A study was performed to evaluate the effectiveness, efficiency, and strategy associated with three navigation methods: memorized route, conventional paper map, and a moving-map navigational display (the navigator). Thirty-two driver-subjects of both genders, and wide ranges of age (18-73) and driving experience (2,000 to 40,000 miles per year) navigated along public roadways for this research using a specially instrumented automobile. A variety of different roadway conditions were also used for this research including limited access four-lane highways, two-lane state routes, and city streets. In addition, the research was conducted under conditions of both light and moderate traffic densities. Measures taken include eye movement, navigation effectiveness, and driving performance measures. Results showed that the paper map took longer to study at the beginning of a run than the navigator. Even with this handicap, the total time taken when using the paper map was not significantly different from the time taken to use the navigator. Also, there were no differences in the directness or quality of routes selected when using either the paper map or the navigator to navigate. These findings were a result of the strategies adopted in the use of the various methods of navigation. During the initial study phase the paper map was essentially used to plan the entire route from start to finish. After the initial phase, the map was used only as an occasional reference. In contrast, effective use of the navigator could only be accomplished by repetitively glancing at the display to acquire important information as it was updated and presented. As a result, subjects spent more driving time glancing to the navigator than the paper map, and it substantially drew the subjects' gaze away from the driving task relative to the norm established in the memorized route condition, as well as in comparison to the paper map. Still, driving performance did not greatly change as a function of navigation method indicating that the additional visual attentional demand associated with the navigator was drawn primarily from spare driver resources. It is also very likely that the novelty of the navigator was responsible for some portion of the glance time spent on it. / Ph. D.