1 / 21

Nonexplicit Change Detection in Complex Dynamic Settings: What Eye Movements Reveal

Nonexplicit Change Detection in Complex Dynamic Settings: What Eye Movements Reveal. François Vachon , Benoît R. Vallières , Dylan M. Jones and Sébastien Tremblay 2012 54: 996 originally Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Take home message.

tiana
Download Presentation

Nonexplicit Change Detection in Complex Dynamic Settings: What Eye Movements Reveal

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Nonexplicit Change Detection in Complex Dynamic Settings:What Eye Movements Reveal François Vachon, Benoît R. Vallières, Dylan M. Jones and Sébastien Tremblay 2012 54: 996 originally Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

  2. Take home message Change blindness in complex dynamic displays takes the form of failures in establishing task- appropriate patterns of attentional allocation

  3. Different kinds of Task • C2 Task(Computer-controlled command-and-control) • CB Task(Change Blindness)

  4. Purpose • Can knowledge about CB task generalize to C2 multitasking situations? • From explicitly to implicitly • From static to dynamic • The role of attention in the context of an implicit change detection C2 task • The pupillary size in relation to critical changes

  5. Is there any differences btw C2 task and CB task?

  6. EXP1 Boot et al(2006) Minimizing eye movements over the display promotes change detection in dynamic scenes

  7. EXP2

  8. Considerable “blindness” has been observed when participants had to report explicitly any task relevant changes occuring in the dynamic C2 environment DiVita et al.(2004) monitor air traffic as it relates to military tactics

  9. Triesch et al(2003) C2 operations usually involve implicit change detection Some subjects did not report size changes right away but nevertheless claimed to have noticed some when asked at the end of the experiment

  10. The role of attention in the C2 task

  11. Although visual selective attention and the overt movements of the eyes can be dissociated A fixation at a given location is strong evidence that attention has been there Directly fixating the changing object doesn’t ensure successful detection of change Posner(1980) McCarley & Kramer(2008) Caplovitz et al(2008)

  12. The pupillary size in relation to critical changes

  13. Pupil size may vary in response to changes in attentional effort • Pupil dilation was related to detected targets and un-detected targets at fixation Hoeks & Levelt(1993) Privitera et al(2010))

  14. EXP • Assess level of threat and classify them based on parameters Nonhostile Uncertain Hostile • Assess level of threat and classify them based on spatiotemporal proximity High(<15s) Medium(15-30s) Low(>30s) • Launching anti-missle to destroy hostile target within range

  15. Measurement • Change detection • 8 critical changes accompanied by change of • Speed • Direction • 9static+4 familiarity+4mins formal • 11 nonhos+8 uncertain+8 hostile(but only 10 /display) • Totally 8 changes/display • Correct detect=Detect within 15s • Eye tracking(Tobii T1750) • 50Hz • Threshold of fixation(100ms) • Fixation field=circle with 50 pixels radius

  16. Results

  17. Performance • A negative correlation btw proportion of undetected changes and classfication ACC (r(17)=-0.406 p=0.42) • A strong positive relationship btw proportion undetected changes and proportion of ship hit (r(17)=.776 p<.001)

  18. Discussion • Fixation position modulated detection of nonfixatedchanges but not of fixated changes • Pupillary response was sensitive to undetected changes that were fixated but not to those that were never fixated • Classification ACC was correlated only with detection of non-fix changes,whereas defensive effectiveness covaried only with detection of fix changes

More Related