Using eye movement parameters for evaluating human-machine interface frameworks under normal control operation and fault detection situations

A human-machine interface framework provides general guidelines for what information should be put on an interface display screen. The framework is thus a first step towards the design of an effective and efficient interface. This paper reports on an experimental study of two proposed frameworks: the ecological interface design framework and the function-behaviour-state framework. In order to provide an unbiased comparative evaluation for both interfaces, the same application problem is used. The interfaces, based on each of the two frameworks, are implemented with as similar look-and-feel forms as possible in the presentation of information contents. Only the normal control operation and fault detection situations are considered at this stage of the study. In addition, in this study three categories of measures are used, namely: the performance measure; the physiological measure (the eye movement measure: the eye fixation and the pupil diameter change, in particular); and the subjective (or the user-rated) measure. The major results obtained from the study includes the following: (1) the information called the abstract function in the ecological interface design framework may not positively correlate to the performance improvement yet may increase the mental workload, (2) the function-behaviour-state framework seems more agreeable with the operator's mental model, and (3) operators may perform equally well with a function-behaviour-state interface but with a reduced mental workload. It is also found that the eye fixation measure is highly consistent with the performance measure and the subjective measure. The pupil diameter measure is found not to be significantly sensitive to the mental workload information; however, it appears sensitive to the mental workload information among individual participants and shows a consistent result with the other measures used. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.