Crossmodal integration with a head-mounted display and auditory display options: is there cause for concern?

Thompson, Matthew B. (2007). Crossmodal integration with a head-mounted display and auditory display options: is there cause for concern? B.Sc (Hons), School of Psychology, University of Queensland.

Attached Files (Some files may be inaccessible until you login with your UQ eSpace credentials)
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
MattThompsonHonoursThesis2008.pdf Full text of thesis Click to show the corresponding preview/stream application/pdf 811.51KB 374
Author Thompson, Matthew B.
Thesis Title Crossmodal integration with a head-mounted display and auditory display options: is there cause for concern?
School, Centre or Institute School of Psychology
Institution University of Queensland
Publication date 2007
Thesis type B.Sc (Hons)
Total pages 96
Language eng
Subjects 380101 Sensory Processes, Perception and Performance
Abstract/Summary Head-Mounted Displays (HMDs) are increasingly used to support mobile work (Laramee & Ware, 2002). Human operators sometimes require additional auditory support when using an HMD, which raises the question of whether sound is better delivered publicly in free-field or privately via earpiece. A novel experimental procedure was created in which participants had to identify mismatches between auditory information and visual information on an HMD. Different conditions of sound delivery and physical movement were manipulated within-subjects. Participants heard the sound either via earpiece or free-field while they either sat or moved about the test room. Predictions were based on the idea that inconsistent spatial mapping of vision and sound would compromise mismatch detection. First, I predicted a main effect of movement such that participants‟ mismatch detection would be worse when they moved than when they sat. Second, I predicted an interaction between movement and sound delivery. When participants are seated there will be no difference in mismatch detection between the two methods of sound delivery. When participants are walking, however, mismatch detection will be better with an earpiece than with free-field delivery. Results supported the first prediction. For the second prediction, the significant interaction found took a different form than predicted. With the earpiece, participants performed equally well whether sitting or walking, but with free-field sound, participants performed better when sitting than when walking. Results have implications for understanding necessary auditory conditions for effective crossmodal integration and may indicate a cause for concern for people who use HMDs and auditory displays in safety-critical environments.
Keyword Head mounted displays
earpieces
auditory information
Additional Notes First Class Honours Thesis

Document type: Thesis
Collection: UQ Theses (non-RHD) - Open Access
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 400 Abstract Views, 377 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Thu, 22 May 2008, 16:14:44 EST by Anne Draper on behalf of Social Sciences and Humanities Library Service