Compatibility in the visual field and the use of nontraditional flight displays

Two visual-spatial tasks were time-shared in an experiment to investigate the possibility of a compatibility mapping between the type of task (object-identification or motion-judgment) and the presentation location of the task in the visual field (central or peripheral). The attentional costs associated with time-sharing visual-spatial tasks were also addressed. The use of non-traditional flight displays to reduce visual overload in the cockpit was also explored. Three flight displays (central, peripheral, flow-field) were employed between subjects and the task types and locations were manipulated within groups. The results showed that (1) the type of task determined how quickly it was performed, while the location determines how accurately it was performed; (2) two peripheral tasks were found to interfere more than one central and one peripheral task, or two central tasks; (3) the flow-field display allowed for the most efficient time-sharing, suggesting further investigation into the use of non-traditional flight displays for the reduction of central visual overload in the cockpit. These results suggest that regardless of the task type, peripheral tasks are more demanding than central tasks. While limited evidence was found to support the compatibility hypothesis, no evidence was found to support the hypothesis that central and peripheral vision constitute separate resources.