ArticleJournal of eye movement research2026
Effects of Presentation Form and Presentation Timing in AR-HUD Takeover Displays on Driver Visual Attention: An Eye-Tracking Study.
Article in Journal of eye movement research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Level 3 automated driving necessitates rapid driver reengagement following a takeover request, making human-machine interface design critical for safety. As a sensor-based in-vehicle interface, the augmented reality head-up display (AR-HUD) integrates real-time environmental sensing with visual information delivery, yet how different information presentation strategies influence driver visual attention during takeover remains underexplored. We examined the effects of presentation form (static/dynamic) and presentation timing (concurrent/progressive) using a 2 × 2 within-subject design. In the experiment, twenty-one licensed drivers viewed prerecorded automated driving takeover scenarios. Eye tracking measured mean fixation duration, mean saccade amplitude, time to first fixation, and fixation count, while ratings assessed usability, acceptance, and intention comprehension. Progressive presentation significantly reduced all eye-tracking measures and improved perceived usability ratings compared with concurrent presentation. This pattern indicates more concentrated and orderly gaze allocation and is consistent with lower visual-search and information-integration demands. However, the lower fixation count may partly reflect reduced information exposure. Static presentation reduced mean fixation duration but showed no consistent overall advantage on the remaining measures. Significant form-by-timing interactions showed that progressive presentation reduced saccade amplitude and time to first fixation and improved intention comprehension under static, but not dynamic, presentation. Among the four combinations, static-progressive presentation yielded the most favorable overall pattern. Overall, presentation timing affected more measured outcomes than presentation form. These findings provide preliminary evidence that presentation form and presentation timing shape gaze behavior and subjective evaluations of AR-HUD takeover displays.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.