In the Right Place at the Right Time? A View at Latency and Its Implications for Automotive Augmented Reality Head-Up Displays

  • Matthias WalterEmail author
  • Tim Wendisch
  • Klaus Bengler
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 823)


In the presented study, latency between physical event and displayed content is considered in order to provide a quantifiable criterion. In a driving simulator the influence of a contact-analog lane marker which was subjected to different stages of latency (17 ms, 50 ms, 100 ms) is examined. In total 43 participants took part in this experiment. A detection response task was conducted to evaluate the subjects’ reaction times and cognitive workload [1]. Usability was assessed by applying the system usability scale [2]. Changes in latency have a significant influence on stress and usability. Specifically latencies over 50 ms have a negative effect on the dependent variables. Results suggest that latencies of up to 50 ms are still considered acceptable in terms of usability as evaluated in the implemented use case.


Head-up display Augmented reality Contact analog Latency Driving simulator 



The authors would like to thank Mr. Tobias Schumm and Mr. Johannes Salzberger from Audi AG for their continuing support and expertise during this experiment.


  1. 1.
    Bubb H, Bengler K, Grünen R, Vollrath M (2015) “Automobilergonomie” (ATZ/MTZ-Fachbuch). Wiesbaden: Springer Vieweg.
  2. 2.
    Brooke J (1996) SUS-a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval Ind 189:194Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bengler K, Dietmayer K, Farber B, Maurer M, Stiller C, Winner H (2014) Three decades of driver assistance systems: review and future perspectives. IEEE Intell Transport Syst Mag 6:6–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gish KW, Staplin L (1995) Human factors aspects of using head up displays in automobiles: a review of the literature. Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kiefer RJ (1998) Defining the “HUD benefit time window”. Vision in vehicles - VI. Derby, England, North Holland, Amsterdam, New York, pp 133–142Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kiefer RJ (1999) Older drivers’ pedestrian detection times surrounding head-up versus head-down speedometer glances. Vision in vehicles - VII, Marseille, France. Elsevier, Amsterdam, New York, pp 111–118Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Horrey WJ, Wickens CD, Alexander AL (2003) The effects of head-up display clutter and in-vehicle display separation on concurrent driving performance. Proc Hum Fact Ergon Soc Annu Meet 47:1880–1884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Azuma RT (1997) A survey of augmented reality. Presence-Teleop Virt. 6:355–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yeh M, Wickens CD (2001) Display signaling in augmented reality: effects of cue reliability and image realism on attention allocation and trust calibration. Hum Factors 43:355–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rusch ML, Schall MC, Gavin P, Lee JD, Dawson JD, Vecera S, Rizzo M (2013) Directing driver attention with augmented reality cues. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 16:127–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pfannmüller L, Walter M, Bengler K. (2015) Lead me the right way?! The impact of position accuracy of augmented reality navigation arrows in a contact analogue head-up display on driving performance, workload, and usability. In: Proceedings 19th triennial congress of the IEA, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Engström J, Johansson E, Östlund J (2005) Effects of visual and cognitive load in real and simulated motorway driving. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 8(2):97–120. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pfannmüller L (2017) “Anzeigekonzepte für ein kontaktanaloges Head-up Display”, Dissertation, Technische Universität MünchenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of Ergonomics, Technical University of MunichGarchingGermany

Personalised recommendations