A Toolkit for Studying Attention and Reaction Times to Smartglass Messages in Conditions of Different Perceptual Load

  • Tilo MentlerEmail author
  • Daniel Wessel
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 822)


Smartglasses can provide safety-relevant information during tasks, e.g., by displaying warnings or important updates during search operations in crisis management, or about patients while treating them in healthcare. It is both necessary for the desired outcomes and frequently taken for granted that users perceive these messages reliably and in a timely manner. However, research on inattentional and change blindness has shown that visual stimuli—even “obvious” stimuli directly “in front of one’s eyes”—can be overlooked. Thus, in safety-critical situations, in which the user is focused on a task in the environment, instructions or warnings can be overlooked, despite being displayed in the user’s field of view—with potentially serious consequences. In this paper, we address the problem of taking perception of messages displayed on smartglasses for granted with respect to perceptual load theory. We present the results of a study comparing reaction times to smartglasses messages in conditions of low and high perceptual load with 24 participants in order to analyze how well users can notice messages in different load conditions. We also describe the implementation of an application to conduct these studies and possible designs for future studies.


Smartglasses Visual attention Perceptual load Safety-critical systems 



The present paper is based on an unpublished Bachelor thesis by Leif Jonas von Koschitzky. We thank him and all participants of the study for their contribution.


  1. 1.
    Berndt H, Mentler T, Herczeg M (2016) Optical head-mounted displays in mass casualty incidents: keeping an eye on patients and hazardous materials. Int J Inf Syst Crisis Response Manag (IJISCRAM) 7(3):1–15Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cartwright-Finch U, Lavie N (2007) The role of perceptual load in inattentional blindness. Cognition 102(3):321–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Endsley MR (1995) Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors 37(1):32–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Endsley MR, Garland DG (2000) Situation awareness analysis and measurement. Lawrence Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huckauf A, Urbina MH, Grubert J, Böckelmann I, Doil F, Schega L, Tümler J, Mecke R (2010) Perceptual issues in optical-see-through displays. In: Proceedings of the 7th symposium on applied perception in graphics and visualization, Los Angeles. ACM, pp 41–48Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim S, Nussbaum MA, Gabbard JL (2016) Augmented reality “smart glasses” in the workplace: industry perspectives and challenges for worker safety and health. IIE Trans Occup Ergon Hum Factors 4(4):253–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lavie N (2010) Attention, distraction, and cognitive control under load. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 19(3):143–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mentler T, Herczeg M (2015) Interactive cognitive artifacts for enhancing situation awareness of incident commanders in mass casualty incidents. J Interact Sci 3(7):1–9Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Simons DJ, Chabris CF (1999) Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception 28(9):1059–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Multimedia and Interactive SystemsUniversity of LübeckLübeckGermany

Personalised recommendations