What Can Eye Tracking Reveal About Situation Awareness? A Systematic Review
Nade Liang,Jing Yang,Ting Zhang,Brandon J. Pitts,Denny Yu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181320641395
2020-12-01
Abstract:Situation awareness (SA) is “knowing what’s going on in one’s environment, where the situation is composed of elements that convey pieces of information, and one’s ability to acknowledge the important attributes of specific tasks” (Endsley & Garland, 2000). Assessments of SA are often performed using techniques designed specifically to directly measure SA, such as the SA global assessment technique (SAGAT) (Endsley, 1988). These direct measures can be interruptive and difficult to employ in real-world environments. Eye tracking, or quantitative depictions of visual attention allocation, can help to overcome these challenges and can be used to passively assess and predict SA (Jacob & Karn, 2003; Van Donkelaar & Drew, 2002). However, it is currently unclear which particular metrics can reflect SA across a wide variety of application domains. This paper presents a systematic review of the literature on eye tracking measures in cases where direct SA measurements were utilized at the same time as a basis of comparison or validation. Specifically, we summarize the 1) eye tracking measures that have been used as an indicator (or surrogate) of SA, the 2) consistency of these metrics across various studies (including various tasks, equipment, and domains), and the 3) observed relationship and/or correlation between indirect and direct measures. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) method (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman, 2010) to identify relevant literature. Seven databases were searched, including Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, Engineering Village (Inspect and Compendex), PsycInfo, Abstracts in Social Gerontology, and TRID. The search was completed on February 20, 2020. In total, 16 articles were identified as relevant. Several eye tracking metrics were extracted from the studies and either concerned the unconscious aspects of eye movements (involuntary responses to environmental stimuli, such as blink rate and pupil dilation) or reflected more conscious aspects of eye movements (such as fixations and saccades). Across all studies, correlations between conscious aspects of eye movement measures and direct SA scores were most often observed. Specifically, six articles reported metrics, such as fixation rate, fixation count, dwell time and dwell count, to be positively correlated with direct SA measures. In general, these studies found higher SA scores when participants fixated longer in a specific area of interest (AOI). Only one study, however, observed a negative correlation with direct SA scores, where higher scores were found for shorter scan lengths and less long-time fixation in an AOI. Involuntary responses, on the other hand, such as pupil diameter, lacked strong evidence for predicting SA. The objective and continuous properties of eye tracking measures make them potential complements to or substitutes for direct methods used in isolation. The findings from this review may provide researchers and practitioners with a more comprehensive understanding of the variety of ways to assess SA and may guide their decisions about how to evaluate the design of future technologies.