The Effect of Cost on the Sampling Behavior of Human Instrument Monitors

  • Tarald O. Kvålseth
  • Edward R. F. W. Crossman
  • Kenneth Y. Kum
Part of the NATO Conference Series book series (NATOCS, volume 1)


Since the first definitive research studies of human visual sampling behavior by Milton, Jones and Fitts in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s (cf. Milton et al., 1949; Jones et al., 1949; Milton et al., 1950) involving specifically the natural scanning patterns of pilots during actual flight maneuvers, a number of studies have been made of the ways in which human operators distribute their attention between various information sources. The first attempt to formulate a theoretical model of such behavior was made by Senders (1955) and based on the simple proposition that the mean sampling frequency for a displayed signal is Proportional to the rate at which the display or instrument generates information. Experimental results by Senders (1964) and Senders et al. (1966) lent some support to this proposition.


Sampling Pattern Sampling Behavior Error Cost Sampling Cost Index Experimental Condition 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allen, R. W., W. F. Clement, and H. R. Jex. Research on Display Scanning, Sampling, and Reconstruction Using Separate Main and Secondary Tracking Tasks. NASA CR-1569, July 1970.Google Scholar
  2. Baron, S., and D. L. Kleinman. The human operator as an optimal controller and information processor. IEEE Trans. on MMS, Vol. MSS-10, No. 1, 1969, 9–17.Google Scholar
  3. Carbonell, J. R. A queueing model of many-instrument visual sampling. IEEE Trans. on HFE, Vol. HFE-7, No. 4, Dec. 1966, 157–164.Google Scholar
  4. Carbonell, J. R., J. L. Ward and J. W. Senders. A queueing model of visual sampling: Experimental validation. IEEE Trans. on MMS, Vol. MMS-9, No. 3, Sept. 1968, 82–87.Google Scholar
  5. Crossman, E. R. F. W., J. E. Cooke, and R. J. Beishon. Visual attention and the sampling of displayed information in process control. In Edwards, E., and F. P. Lees, (ed.). The Human Operator in Process Control. London: Taylor & Francis, Inc., 1974.Google Scholar
  6. Jones, R. E., J. L. Milton, and P. M. Fitts. Eye Fixations of Aircraft Pilots; Frequency, Duration, and Sequence of Fixations during Routine Instrument Flight. Air Materiel Command AF TR-5975, Dec. 1949.Google Scholar
  7. Kvålseth, T. O. Quantitative Modelling of the Time-Multiplexing Characteristics of Human Controllers. NSF Rept. GK-37419, Aug. 1975.Google Scholar
  8. McRuer, Duane, Henry R. Jex, Warren F. Clement, and Dunstan Graham. Development of a Systems Analysis Theory of Manual Control Displays. Systems Technology, Inc., Tech. Rept. 163–1, Oct. 1967.Google Scholar
  9. Milton, J. L., R. E. Jones, and P. M. Fitts. Eye Fixations of Aircraft Pilots; Frequency, Duration, and Sequence of Fixations when Flying the USAF Instrument Low Approach System (ILAS). Air Materiel Command AF TR-5839, Oct. 1949.Google Scholar
  10. Milton, J. L., R. E. Jones, and P. M. Fitts. Eye Fixations of Aircraft Pilots: Frequency, Duration, and Sequence of Fixations when Flying Selected Maneuvers During Instrument and Visual Flight Conditions. Air Materiel Command AF TR-6018 (ATI 84010), Aug. 1950.Google Scholar
  11. Senders, J. W. Man’s capacity to use information from complex displays. In Quastler, H., (ed.), Information Theory in Psychology. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1955.Google Scholar
  12. Senders, J. W. The human operator as a monitor and controller of multidegree of freedom systems. IEEE Trans. on HFE, Vol. HFE-5, No. 1, Sept. 1964, 2–5.Google Scholar
  13. Senders, J. W., J. I. Elkind, M. C. Grignetti, and R. D. Smallwood. An Investigation of the Visual Sampling Behavior of Human Observers, NASA CR-434, Apr. 1966.Google Scholar
  14. Smallwood, R. D. Internal models of the human instrument monitor. IEEE Trans. on HFE, Vol. HFE-8, No. 3, Sept. 1967, 181–187.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tarald O. Kvålseth
    • 1
  • Edward R. F. W. Crossman
    • 2
  • Kenneth Y. Kum
    • 3
  1. 1.The Norwegian Institute of TechnologyTrondheim-NTHNorway
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  3. 3.Data Measurement CorporationSanta ClaraUSA

Personalised recommendations