Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Visualizing Uncertainty in High Time-Stress Christopher D. Wickens Head, Human Factors Division University of Illinois, Institute of Aviation. Terms Model of Influences Challenge and Results of Empirical Research Human Factors Guidelines for Best Display Practices.
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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Christopher D. Wickens
Head, Human Factors Division
University of Illinois, Institute of Aviation
Spatial-temporal resolution (imprecision)
People relatively poor at utilizing probablistic information. Value dominates risk decisions.
Source of Uncertainty
Future Pilot Control Actions
Predicting the future
The choice may be wrong
Make credible the actuarial experience of probabilities.
If low probability events are part of the display rendering, they must be experienced by the participant.
Rendering of p=.01 event, participant must (a) experience the event, (b) experience it 1 out of 100, or (better) 2 out of 200.
Few studies exist that have:
* compared uncertainty representation vs. none.
* compared different formats of uncertainty representation
* collected objective performance data with actuarial experience
1. Levels of resolution: (Danger, Uncertain, Safe)
(2) D-S (3) D-U-C (5) D- DU U US S
More (than 2) levels help. (St. Johns and Mannes, Schinzer et al). Philosophy of “likelihood alarm”. (Sorkin & Woods). Aviation collision warnings. Why? More of the errors in a higher resolution system are not as “bad”. (This fosters greater trust in the system):
How many levels needed? (Schinzer). > 4 may be all.
How to render?
D U S
(courtesy of Jason Telner & Paul Milgram, University of Toronto)
Probability information plotted
as a density or a contour graph
TTC information plotted
as contour or density graph
Iso- TTC Plot
(TTC = Time-to-Conflict)
(Stone et al, Kirschenbaum & Aruda, Andre & Cutler, Kirlik & Nunes)
but not always (Schinzer et al)
Expected case? Worst case?
.05 M .95
.05 M .95
Just as good?
2. Visually link uncertainty representation to uncertain element (Proximity compatibility principle): Why visual display is good.
3. Express uncertainty in the “language of action” for:
Spatial occupancy contours time windows
4. Need for standardization of contour level (95%?)
Takeoff (Unfliable airplane)
Overshoot runway end
More research needed (Echoes calls by others)
Analyze consequences of human knowing uncertainty
Displaying Information will induce specific behavior in high time-stress
Andre, A. D., & Cutler, H. A. (1998). Displaying uncertainty in advanced navigation systems. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
Basapur, S., Bisantz, A. M., & Kesavadas, T. (2004). The effect of display modality on decision-making with uncertainty. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
Bisantz, A. M., Schinzing, S., & Munch, J. Uni displaying uncertainty: Investigating the effects of display format and specificity. Unpublished MS.
Finger, R. & Bisantz, A. M. (2002). Utilizing graphical formats to convey uncertainty in a decision making task. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3(1), 1-25.
Gillan, D.J., Wickens, C.D., Hollands, J.G., & Carswell, C.M. (1998). Guidelines for presenting quantitative data in HFES publications. Human Factors, 40(1), 28-41.
Kirschenbaum, S. S., & Arruda, J. E. (1994). Effects of graphic and verbal probability information on command decision making. Human Factors, 36(3), 406-418.
Lipkus, I. M., & Hollands, J. (2000). The visual communication of risk. Monographs of the National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
Nicholls, D., Battino, P., Marti, P., & Pozzi, S. Presenting uncertainty to controllers and pilots.
Sarter, N. B., & Schroeder, B. (2001). Supporting decision-making and action selection under time pressure and uncertainty: The case of inflight icing. Human Factors, 43, 580-590.
Smith, M., & Wickens, C. D. (1999). The effects of display highlighting and event history on operator decision making in a National Missile Defense system application (ARL-99-7/FED-LAB-99-4). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois, Aviation Research Laboratory.
Wickens, C. D. (1996). Designing for stress. In J. Driskell & E. Salas (Eds.), Stress and human performance (pp. 279-295). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wickens, C. D., & Carswell, C. M. (1995). The proximity compatibility principle: Its psychological foundation and its relevance to display design. Human Factors, 37(3), 473-494.
Wickens, C. D., & Dixon, S. (2005). Is there a magic number 7 (to the minus 1)? The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: A synthesis of the literature (AHFD-05-1/MAAD-05-1). Savoy, IL: University of Illinois, Aviation Human Factors Division.
Wickens, C. D., Gempler, K., & Morphew, M. E. (2000). Workload and reliability of predictor displays in aircraft traffic avoidance. Transportation Human Factors Journal, 2(2), 99-126.
Wickens, C. D., & Hollands, J. (2000). Engineering psychology and human performance (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yeh, M., Merlo J. L., Wickens, C. D. & Brandenburg, D. L. (2003). Head up versus head down: The costs of imprecision, unreliability, and visual clutter on cue effectiveness for display signaling. Human Factors, 45(3), 390-407.