Performance and head movements using a helmet-mounted

display with different sized fields-of-view

Maxwell J. Wells, MEMBER SPIE Abstract. Seventeen subjects searched for, and then monitored, 3, 6, or 9
Logicon Technical Services Inc. stationary targets in order to detect and shoot 3 threats. The targets were
P.O. Box 317258 located in an area 1200 left and right and 900 upward, from straight ahead.
Dayton, Ohio 45431-7258 They were viewed on a helmet-mounted display (HMD) by making ap-
propriate head movements. The HMD had five different sizes of field-of-
Michael Venturino view (FOV), ranging in width from 200 to 1 200. Subjects hit fewer threats
and were threatened for longer durations with small FOVs than with large
Armstrong Aerospace Medical FOVs. The decrement in performance was dependent on the number of
Research Laboratory targets. Optimum performance with 3, 6, and 9 targets required FOVs of
Human Engineering Division
AAMRL/HEA 200, greater than 200, and greater than 600, respectively. Subjects moved
their head less, but faster, with large FOVs than with small FOVs. Also,
Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio 45433 there was an apparent inverse relation between head velocity while per-
forming the task and error at replacing the targets afterward. It was in-
terpreted that head velocity was mediated by the certainty with which
subjects remembered target locations. It appeared that performance at
the task was limited by how well subjects integrated information about
target locations and not by how fast or how much they could move their
heads.

Subject terms: electro-optical displays; helmet-mounted displays; field-of-view;

visual search; head movement.
Optical Engineering 29(8), 870-877 (August 1990).

CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION
1. Introduction Specifying the size of the field-of-view (FOV) for a helmet-
2. Methods mounted display (HMD) is a complex task. For example, for a
2.1. Description constant sensor size and optical design, and using just three of
2.2. Stimuli and apparatus the many interdependent parameters, the following holds true:
2.3. Experimental design Increasing the FOV size, increasing the image resolution, or
2.4. Subjects decreasing the HMD weight may all be expected to increase
3. Results
3.1. Dependent variables performance. However, increasing the FOV size increases the
3.2. Performance data HMD weight and decreases image resolution. Furthermore, the
3.3. Head movement data relation between FOV size and display weight is complex and
3.4. Target replacement data depends on other variables, such as eye relief, exit pupil size,
4. Discussion and transmissivity. Similar complex relations exist between the
4.1. Magnitude of the effects other parameters.
4.2. Reasons for the effects This complexity calls for a cost/benefit analysis using data
4.2.1. Effect of task complexity on the effects of each parameter on performance. Some data of
4.2.2. Effect of FOV size this nature do exist. For example, increasing the FOV size makes
4.3. Specifying FOV size
5. Conclusions geographic orientation and target acquisition Increasing
6. Acknowledgments the image resolution produces a reduction in target recognition
7. References time and increases the probability of target recognition.2'3 Char-
acter recognition accuracy is also improved with increasing tele-
vision display resolution.4 Increasing helmet weight has been
shown to decrease neck muscle endurance times.5 Although
these data are valuable for providing qualitative design guide-
Invited Paper EO-106 received Dec. 24, 1989; revised manuscript received lines, they are of limited value for quantifying HMD parameters
March 12, 1990; accepted for publication May 10, 1990.
1990 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers. for a number of reasons. First, data on FOV size were collected

870 / OPTICAL ENGINEERING / August 1990 / Vol. 29 No. 8

Downloaded From: http://opticalengineering.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 12/23/2012 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms
 PERFORMANCE AND HEAD MOVEMENTS USING A HELMET-MOUNTED DISPLAY WITH DIFFERENT SIZED FIELDS-OF-VIEW
using panel-mounted, rather than helmet-mounted, displays.
Second, the target and character recognition tasks used to mea-
sure the effects of image resolution may not be relevant to the
types of tasks for which HMDs may be used. Third, the data
were not collected in a dynamic environment (e.g. , an aircraft),
where g loading accentuates the effects of helmet weight.
Since HMDs are being considered for implementation in
cockpits, the research and design communities are being asked
to provide answers to the question of the optimum size for the
FOV. To address this question, a number of experiments were
conducted to investigate the effect of FOV size, while keeping
many of the other variables constant. The rationale for this ap-
proach is that sufficient understanding of the effects of varying
FOV size should be acquired first, before attempts are made to
incorporate knowledge about the other variables into a complex
matrix of data.
The normal, achromatic FOV size for the human observer is
approximately lOO horizontally and J0 vertically.6 At-
tempts to reproduce this with current HMDs would produce
unacceptable size and weight penalties. Intuition, and the avail-
able evidence, would lead to the expectation that decreasing the
FOV size to less than the normal would incur a performance
penalty. Also, it may be assumed that the type and complexity
of the task to be performed will have an impact on the effect of
variations in FOV size. But, by how much, and why? And what
is the shape of the FOV/performance curve?
The task used in this experiment was intended to mimic those
found during the types of operations for which HMDs may be
used. Using an HMD, subjects had to locate and monitor a
number of targets surrounding them in pseudo-random locations.
When a target changed shape it became a threat and had to be
shot using a head-aimed reticle. The size of the FOV of the
HMD and the number of targets presented were manipulated.
Measurements were made of performance at the search and shoot
task, of performance at a spatial awareness task, and of head
motion. It was expected that reducing the FOV size and increas-
ing the task complexity by increasing the number of targets
would degrade performance, and that this would be reflected in
a change in the nature of the head movements. Analysis of the
head movements may aid in an understanding of the mechanisms
underlying any effects. The manner in which the head is moved,
as a function of FOV size, may also have implications on the
design of HMDs.
2. METHOD
2.1. Description
The task consisted of three phases, as illustrated in Fig. 1 . In
the first phase, subjects were presented with 3, 6, or 9 targets
that had to be located. In the second phase, the targets would
change shape, one at a time, every 5 s, to indicate that they had
become a threat. Only one threat was present at a time. When
a threat was detected, subjects had to align a helmet-mounted
reticle with the threat and press a button on a control stick to
eliminate it. If a threat was not shot within 5 s, it would shoot
the subject. In either case, that threat disappeared. In the third
phase, the simulation was halted and the remaining targets were
removed. Subjects were instructed to indicate the positions of
the targets that had been removed by pointing the reticle where
they thought a target had been and pressing a button. A replace-
ment target would then appear at that location. Subjects were
instructed to guess about target locations they had forgotten and
Downloaded From: http://opticalengineering.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 12/23/2012 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms
6 3
TARGETS TARGETS
APPEAR DISAPPEAR
I VARIABLE I 3
I SEARCH NEW THREAT I TARGETS
I TIME EVERY 5 SEC REPLACED
+ (A)
0
0
0
TIME —
TRIAL TRIAL
END
START
Fig. 1. The three phases of a trial were the search phase, the shoot
phase (new threat every 5 s), and the target replacement phase. The
illustration is of condition 6 in Table I. (6 presented with 3 threats).
to tell the experimenter. Performance at this target replacement
task has been previously investigated as a metric of spatial aware-
ness.7'8
The durations of the variable search times (Fig. 1) depended
on the number of targets presented and the FOV with which the
subjects viewed the targets . These search times were derived
from an earlier experiment and were the mean times for 10
subjects to locate 3, 6, or 9 targets as quickly as possible.7 The
search times (in seconds) for 3, 6, and 9 targets, respectively,
were 22, 39, and 60 for a 20° FOV; 10, 18, and 21 for a 45°
FOV; 10, 19, and 19 for a 60° FOV; 7, 1 1 , and 14 for a 90°
FOV; and 5, 12, and 14 for a 120° FOV. The variable search
times were an attempt to reduce the effect on shooting perfor-
mance of the longer times required to find more targets or to
search with a smaller FOV. In this way, differences in perfor-
mance were attributable to differences in FOV size or target
condition rather than to subjects not having seen all of the targets
before they started changing to threats.
2.2. Stimuli and apparatus
The experiment was conducted on the visually coupled airborne
systems simulator (VCASS). The simulator consisted of two
circular helmet-mounted displays with a combined maximum
FOV 120° wide and 60° high, with a 40° binocular overlap
(Fig. 2). The helmet-mounted simulator had a mass of 5.3 kg
and was counterbalanced with a constant-force spring to weigh
approximately 2 kg. The position of the helmet was measured
in six axes with an electromagnetic helmet position tracker and
recorded at 10 Hz. Helmet position information was used to
present space stabilized images on the displays. Using head
movements, the subjects could view a computer-generated world
of 4'rr sr at optical infinity. Images were stroke-drawn on a
cathode ray tube with a P53 phosphor and appeared green against
a black background. They were optically magnified and colli-
mated by the helmet optics. The entire scene was updated at 20
Hz. Subjects sat in a simulated generic fighter aircraft with a
centrally located control stick.
OPTICAL ENGINEERING / August 1990 / Vol. 29 No. 8 / 871
 WELLS, VENTURINO

0• a 'I

- 40

Fig. 2. View inside VCASS showing a superimposed FOV 450 wide x 42.5° high. Targets (ar-
rowheads) and threats (squares) were visible only when they were inside the superimposed
FOV.

Targets (arrowhead shapes) or threats (squares) 2.2° high and
wide were presented above the horizon, within a gaming area
1200 left and right and 900 upward from straight ahead. Targets
were positioned pseudo-randomly in a manner that ensured that
irrespective of the number of targets, they were unclustered,
unpredictable, and distributed over the entire gaming area.
A terrain scene was visible in the total 1200 x 600 ambient
FOV. The terrain scene had a horizon at O elevation and rec-
ognizable landmarks. The targets and threats were visible only
when they were within the superimposed FOV, which was po-
sitioned centrally within the ambient FOV (Fig. 2). This com-
bination of ambient and superimposed FOV simulated a see-
through HMD used to view the output from a head-steered sen-
sor. A head-stabilized reticle cross (3.4° high and wide) was
constantly visible in the center of the superimposed FOV.
2.3. Experimental design
The two factors manipulated in the experiment were target con-
dition (see Table I) and FOV size. The experiment evaluated
five superimposed FOV sizes: 2O x 20°, 45° x 42.5°,
600 x 50°, 900 x 60°, or 120° x 60°. Subjects were trained
with the 45 combinations of 9 target conditions and S FOV sizes
during one session, for approximately 1 .5 h, including rest pe-
nods. During training they were presented with all target con-
ditions in the same order (8, 9, 5, 6, 7, 1 , 2, 3, 4) with suc-
cessively decreasing FOVs. In the second session, administered
on a different day, subjects were given 5 practice conditions
followed by all 45 conditions in a random order.
2.4. Subjects
The experiment used paid volunteer male subjects aged between
1 8 and 30 years , with uncorrected or corrected visual acuity of The dependent variables may be categorized into performance
20/30 or better. The experiment used a total of 17 subjects, 8
of whom had experience at the target replacement component
of the task from a previous experiment.
TABLE I. The nine target conditions used in the experiment. The
number of targets that had to be replaced was equal to the number
of targets presented, less the number of threats.
'flIREATS
9 6 3 $
NJMBF 9 1 2 3 4
TAETS 6 5 6 7
PRESEN'1D 3 8 9
3. RESULTS
The results presented in this paper are from three conditions,
referred to in Table I as conditions 8, 6, and 3. These three
conditions represent the instances when subjects were presented
with 3, 6, or 9 targets and had to deal with 3 threats. The method
of describing the conditions refers to the number of targets pre-
sented (P), the number of threats (T), and the number of targets
replaced (R). Thus, in the 9P:3T:6R condition, the subjects were
presented with 9 targets, 3 of which turned to threats, leaving
6 targets to be replaced. The reasons for choosing these con-
ditions are (1) they represent the early stages of a trial, in which
it might be expected that the dependent variables are maximally
sensitive to the independent variables, (2) they provide the wid-
est range of task complexities while still providing comparable
data, and (3) space limitations. The complete data are presented
elsewhere .
3.1. Dependent variables
data, head movement data, and target replacement data. Per-
formance at the task was measured as the percentage of threats
hit and the time threatened. The latter was the time between a

872 / OPTICAL ENGINEERING / August 1 990 / Vol. 29 No. 8

Downloaded From: http://opticalengineering.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 12/23/2012 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms
 PERFORMANCE AND HEAD MOVEMENTS USING A HELMET-MOUNTED DISPLAY WITH DIFFERENT SIZED FIELDS-OF-VIEW

target turning into a threat and either shooting the subject (time
threatened = 5 s) or being shot by the subject (time threat-
ened < 5 s). The total time threatened was divided by the num-
her of threats to give a mean time threatened.
Horizontal and vertical head (helmet) positions were vector
summed to provide head pointing angle (HPA) displacement and
then differentiated to HPA velocity. The standard deviation of w
0
100
90

80
70

60 3-2927:
;
:
the time histories was used as a measure of the magnitude of
displacement or velocity. Standard deviation is the same as the
a. fr,
50
3, 6 OR 9 PRESENTED

root mean square for time histories with a mean of zero. 40 3 ThREATS
Target replacement error was determined by a least error
30
method. A matrix was formed of the absolute angular distances
between each target and each replacement. Average replacement
I U U U U
error was determined by matching nonguessed replacement po- 20 45 60 90 120
sitions with the target positions, in the manner that produced FIELD -OF -VIEW (DEG)
least total absolute error, and then dividing by the number of
(a)
nonguessed replacements.
3.2. Performance data 4.5 3. S OR S PRESENTED
Performance decreased with decreasing FOV. Subjects hit fewer 6
threats and were threatened for longer durations with small FOVs 4.0 9 3 ThREATS

than with large FOVs. However, this effect was dependent on

the number of targets presented. The mean data for 17 subjects

6
Cl)
3.5
are shown in Fig. 3 . Analyses of variance (performed on the z0
data from the 6 conditions in which targets turned to threats)
indicated that there was a significant effect, on both dependent
0
Ui
Cl)
3.0
,
6 9 6

variables, of both FOV and number of targets, and significant

interactions between these two. {Percentage of threats hit: targets
[F(5,80) = 14.77 p < 0.01]; FOV [F(4,20) = 23.02 p < 0.01];
targets x FOV [F(20,320) = 2.50 p < 0.01]. Mean time threat-
2.5

2.0
3
3—3 3
ened: targets [F(5,80) = 39.82 p < 0.01]; FOV [F(4,20) =
18.09 p < 0.01); targets x FOV [F(20,320) = 2.33 p < 0.01].} 0 4560 0 120

Comparisons of the data at each FOV were conducted using
''t' , tests, and the probability of any two means being the same
are shown in Table II. The associated t values are shown in
Table III. It should be noted that with multiple comparisons of
means, there is an increase in the probability of finding a dif-
ference between conditions when no such difference exists. One
option to deal with this is to accept two means as being different
only when the probability value is less than the usually accepted
0.05 (e.g. , about 0.01). Another option, which has been adopted
in this paper, is to present the complete data and allow readers
to judge the interpretations that have been made.
In the least complex condition (3 presented in Fig. 3), there
were no differences between any of the FOVs (at the p < 0.05
level) with either dependent variable. In the more complex con-
dition (6 presented), the 20° FOV was significantly different
(p < 0.01) from the other FOVs, with both dependent variables,
suggesting that a minimum FOV size to achieve performance
would have to be larger than 20°. The results of the 9 target
condition are more complex. With both dependent variables, the
900 and 120° FOVs were not significantly different from one
another. The 20°, 45°, and 60° FOVs were either significantly
different, or close to significantly different, from the 9fO or 120°
FOVs, or both. One interpretation of this grouping is that a FOV
greater than 60° is required to achieve optimum performance.
3.3. Head movement data
Representative time histories of HPA displacement and velocity
for two FOVs in the 9 target condition are shown for one subject
in Figs. 4 and 5. The time histories are for the first and second
FIELD -OF -VIEW (DEG)
(b)
Fig. 3. Mean performance data for 17 subjects. (a) Threats hit; (b)
time threatened. Values on the abscissa refer to the width of the
superimposed FOVs.
of the task, in which the subject searched for the targets
phases
and then shot the threats. The subject was allowed more time
to search for the targets with the smaller FOV, which resulted
in a longer time history. With the 20° FOV, for the first ap-
proximately 15 s , there is evidence of a systematic attempt to
scan the gaming area. The amplitude of the displacements sug-
gests that the subject made sweeping movements from side to
side while elevating his head after each sweep. These displace-
ments are reflected in velocity changes that are large and smooth
(Fig. 5). From both subjective reports and previous data,7 it
would appear that these initial sweeps were sufficient to inform
the subject that there were more than 6 targets, but not where
they all were. After approximately 20 s there was a change in
the nature of the head movements. These can be characterized
as large amplitude, low frequency displacements, over which
are superimposed smaller, higher frequency movements. The
resultant velocity time history shows low amplitude, "choppy"
movement. At 60 s the first of the three threats changed shape.
About 1 s later the displacement and velocity records show that
the subject made a large amplitude, fast head movement. Using
the time histories of horizontal and vertical head displacement,
it is possible to interpret what happened. The subject made a

OPTICAL ENGINEERING / August 1 990 / Vol. 29 No. 8 / 873

Downloaded From: http://opticalengineering.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 12/23/2012 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms
 WELLS, VENTURINO

TABLE II. Probabilities of the mean data from two FOVs being the TABLE Ill. The "t" values for the comparisons of means shown in
same. There were no significant differences (probabilities were greater Table II. N = 17.
than 0.08) between FOVs in the 3 target condition. Comparisons
were made using "t" tests.
OW
OW 20 45 60 90

20 45 60 90
45 —3.636 % THREATS HIT
60 —4.386 —1.000 (6 TAIGETS)
45 0.002 % THREATS HIT FOV 90 —5.638 —0.293 0.566
60 0.001 0.332 (6 TA1GETS) 120 —4.927 —2.063 —0.566 —1.074
FOV 90 0.000 0.773 0.580
120 0.000 0.056 0.580 0.299 45 —1.975 THREATS HIT
60 —2.768 —0.643 (9 TA1ETS)
45 0.066 % THRFMS HIT FOV 90 —3.917 —2.864 —2.057
60 0.014 0.529 (9 TA!GETS) 120 —3.631 —2.167 —1.852 0.523
FOV 90 0.001 0.011 0.056
120 0.002 0.046 0.083 0.608
45 3.396 TI THREAD
45 0.004 TI THREATEN
60 4.605 1.081 (6 TAIETS)
FOV 90 6.302 0.852 —0.066
60 0.000 0.296 (6 TAIGETH) 120 3.965 0.788 0.115 0.142
FOST 90 0.000 0.407 0.948
120 0.001 0.442 0.910 0.889
45 1.765 TIME THREAT
60 1.820 531 (9 TA85E!IS)
45 0.097 TI THBEA1 OW 90 3.665
0 .
2.735 1.718
60 0.088 0.603 (9 TA1E'1s) 120 4.358 3.240 3.170 0.625
FOV 90 0.002 0.015 0.105
120 0.001 0.005 0.006 0.541

' 'ballistic' '
head movement from the extreme right to the left,
which passed across a threat located straight ahead. The move-
ment continued past the center to the left. The subject then
brought the threat within the FOV as quickly as possible. The
approximately 2 s period immediately following the rapid head
movement, where the velocity and displacements were close to
zero, indicate where the subject aligned the reticle over the threat
and shot it (with 2 s to spare).
The 1200 FOV condition exhibits large amplitude, sweeping
displacements, but of a lower amplitude than the 200 FOV con-
dition. Head velocity was smoother and of a consistently larger
amplitude than in the 200 FOV condition.
The mean head movement data are shown in Fig. 6. For the
conditions with 6 and 9 targets presented, there were smaller
amplitudes of head displacement and greater amplitudes of head
velocity with a large FOV than with a small FOV. Analyses of
variance, performed on the three conditions in which there were
3 threats, revealed a significant effect of number of targets and
FOV but no significant interaction between the two. {HPA dis-
placement: targets [F(2,32) = 72.56 p < 0.01]; FOV [F(4,64) =
3.9'7p <O.O1};targets x FOV[F(8,128) = l.fi7p = 0.113].
HPA velocity: targets [F(2,32) = 21 .19 p < 0.01]; FOV
tF(4,64) = 6.03 p < 0.01]; targets x FOV [F(8,128) = 1.60
p = 0. 13].} The absence of an interaction precluded the com-
parisons of individual FOVs.
3.4. Target replacement data
The mean replacement errors for the 6 and 9 target conditions
(9P:3T:6R and 6P:3T:3R) are shown in Fig. 7. In addition, the
mean replacement errors for the condition 3P:OT:3R are shown
for comparison. Analyses of variance (performed on all 6 con-
ditions in which targets were replaced) showed a significant
effect of number of targets [F(5,80) = 4.97 p < 0.01] but no
significant effects due to FOV [F(4,20) = 2.37 p = 0.087] nor
any interaction between number of targets and FOV size.
4. DISCUSSION
The questions addressed by this experiment were, how much
does reducing the FOV size of an HMD affect performance at
a visual search/monitoring task, and what is the shape of the
FOV/performance curve. The study also sought to elucidate some
of the mechanisms by which FOV size might affect performance.
Measurements were made of a number of different, but inter-
related, dependent variables, and the experiment manipulated
both the FOV size and the complexity of the task. This discussion
will attempt to answer the questions by using the different per-
spectives provided by the data.
4.1. Magnitude of the effects
Reducing the size of the FOV reduced performance by an amount
that was dependent on the complexity of the task (Fig. 3). For
the least complex task (3 presented), reducing the FOV from
120° to 20° produced about a 10% reduction in the number of
threats hit and an 8% increase in time threatened (data normalized
to the 120° FOV condition). For the most complex task
(9 presented), reducing the FOV produced a 45% reduction in
threats hit and a 43% increase in time threatened. Similarly, the
smallest FOV required to produce optimum performance was
dependent on task complexity. For the least complex task, a 20°
FOV was sufficient. For a more complex task, a FOV larger
than 20° was required. For the most complex task, a FOV larger
than 60° was required.
4.2. Reasons for the effects
4.2.1. Effect of task complexity
To successfully monitor more targets, the subjects had to move
their heads faster and/or remember more target locations. The
head movement data (Fig. 6) show that subjects moved their
heads slower, not faster, with more targets. Two explanations
for this behavior are that the subjects were restricted from making
fast head movements (for example, by the helmet mass) or that
they were not sufficiently certain about the target locations to
make large amplitude, fast, head movements. It is unlikely that

874 / OPTICAL ENGINEERING / August 1990 / Vol. 29 No. 8

Downloaded From: http://opticalengineering.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 12/23/2012 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms
 PERFORMANCE AND HEAD MOVEMENTS USING A HELMET-MOUNTED DISPLAY WITH DIFFERENT SIZED FIELDS-OF-VIEW

9 PRESENTED 3 THREATS
3 —3
36
3, 6 OR 9 PRESENTED

666
Cl)
Ui 3 ThREATS
Ui
C,
Ui
0 32

Cu
w 30 9
LiJ
ck
0
w 28
a 45O O i!o
FIELD -OF VIEW (DEG)

(a)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0
z0
C)
6O

55 3
/3\ 3

Ui
C,) 9
50
TIME (S) Cl)
Ui
Ui 6 OR 9 PRESENTED
45
Fig. 4. Time histories of vector summed horizontal and vertical head C,
Ui
displacement (head pointing angle) for one subject. O is straight 0 40
3 ThREATS
ahead.

0 4560 0 10
FIELD -OF -VIEW (DEG)
9 PRESENTED 3 THREATS
(b)

200
Fig. 6. Mean head movement data for 17 subjects. Values on the
100 ordinate are the standard deviation of the (a) displacement and (b)
velocity time histories during the search and shoot phases of the
task.
a
z0 —100

w0 —200 6 OR 9 PRESENTED
Cl
—
I
I '
I ' I
' I 20 6
3 ThREATS

(I) 18 9'
w
w 200 U) 16
0
w
Ui
a 100

3 PRESENTED . 0 THREATS

—100 10 N
—200 8

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 20 45 60 90 120

FIELD -OF -VIEW (DEG)

TIME (S)

Fig. 5. Time histories of head pointing angle velocity for one subject. Fig. 7. Mean target replacement error for 17 subjects. Targets were
Data were derived by differentiating the displacement time histories replaced in the 6 and 9 target conditions following search and shoot
in Fig. 4. activity, performance at which is shown in Fig. 3.

OPTICAL ENGINEERING / August 1 990 / Vol. 29 No. 8 / 875

Downloaded From: http://opticalengineering.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 12/23/2012 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms

 WELLS, VENTURINO
the subjects' performance was velocity limited. Subjects were
capable of making high velocity movements with 3 targets (Fig. 6),
and when they were certain about the location of a threat, they
were also capable of doing so with 9 targets (Fig. 5, 200 FOV,
shortly after the start of the shoot phase). Therefore, uncertainty
about target location is a more likely cause of slow head move-
ment.
Replacement error may be considered a measure of the cer-
tainty that subjects felt about target locations, with large errors
being associated with low certainty. If head velocity was me-
diated by certainty, it might be expected that head velocity and
replacement error would be inversely related. The condition with
highest velocity (3P:3T:OR) had no replacements, so a measure
of certainty for this condition had to be estimated. The most
similar condition was one in which there were 3 targets and no
threats (3P:OT:3R). In this condition, shown in Fig. 7, the re-
placement error was the lowest. Furthermore, neither HPA ye-
locity nor replacement error show a consistent effect of FOV
size in the 3 target condition. The other two conditions in Fig. 7
show some evidence (although not statistically significant) of
decreasing replacement error with increasing FOV, whereas the
data in Fig. 6 show increasing velocity with increasing FOV.
Because of this apparently inverse relation between replacement
error and head velocity, it seems possible that head velocity was
mediated by how certain the subjects were about target location.
4.2.2. Effect ofFOV size
A large FOV allowed subjects to use both head and eye move-
ments to search large portions of the gaming area. Eye move-
ments are faster than head movements, and coordination of the
head and eyes to acquire visual targets is a much-practiced and
well-coordinated In addition, a large FOV afforded
subjects the use of their peripheral vision. The combination of
peripheral vision and eye movements gave subjects forewarning
about the location of targets, which may have reduced the oc-
currence of overshoots during the visual acquisition of targets.
In contrast, the head and eyes had to point in the same direction
for subjects to extract information with the smaller FOVs, and
peripheral vision provided less information. Therefore, the syn-
ergistic effect of eye movement was lost, the opportunity to
make overshoots increased, and subjects had to move their heads
more.
In the more complex target conditions, subjects made faster
head movements with a large FOV than with a small FOV
(Fig. 6). This may seem counter to intuition. It might be ex-
pected that in order to cover the same area, head movements
must be faster with a small FOV than with a large FOV. There
may be three reasons for the observed results. Subjects may have
reduced their head velocity with small FOVs so as not to over-
shoot the targets (there was less forewarning). With a small
FOV, subjects were less certain about the target positions, and
so reduced their head velocity . The need to restrict eye move-
ments with the small FOVs affected the manner in which subjects
moved their heads, which was reflected in reduced velocities.
If fear of overshooting was a problem, it should be expected
to decrease HPA velocity at the smaller FOVs in the 3 target
condition as well as the more complex 6 and 9 target conditions.
The evidence for a FOV effect on HPA velocity (Fig. 6) for the
3 target condition is less consistent than for the other conditions.
This would suggest that caution about overshooting was not the
only cause of the FOV effect.
876 / OPTICAL ENGINEERING / August 1990 / Vol. 29 No. 8
Downloaded From: http://opticalengineering.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 12/23/2012 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms
The apparently inverse relation between HPA velocity and
replacement error, discussed in the previous section, suggests
that in the 6 and 9 target conditions subjects were less certain
about target locations. This may have been because with smaller
FOVs there was a lack of information about the patterns formed
by the targets. Such information was easier to acquire with a
large FOV, where it was available at a glance, whereas with a
small FOV successive samples of the ,gaming area had to be
integrated to achieve the same effect.7' Observations and sub-
jective reports support the contention that these were information-
gathering strategies used by the subjects. The implication is that
subjects were less able to code and/or recall nonvisual infor-
mation about target locations (e.g. , kinesthetic information about
head position).
The data from this experiment do not support the hypothesis
that the need to point the eyes in the same direction as the head
affected head velocity. However, in view ofthe well documented
evidence of the links between the head and the eyes' ' and the
implications of such an effect on performance, it is reasonable
to call attention to this possibility as an area for future research.
For example, one of the ways suggested to alleviate the perfor-
mance decrement of a small FOV is to cue the user about target
locations. It is hypothesized that this would increase the certainty
about target positions and so improve performance. However,
if one of the ways a small FOV affects performance is by re-
ducing head velocity via the head/eye interaction, a target cue
may not produce the increase in head velocity required to com-
pletely restore performance.
4.3. Specifying FOV size
The decrement in performance caused by FOV size is task-
dependent. Therefore, to make design recommendations, more
must be known about the intended task. It can be assumed that
for tasks requiring the integration of information from a large
gaming area with many objects, a larger FOV is required than
for a more restricted gaming area with few objects. Performance
appeared to depend on how well the subjects could integrate
information. The task of information integration was aided by
head movements, but in this experiment, it was not limited by
how much or how quickly the subjects could move their heads.
Analysis of head and eye movements while performing candidate
tasks may provide useful data about the size of the likely gaming
area. More traditional task analysis may reveal the number of
objects about which location-information is needed. It should
be possible to generate a set of equal performance curves, using
experimentally derived data, that specify the range of sizes of
FOV and gaming area required to achieve a specified perfor-
mance for a fixed number of targets. Such information would
aid in the specification of FOV sizes.
5. CONCLUSIONS
Reducing the size of the field-of-view of a helmet-mounted dis-
play reduced performance at a search and shoot task, as measured
by the number of threats hit and the time for which the subject
was threatened.
The magnitude of the decrement was dependent on the num-
ber of targets presented, such that the minumum FOV required
to achieve optimum performance increased with increasing num-
ber of targets. For the least complex task (3 targets) a FOV 200
high x 20° wide was sufficient, for a more complex task (6 targets)
 PERFORMANCE AND HEAD MOVEMENTS USING A HELMET-MOUNTED DISPLAY WITH DIFFERENT SIZED FIELDS-OF-VIEW
a FOV larger than 200 x 200 was required, and for the most
complex task (9 targets) a FOV larger than 600 x 600 was
needed.
With the more complex tasks, subjects moved their heads
less, but faster, while performing the same task with a large
FOV than with a small FOV.
It is hypothesized that head velocity may have been mediated
by how sure subjects were about target locations. This hypothesis
is supported by an apparent (but not statistically significant)
inverse relation between head velocity and error at recalling
target locations.
There is evidence that helmet mass was not the limiting factor
for performance of the task used in this experiment.
6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work would not have been undertaken without the inspi-
ration and leadership of Tom Furness. The authors also wish to
acknowledge the contributions of programmers Jenny Huang,
Ken Aldrich, and Jim Shaw and experimenter Pat Brown. Chuck
Goodyear and Gary Beckler helped with the statistical analysis
and preparation of figures.
7. REFERENCES
1.R. A. Erickson, ''Line criteria in target acquisition with television,' ' Human
Factors 20, 573—588 (1978).
2. L. M. Biberman, Perception ofDisplayedlnformation, Plenum Press, New
York (1973).
3. B. L. Silbernagel, ''Using realistic sensor, target, and scene characteristics
to develop a target acquisition model," Human Factors 24, 321—328 (1982).
4. C. H. Baker and R. Nicholson, ' 'Raster scan parameters and target iden-
tification,' ' in Proc. IEEE 19th Annual National Aerospace Electronics
Conf. (1967).
5. C. A. Phillips and J. S. Petrofsky, "Neck muscle loading and fatigue:
systematic variation of headgear weight and center-of-gravity,' ' Aviat. Space
Environ. Med. 54(10), 901—905 (1983).
6. K. R. Boff and J. E. Lincoln, Engineering Data Compendium, Human
Perception and Performance, AAMRL, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio (1988).
7. M. J. Wells, M. Venturino, and R. K. Osgood, "Using target replacement
performance to measure spatial awareness in a helmet-mounted simulator,"
in Proc. 32nd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Soc., 1429—1433
(1988).
Downloaded From: http://opticalengineering.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 12/23/2012 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms
8. M. Venturino and R. J. Kunze, ' 'Spatial awareness with a helmet-mounted
display," inProc. 33rdAnnualMeeting oftheHumanFactorsSoc., 1388—1391
(1989).
9. M. J. Wells, M. Ventunno, and R. K. Osgood, "Effect of field-of-view
size on performance at a simple simulated air-to-air mission,' ' in Helmet
MountedDisplays, J. T. Carollo, ed., Proc. SPIE 1116, 126—137 (1989).
10. M. A. Gresty, ' 'Coordination of head and eye movements to fixate contin-
uous and intermittent targets," Vision Research 14, 395—403 (1974).
11. 0. R. Barnes, ' 'Visual-vestibular interaction in the coordination of vol-
untary eye and head movements,' ' in Progress in Oculomotor Research,
Fuchs and Becher, eds. , pp. 299—308, Elsevier, Amsterdam (1981).
Maxwell J. Wells received a B.Sc. degree in
biology and psychology in 1978 from Stirling
University in Scotland and a Ph.D. degree in
engineering and applied science from South-
ampton University in England in 1983. His
doctoral dissertation was on the develop-
ment and assessment of a technique for re-
ducing the effects of whole-body vibration on
performance with helmet-mounted displays.
Since 1987 he has been employed as a prin-
cipal investigator, supporting the Visual Dis-
play Systems Branch of the Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research
Laboratory. He is a member of the Applied Vision Association, the
Underwater Research Association, the Human Factors Society, and
SPIE.
Michael Venturino received his Ph.D. degree
in experimental psychology from the Uni-
versity of Maine in 1983. He is currently an
engineering research psychologist in the Vis-
ual Display Systems Branch ofthe Armstrong
Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory at
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. His re-
search interests include visual cognition,
spatial information processing, and princi-
pIes of human information processing as ap-
plied to display design. He is a member of
the editorial board of the journal Human Factors and is also an as-
sociate member of IEEE Systems, Man, and Cybernetics Society.
OPTICAL ENGINEERING / August 1990 / Vol. 29 No. 8 / 877