Cited by 177Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyAugmented Reality ApplicationsInteractive and Immersive Displays

Display Signaling in Augmented Reality: Effects of Cue Reliability and Image Realism on Attention Allocation and Trust Calibration

Yeh, Michelle, Wickens, Christopher D.·2001·Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

Abstract

This experiment seeks to examine the relationships among three advanced technology features (presentation of target cuing, reliability of target cuing, and level of image reality and the attention and trust given to that information). The participants were 16 military personnel who piloted an unmanned air vehicle and searched for targets camouflaged in terrain, which was presented at two levels of image realism. Cuing was available for some targets, and the reliability of this information was manipulated at two levels (100% and 75%). The results showed that the presence of cuing aided target detection for expected targets but drew attention away from the presence of unexpected targets. Cuing benefits and attentional tunneling were both reduced when cuing became less reliable. Increasing image realism was compelling but increased reliance on the cuing information when those data were reliable. Potential applications include a cost-benefit analysis of how trust modulates attention in the use of automated target recognition systems and the extent to which increased realism may influence this trust.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1518/001872001775898269

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yeh, M., & Wickens, C. D.
Affiliations
  • Mitre (United States) (US)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Venue
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Published
2001-09
Volume
43
Issue
3
Pages
355-365
ISSN
  • 0018-7208 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-8181
OpenAlex
W2129001561
Cited by
175
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 11
FWCI
4.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Army Research Laboratory (DAAL01-96-2-0003)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Augmented Reality Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Interactive and Immersive Displays
Keywords
augmented reality, cue reliability, photorealism, attention allocation, trust calibration, attentional tunneling, automatic target recognition, target detection, military personnel
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Attention, Computer Graphics, Cues, Data Display, Female, Humans, Male, Military Personnel, Reaction Time, Sensitivity and Specificity, Task Performance and Analysis, User-Computer Interface, Visual Perception, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review