随着互联网、大数据等技术的创新发展，信息可视化在安全与应急管理领域发挥了重要作用，帮助有效监测、预警安全风险，并辅助个体进行事态研判。安全可视化信息呈现界面愈加复杂化和多元化，在带来丰富信息的同时也给个体带来较大的认知负荷。研究发现，界面安全可视化信息的构建与表征方式均会对个体认知造成影响，尤其是个体的情境意识，而辅助个体进行认知加工决策、减少认知负荷是提升界面可用性的目标之一。目前鲜有学者结合实际情境，以安全可视化信息为研究对象，聚焦其层级构建与表征框架对个体认知的影响研究。因而，本文借助于情境意识的相关理论，开展关于安全可视化信息层级构建与表征框架对决策个体情境意识的影响研究。

       本文首先通过文献分析法对信息可视化、情境意识、框架效应的国内外研究现状进行了梳理，得出本研究的出发点、研究内容与研究方法；其次，结合现实调研，基于情境意识三阶段理论模型（感知（SA1）、理解（SA2）、预测（SA3））及框架效应理论，搭建了本研究所用的安全可视化信息呈现实验平台界面；然后，基于双因素混合实验设计开展眼动实验，因素1是界面层级（被试间变量：层级一、层级二、层级三），因素2为表征框架（被试内变量：完全正性框架、正负组合框架、负正组合框架、完全负性框架）；其次，采用SPAM实时探测技术、3D-SART量表与眼动追踪技术分别获取被试客观情境意识得分（行为绩效水平）、主观情境意识得分以及被试的注意力分配情况；并对以上数据分别进行描述性分析、方差分析、相关分析等统计分析，得到安全可视化信息层级构建与表征框架对决策个体情境意识及其注意力分配的影响结果；最后，通过结果讨论，得到本文结论：

      （1）安全可视化信息的层级构建会影响决策个体的情境意识。按照感知、理解、预测三个层级构建安全可视化信息呈现界面，信息显示量的增加会导致个体感知阶段的情境意识得分下降，但由于高层级界面充分考虑了个体对信息认知加工的三个阶段，帮助提高了被试总体的情境意识水平。

     （2）安全可视化信息的表征存在框架效应（风险感知不同），不同表征框架对决策个体情境意识的影响不同。表现为在正性框架下，个体感知到的风险较小，负性框架下，个体感知到的风险较大，且相较于负性框架，正性框架下的情境意识水平较高；

     （3）个体的注意力分配机制在不同安全可视化信息的层级构建与表征框架下不同，且与个体情境意识水平存在相关性。其中，最近邻指数NNI量化反映了被试的眼动注视策略，被试总体的注视点分布在高层级界面及正性框架引导下较为离散，此时，被试能够更全面地把握相关信息，情境意识水平较高。

       本研究在一定程度上可以为提高安全可视化信息呈现界面的可用性提供参考依据，在信息构建方面，考虑适量信息的有机呈现，增加信息之间呈现的逻辑性与关联性，使界面设计尽可能符合个体情境意识三阶段的认知加工特点；在表征框架呈现方面，正负框架组合呈现可帮助决策个体更好理解当前安全风险事态。

      With the development of the Internet and big data, information visualization is playing an increasingly crucial role in the field of safety and emergency management, effectively monitoring and warning against the occurrence of emergencies and helping people make decisions. However, the increasing complexity and diversity of visualization information for safety (VIS) presented in the interface, also imposes a greater cognitive load on individuals. It has been found that the way in which VIS is constructed and represented in the interface affects an individual’s cognition, especially their situation awareness (SA) and that assisting individuals in cognitive processing decisions and reducing cognitive load is one of the goals of improving the usability of the interface. Few scholars have studied the impact of hierarchical construction and representational frames on individual cognition in the context of security information visualization. Therefore, based on theories related to SA and framing effect, the impact of the hierarchical construction and representation frame of VIS on an individual’s SA was investigated in this paper.

       Firstly, the current status of domestic and international research on information visualization, SA and framing effect was reviewed through literature analysis method, and the starting point, research content and method of this study were derived; secondly, combining the three-stage theoretical model of SA (perception (SA1), understanding (SA2) and prediction (SA3)) and framing effect theory, the interface for VIS presentation was designed; Then, an eye-movement experiment was conducted based on a two-factor mixed experimental design, where factor 1 was the interface hierarchy (between-subject variables: UI1, UI2, UI3) and factor 2 was the representation frame (within-subject variables: PP frame, PN frame, NP frame, NN frame); the real-time probe technique (SPAM)、3D-SART scale and eye-tracking technology were used to obtain objective SA score (behavioral performance), subjective SA score and attention allocation of the subjects， based on which, statistical analyses such as descriptive analysis, ANOVA and correlation analysis were conducted to obtain the influence results of  hierarchical construction and the representation frame of VIS on SA of individuals and their attention allocation; finally, the results were discussed and the conclusions of this paper were obtained.

      (1) The construction of VIS affects an individual’s SA. level-3 UI design can effectively improve the subjects' SA levels. Although the increase in VIS displayed caused by the higher UI level led to the decrease of perception stage score of SA, the level-3 UI fully considers the three stages of human information processing, and helps improve the SA of the subjects; (2) There was a framing effect on the presentation of VIS, which will also influence individual’s SA: subjects perceived different degrees of risk under different presentation frames, with people perceiving less risk under the positive frame and more risk under the negative frame, and a higher level of SA under the positive frame compared to the negative frame; (3) Individual attention allocation mechanisms differed across the hierarchical constructs and representational frames of VIS and correlated with their SA. In particular, the Nearest Neighbor Index (NNI) algorithm quantifies subjects' eye-tracking fixation mode． While guided by the high-level interface and the positive presentation frame, the distribution of the subjects' gaze points was more discrete and they were able to grasp the relevant information more comprehensively and have a relatively high level of SA.

       To some extent, this study can provide references for improving the usability of the VIS presentation interface. In terms of information construction, the organic presentation of an appropriate amount of information and the logic and relevance of the presentation of information should be considered, to make the interface design conform to the three stages of human information processing. In terms of the presentation frame, the combination of positive and negative frames can help people better understand the current security risk situation.

[1] 谭章禄,吴琦.煤炭安全管理可视化方式评价研究[J].煤矿安全,2018,49(2):230-233.

[2] 傅亚强,许百华.飞机空中交会显示格式对情境意识与认知绩效的影响[J].人类工效学,2012,18(2):13-17.

[3] 杨家忠,张侃.情境意识的理论模型、测量及其应用[J].心理科学进展,2004(6):842-850.

[4] Endsley M R. Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems [J]. Human Factors, 1995, 37(1): 32-64.

[5] Endsley M, Jones D, Betty B. Designing for Situation Awareness: An Approach to User-Centered Design [M]. 1st ed. London: CRC Press, 2003: 50-54

[6] O'sullivan M. Designing with the mind in mind: simple guide to understanding user interface design rules by Jeff Johnson [J]. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 2011, 36(5): 52-52.

[7] 周晓英. 信息构建的基本原理研究[J]. 图书情报工作, 2004, 48(6): 5-7.

[8] Jones D G, Endsley M R. Sources of situation awareness errors in aviation [J]. Aviation, space, and environmental medicine, 1996, 67(6): 507–512.

[9] Hall C C, Ariss L, Todorov A. The illusion of knowledge: When more information reduces accuracy and increases confidence [J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2007, 103(2): 277-290.

[10] Todd P M. How much information do we need? [J]. Eur J Oper Res, 2005, 177(3): 1317-1332.

[11] Rakhra A K, Mann D D. Design and evaluation of individual elements of the interface for an agricultural machine [J]. Journal of agricultural safety and health, 2018, 24(1): 27-42.

[12] Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice [J]. Science, 1981, 211(4481): 453-458.

[13] Fagley N S, Miller P M. Framing effects and arenas of choice: your money or your life? [J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1997, 71(3): 355-373.

[14] Mcelroy T, Seta J J. Framing effects: An analytic–holistic perspective [J]. JESP, 2003, 39(6): 610-617.

[15] Levin I P, Schneider S L, Gaeth G J. All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects [J]. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 1998, 76(2): 149-188.

[16] Ziemkiewicz C , Kosara R . The shaping of information by visual metaphors[J]. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph, 2008, 14(6):1269-1276.

[17] Thomas J J, Cook K A, Electrical I, et al. Illuminating the path: the research and development agenda for visual analytics[M]. 2005.

[18] Wong P C, Shen H W, Johnson C R, et al. The top 10 challenges in extreme-scale visual analytics[J]. IEEE computer graphics and applications, 2012, 32(4): 63-67.

[19] Robert S. Information visualization-design for interaction[J]. UK Pearson Educ Ltd, 2007.

[20] Card M. Readings in information visualization: using vision to think[M]. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufinann,1999:145-151.

[21] Ware C. Information Visualization: Perception for Design[M]. Netherlands: Elsevier Science, 2000: 213-221.

[22] Edward R. Tufte. Visual explanations: images and quantities, evidence and narrative[M]. New York: Graphics Press,1997:12-14.

[23] Playfair W. The commercial and political atlas (1786, 1798, 1801)[M]//Diagrammatik-Reader. De Gruyter (A), 2016: 199-202.

[24] Jason L, Josh R, Ross C. 信息图表的力量[M]. 人民邮电出版社, 2016.

[25] 马库斯, 斯洛普. 论信息图形[J]. 装饰, 2007 (8): 37-45.

[26] 杜雅文.大数据环境下信息界面信息流的可视化图形机制研究[D].东南大学, 2015.

[27] 谭章禄,肖懿轩,吴琦.煤矿安全生产调度信息可视化方式选择评价研究[J].矿业研究与开发,2019,39(4):138-143.

[28] 李光达. 基于认知科学的煤矿安全可视化管理效应研究[D].中国矿业大学(北京),2017.

[29] 吴晓莉,唐雨欣,薛澄岐.不同认知难度影响因素下数据信息搜索的视觉生理反应规律[J].包装工程,2021,42(4):1-10.

[30] 周川.气象监测与预警信息发布系统的研究和建设[J].智慧中国,2020(05):86-87.

[31] 陈磊, 李斌, 彭程, 等. 岩溶山区滑坡监测预警云平台设计与实现[J]. 长江科学院院报, 2022, 39(6): 138-138.

[32] 卢文刚,肖金琰. 广东省城市道路交通安全风险监测预警系统构建初探[C]//风险分析和危机反应的创新理论和方法——中国灾害防御协会风险分析专业委员会第五届年会论文集,2012:633-639

[33] Ding H, Chen S H, Yang K. Visualization interactive system of coal mine based on cloud platform[C]//2019 5th International Conference on Control, Automation and Robotics (ICCAR). IEEE, 2019: 541-544.

[34] 徐晓冬,朱万成,张鹏海,李相熙,李旭,王慧.金属矿山采动灾害监测预警云平台搭建与初步应用[J].金属矿山,2021(4):160-171.

[35] 李少琼,苏雪梅.传染病症候群病原监测可视化分析平台设计与实现[J].中国数字医学,2021,16(12):105-109.

[36] 苏永强,刘志方,陈朝阳,苏衡.中文版情境意识评价技术的研究与应用[J].航天医学与医学工程,2018,31(5):513-519.

[37] 王永刚,陈道刚.基于结构方程模型的管制员情境意识影响因素研究[J].中国安全科学学报,2013,23(7):19-25.

[38] 冯传宴,完颜笑如,刘双,陈浩,庄达民.不同脑力负荷水平下的情境意识研究[J].西北工业大学学报,2020,38(3):610-618.

[39] 傅亚强,许百华.工作记忆在监控作业情境意识保持中的作用[J].心理科学,2012,35(5):1077-1082.

[40] 靳慧斌,刘亚威,朱国蕾.基于眼动和绩效分析的管制员情境意识测量[J].中国安全科学学报,2017,27(7):65-70.

[41] 靳慧斌,刘亚威,刘文辉,张程嵬.基于NNI注视指数的塔台管制员情境意识研究[J].科学技术与工程,2016,16(31):101-105.

[42] Moore K, Gugerty L. Development of a novel measure of situation awareness: the case for eye movement analysis [J]. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 2010, 54(19).

[43] Li P, Wang Y, Chen J, et al. An experimental study on the effects of task complexity and knowledge and experience level on SA, TSA and workload[J]. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 2021, 376: 111112.

[44] Durso F T, Nickerson R S, Dumais S T. Handbook of applied cognition [M]. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2007.

[45] Schmied J, Strømmen-Bakhtiar A. Situation awareness under task complexity: the role of information[J]. International Journal of Innovation in the Digital Economy (IJIDE), 2020, 11(4): 1-26.

[46] Endsley M R. Errors in situation assessment: implications for system design[M]. Human error and system design and management. Springer, London, 2000: 15-26

[47] Elzer P, Kluwe R H. Human error and system design and management[M]. New York: Springer, 2000.

[48] King B J, Read G J M, Salmon P M. Clear and present danger? Applying ecological interface design to develop an aviation risk management interface[J]. Applied Ergonomics, 2022, 99: 103643-103643.

[49] Kim S K, Suh S M, Jang G S, et al. Empirical research on an ecological interface design for improving situation awareness of operators in an advanced control room[J]. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 2012, 253: 226-237.

[50] Endsley M R. The integration of humans and advanced manufacturing systems[J]. Journal of Design and Manufacturing, 1993, 3(3): 177-177.

[51] Endsley M R, Bolstad C A. Individual differences in pilot situation awareness[J]. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1994, 4(3): 241-264.

[52] Zhou Y, Wu D, Wang C, et al. The effect of working memory training on situation awareness in a flight simulator[J]. Cognition, Technology & Work, 2022, 24(4): 667-674.

[53] Wickens C D, McCarley J S, Alexander A L, et al. Attention-situation awareness (A-SA) model of pilot error[J]. Human performance modeling in aviation, 2008: 213-239.

[54] 冯传宴,完颜笑如,陈浩,庄达民.基于多资源负荷理论的情境意识模型与应用[J].北京航空航天大学学报,2018,44(7):1438-1446.

[55] 刘双,完颜笑如,庄达民,吕诗晨.基于注意资源分配的情境意识模型[J].北京航空航天大学学报,2014,40(8):1066-1072.

[56] Mcelroy T , Seta J J . Framing effects: An analytic–holistic perspective[J]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2003, 39(6):610-617.

[57] 张银玲,苗丹民,孙云峰.框架效应对军校大学生决策判断的影响[J].中国行为医学科学,2006(2):155-156.

[58] 刘涵慧,周洪雨,车宏生.人格特征对不同类型框架下决策的影响[J].心理科学,2010,33(4):823-826.

[59] 刘涵慧,黄雯菁.人格特征对各年龄个体不同类型框架下决策的影响[J].心理与行为研究,2014,12(1):21-25.

[60] 吴静杰,杨乃定,封超,鲁锦涛.突发事件下情绪对决策者风险偏好和框架效应的影响[J].管理学报,2016,13(6):906-912.

[61] 杜秀芳,王颖霞,赵树强.框架效应研究30年的变迁[J].济南大学学报(社会科学版),2010,20(03):71-74+92.

[62] Schneider S L. Framing and conflict: aspiration level contingency, the status quo, and current theories of risky choice[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,1992,18(5):1040.

[63] Wang X T. Framing effects: dynamics and task domains[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,1996,68(2):145-157

[64] 雷婷,杨乃定. 突发事件中时间压力和情绪调节对框架效应的影响[J]. 中国安全科学学报,2016,26(10):163-168.

[65] 段锦云,朱月龙,陈婧.心理距离对风险决策框架效应的影响[J].心理科学,2013,36(6):1404-1407.

[66] 宋之杰,李爱影,王娜,孙亚青,石蕊.感知社会距离对突发事件风险决策影响的眼动研究[J].情报杂志,2017,36(10):85-90.

[67] Kühberger A, Schulte-Mecklenbeck M, Perner J. The effects of framing, reflection, probability, and payoff on risk preference in choice tasks[J]. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 1999, 78(3): 204-231.

[68] Yao S , Wang Y , Peng J , et al. The framing effect of negation frames[J]. Journal of Risk Research, 2018, 21(5-6):800-808.

[69] 刘扬,孙彦.行为决策中框架效应研究新思路——从风险决策到跨期决策,从言语框架到图形框架[J].心理科学进展,2014,22(8):1205-1217.

[70] 孙彦,黄莉,刘扬.决策中的图形框架效应[J].心理科学进展,2012,20(11):1718-1726.

[71] Davis D F. $29 for 70 Items or 70 Items for $29? How Presentation Order Affects Package Perceptions[J]. 2012.

[72] Hurlstone M J, Lewandowsky S, Newell B R, et al. The effect of framing and normative messages in building support for climate policies[J]. PloS One, 2014, 9(12): e114335.

[73] Endsley M R. Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement[C]//Proceedings of the Human Factors Society annual meeting. Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 1988, 32(2): 97-101.

[74] Smith K, Hancock P A. Situation awareness is adaptive, externally directed consciousness[J]. Human factors, 1995, 37(1): 137-148.

[75] Bedny G, Meister D. Theory of activity and situation awareness[J]. International Journal of cognitive ergonomics, 1999, 3(1): 63-72.

[76] Wickens C D. Situation awareness and workload in aviation[J]. Current directions in psychological science, 2002, 11(4): 128-133.

[77] Adams M J, Tenney Y J, Pew R W. Situation awareness and the cognitive management of complex systems[J]. Human factors, 1995, 37(1): 85-104.

[78] Wei H, Zhuang D, Wanyan X, et al. An experimental analysis of situation awareness for cockpit display interface evaluation based on flight simulation[J]. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 2013, 26(4): 884-889.

[79] Durso F T, Hackworth C A, Truitt T R, et al. Situation awareness as a predictor of performance for en route air traffic controllers[J]. Air Traffic Control Quarterly, 1998, 6(1): 1-20.

[80] Taylor R M. Situational awareness rating technique (SART): The development of a tool for aircrew systems design[M]//Situational awareness. Routledge, 2017: 111-128.

[81] Van De Merwe K, Van Dijk H, Zon R. Eye movements as an indicator of situation awareness in a flight simulator experiment[J]. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 2012, 22(1): 78-95.

[82] 刘志方,苏衡.航空环境中情境意识的个体差异和任务难度差异检测:眼动测量技术的优势[J].应用心理学,2016,22(1):12-25.

[83] Di Nocera F, Camilli M, Terenzi M. A random glance at the flight deck: Pilots' scanning strategies and the real-time assessment of mental workload[J]. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 2007, 1(3): 271-285.

[84] 耿欢,王言伟,冯悦,张少卿.情景意识测量方法综述[J].飞机设计,2020,40(4):30-34.

[85] Kühberger. The framing of decisions: a new look at old problems[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,1995,62(2).

[86] Piñon A, Gambara H. A meta-analytic review of framming effect: risky, attribute and goal framing[J]. Psicothema, 2005, 17(2): 325-331.

[87] Meyerowitz B E, Chaiken S. The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior[J]. Journal of personality and social psychology, 1987, 52(3): 500.

[88] Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk[J]. Economica,1979,47(2):263-291.

[89] Reyna V F, Brainerd C J. Fuzzy‐trace theory and framing effects in choice: Gist extraction, truncation, and conversion[J]. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 1991, 4(4): 249-262.

[90] Stanovich K E, West R F. Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? [J]. Behavioral and brain sciences, 2000, 23(5): 645-665.

[91] Schneider W, Chein J M. Controlled & automatic processing: behavior, theory, and biological mechanisms[J]. Cognitive science, 2003, 27(3): 525-559.

[92] Sanfey A G, Chang L J. Multiple systems in decision making[J]. Annals of the new York Academy of Sciences, 2008, 1128(1): 53-62.

[93] 王宁, 余隋怀, 肖琳臻, 等. 考虑用户视觉注意机制的人机交互界面设计[J]. 西安工业大学学报, 2016, 36(4): 334-339.

[94] Li W C, Yu C S, Braithwaite G, et al. Pilots’ attention distributions between chasing a moving target and a stationary target[J]. Aerospace medicine and human performance, 2016, 87(12): 989-995.

[95] Wickens C, Mccarley J, Steelman-Allen K. NT-SEEV:A model of attention captureand noticing on the Flight Deck[J]. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings,2009,53(12):769-773.

[96] Scheiter K, van Gog T. Using eye tracking in applied research to study and stimulate the processing of information from multi-representational sources[J]. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2009, 23(9): 1209-1214

[97] 闫志明,郭喜莲,王睿.多媒体学习研究中眼动指标述评[J].现代教育技术,2018,28(5):33-39.

[98] Tokuda S, Obinata G. Development of an algorithm to detect saccadic intrusions as an index of mental workload[C].2012 5lst Annual Conference on of the Society of Instrument and Control Engineers of Japan. Tokyo: Society of Instrument and Control Engineers,2012:1369-1372

[99] Petkar H, Dande S, Yadav R, et al. A Pilot Study to Assess Designer's Mental Stress Using Eye Gaze System and Electroencephalogram[C]// Asme International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers & Information in Engineering Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2009.

[100] Muller A, Petru R, Seitz L, et al. The relation of cognitive load and pupillary unrest[J]. International archives of occupational and environmental health,2011,84(5):561-567

[101] Or C K L, Wang H H L. Color–concept associations: A cross‐occupational and‐cultural study and comparison[J]. Color Research & Application, 2014, 39(6): 630-635.

[102] Teng Y, Jones R, Marusich L, et al. Trust and situation awareness in a 3-player diner's dilemma game[C]//2013 IEEE International Multi-Disciplinary Conference on Cognitive Methods in Situation Awareness and Decision Support (CogSIMA). IEEE, 2013: 9-15.

[103] Jiang T, Fang H. The influence of user interface design on task performance and situation awareness in a 3-player diner's dilemma game[J]. Plos one, 2020, 15(3): e0230387.

[104] 冯传宴,完颜笑如,刘双,陈浩,庄达民,王鑫.负荷条件下注意力分配策略对情境意识的影响[J].航空学报,2020,41(3):129-138.

[105] 王燕青,周士琦,刘超群.飞行学员注视方式对团队情境意识的影响[J].科学技术与工程,2021,21(18):7784-7789.

[106] Tsank Yuliy, Eckstein Miguel P. Domain specificity of oculomotor learning after changes in sensory processing[J]. The Journal of neuroscience: the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience,2017,37(47).

[107] Jones D G, Endsley M R. Use of Real-Time Probes for Measuring Situation Awareness [J]. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 2004, 14(4): 343-67.

[108] Liu T, Yuizono T. Mind mapping training’s effects on reading ability: Detection based on eye tracking sensors[J]. Sensors, 2020, 20(16): 4422.

[109] 靳慧斌,王丹,王松涛,张颖.管制员视觉搜索特征与飞机数目的关系研究[J].中国科技论文,2015,10(19):2291-2294+2316.

[110] Marquart G, Cabrall C, de Winter J. Review of eye-related measures of drivers’ mental workload[J]. Procedia Manufacturing, 2015, 3: 2854-2861.

[111] Nakatani M, Ohno T, Katagiri Y, et al. The layout for the user-friendly manual: case study on an internet set-up manual[C]//International Conference of Design, User Experience, and Usability. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011: 40-45.

[112] Christ R E. Review and analysis of color coding research for visual displays[J]. Human factors, 1975, 17(6): 542-570.

[113] Kühberger A. The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis[J]. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 1998, 75(1): 23-55.

[114] Camilli M, Nacchia R, Terenzi M, et al. ASTEF: A simple tool for examining fixations[J]. Behavior research methods, 2008, 40(2): 373-382.

[115] 张超,赵江洪.基于情境意识的汽车导航界面设计研究[J].包装工程,2016,37(2):48-51+56.

[116] 张力,杨大新,王以群.数字化控制室信息显示对人因可靠性的影响[J].中国安全科学学报,2010,20(9):81-85.

[117] 支锦亦,向泽锐,李然.情境意识理论在驾驶界面设计中的研究现状与展望[J].包装工程,2019,40(18):35-39.

[118] Kahneman D. Attention and effort[M]. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973: 218-226.

[119] Carfora V, Pastore M, Catellani P. A cognitive-emotional model to explain message framing effects: Reducing meat consumption[J]. Frontiers in psychology, 2021, 12: 583209.

[120] Li E, Xiao F, Zou T, et al. Positive emotion of self-referential contexts could facilitate adult’s novel word learning: An fNIRS study[J]. Brain and language, 2021, 221: 104994.

[121] Ma Q, Hu Y, Jiang S, et al. The undermining effect of facial attractiveness on brain responses to fairness in the Ultimatum Game: an ERP study[J]. Frontiers in neuroscience, 2015, 9: 77-77.

[122] 刘青,薛澄岐,Falk Hoehn.基于眼动跟踪技术的界面可用性评估[J].东南大学学报(自然科学版),2010,40(02):331-334.