Advertisement

The Virtual Penetrating the Physical and the Implication for Augmented Reality Head-Up Displays

Conference paper
  • 1.5k Downloads
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 795)

Abstract

Augmented Reality is one of the upcoming topics in the development of human machine interfaces (HMI). The most promising technology using Augmented Reality to assist the user in his driving task is the Augmented Reality Head-Up Display (ARHUD). By reflecting virtual information at the windscreen into the driver’s eyes, the impression of a hovering image is created. The virtual image can be overlaid on the road surface or penetrate into an object in which case an observer has to focus upon a distance further away than – or through – the object he is looking at. So far, the industry wide opinion on how to handle this has been either to change the HMI or to switch off the augmentation. Though it has not yet been investigated whether this influences spatial perception, usability or acceptance of the ARHUD [1]. In the current study we investigated whether penetration of the virtual image with a fixed image distance of 10 m into a leading vehicle was perceived as disturbing or influenced usability or cognitive workload. Navigation arrows were displayed in a fixed distance of 12 m using only monocular depth cues and superimposed by a vehicle in 6.6 m (low penetration) and 3.8 m (high penetration) distance. As a baseline, the leading vehicle was positioned at 13.8 m distance and thereby not superimposing the virtual image (no penetration). On both sides of the leading vehicle assistants presented visual cues which the subject was asked to count. Additionally subjects performed a visual Detection Response Task to evaluate the subjects’ reaction times and cognitive workload [2]. Usability was evaluated using the System Usability Scale [3]. High penetration led to a significant change in acceptance when compared to no penetration. Usability, number of errors and reaction times were not significantly influenced. For low penetration no significant effects were recorded. The results suggest that adapting the virtual information displayed in an ARHUD in order to mediate penetrations between the virtual image and physical objects is not necessary. This has the potential to revolutionize the approach the automotive industry takes when implementing Augmented Reality in Head-Up Displays.

Keywords

Head-up Display Augmented Reality Contact Analog Optical Penetration Navigation 

References

  1. 1.
    Pfannmüller, L., Walter, M., Senner, B., Bengler, K.: Depth perception of augmented reality information in an automotive contact analog head-up display. J. Vis. 15(12), 1078 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1167/15.12.1078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bubb, H., Bengler, K., Grünen, R.E., Vollrath, M.: Automobilergonomie. Springer Fachmedien, Wiesbaden (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brooke, J.: SUS-a quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval. Ind. 189(194), 4–7 (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bengler, K., Dietmayer, K., Farber, B., Maurer, M., Stiller, C., Winner, H.: Three decades of driver assistance systems: review and future perspectives. IEEE Intell. Transp. Syst. Mag. 6, 6–22 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gish, K.W., Staplin, L.: Human Factors Aspects of Using Head Up Displays in Automobiles: A Review of the Literature. U.S. Department of Transportation - National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington D.C. (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kiefer, R.J.: Defining the “HUD benefit time window”. In: Vision in Vehicles - VI, pp. 133–142, Derby, England, North Holland, Amsterdam, New York (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kiefer, R.J.: Older drivers’ pedestrian detection times surrounding head-up versus head-down speedometer glances. In: Vision in Vehicles - VII, pp. 111–118. Elsevier, Marseille, France, Amsterdam, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Horrey, W.J., Wickens, C.D., Alexander, A.L.: The effects of head-up display clutter and in-vehicle display separation on concurrent driving performance. Proc. Hum. Factor Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet. 47, 1880–1884 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Azuma, R.T.: A survey of augmented reality. Presence-Teleoper. Virtual 6, 355–385 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yeh, M., Wickens, C.D.: Display signaling in augmented reality: effects of cue reliability and image realism on attention allocation and trust calibration. Hum. Factors 43, 355–365 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rusch, M.L., Schall, M.C., Gavin, P., Lee, J.D., Dawson, J.D., Vecera, S., Rizzo, M.: Directing driver attention with augmented reality cues. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 16, 127–137 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Israel, B., Seitz, M., Bubb, H., Senner, B.: Contact analog information in the head-up display – how much information supports the driver? In: Khalid, H., Hedge, A., Ahram, T. (eds.), Advances in Ergonomics Modeling and Usability Evaluation, pp. 163–171. CRC Press (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of ErgonomicsTechnical University of MunichGarching b. MünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations