness has been studied primarily in vision, but there is limited empirical evidence that the tactile modality may also be subject to this phenomenon. Change blindness raises concerns regarding the robustness of tactile and multimodal interfaces. Method: Three countermeasures to tactile change blindness were evaluated in the context of a highly demanding monitoring task. One countermeasure was proactive (alerting the participant to a possible change before it occurred) whereas the other two were adaptive (triggered after the change upon an observed miss). Performance and subjective data were collected. Results: Compared to the baseline condition, all countermeasures improved intramodal tactile change detection. Adaptive measures resulted in the highest detection rates, specifically when signal gradation was employed (i.e., when the intensity of the tactile signal was increased after a miss was observed). Conclusion: Adaptive displays can be used to counter the effects of change blindness and ensure that tactile information is reliably detected. Increasing the tactile intensity after a missed change appears most promising and was the preferred countermeasure. Application: The findings from this study can inform the design of interfaces employing the tactile modality to support monitoring and attention management in data-rich domains.

Objective To evaluate the effects that movement, cue complexity, and the location of tactile displays on the body have on tactile change detection. Background Tactile displays have been demonstrated as a means to address data overload by offloading the visual and auditory modalities. However, change blindness—the failure to detect changes in a stimulus when changes coincide with another event or disruption in stimulus continuity—has been demonstrated to affect the tactile modality and may be exacerbated during movement. The complexity of tactile cues and locations of tactile displays on the body may also affect the detection of changes in tactile patterns. Limitations to tactile perception need to be examined. Method Twenty-four participants performed a tactile change detection task while sitting, standing, and walking. Tactile cues varied in complexity and included low, medium, and high complexity cues presented to the arm or back. Results Movement adversely affects tactile change detection as hit rates were the highest while sitting, followed by standing and walking. Cue complexity affected tactile change detection: Low complexity cues resulted in higher detection rates compared with medium and high complexity cues. The arms exhibited better change detection performance than the back. Conclusion The design of tactile displays should consider the effect of movement. Cue complexity should be minimized and decisions about the location of a tactile display should take into account body movements to support tactile perception. Application The findings can provide design guidelines to inform tactile display design for data-rich, complex domains.