Literature DB >> 10665205

Effects of cueing and knowledge of results on workload and boredom in sustained attention.

E M Hitchcock1, W N Dember, J S Warm, B W Moroney, J E See.   

Abstract

Two models of recently reported high workload associated with vigilance tasks are the direct-cost and indirect-cost views. The former attributes high workload to the need for continuous observation in discriminating signals from neutral events; the latter attributes it to efforts to combat the boredom associated with monotonous vigilance tasks. These opposing views were tested by providing observers with reliable cueing, which rendered observation necessary only when low-probability critical signals were imminent, or with knowledge of results (KR) regarding performance efficiency. On the basis of cue and KR differences in elicited observation activity and motivational value, the direct-cost model led to the anticipation that cueing would result in a high-boredom, low-workload profile and a greater reduction in workload than KR. The indirect-cost model led to the prediction that cueing would result in a high-boredom, high-workload profile and a lesser reduction in workload than KR. The results clearly supported the direct-cost view that the workload of vigilance is task-induced. Consequently, efforts to combat high workload in complex automated systems requiring substantial monitoring by operators should focus specifically upon task-related determinants.

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10665205     DOI: 10.1518/001872099779610987

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Factors        ISSN: 0018-7208            Impact factor:   2.888


  15 in total

1.  Brief mental breaks and content-free cues may not keep you focused.

Authors:  William S Helton; Paul N Russell
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-03-17       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Feature absence-presence and two theories of lapses of sustained attention.

Authors:  William S Helton; Paul N Russell
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2010-11-20

3.  Visual cueing with context relevant information for reducing change blindness.

Authors:  Jacqueline M Tappan; Jeremy Daniels; Brad Slavin; Joanne Lim; Rollin Brant; J Mark Ansermino
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2009-06-21       Impact factor: 2.502

4.  Working memory load and the vigilance decrement.

Authors:  William S Helton; Paul N Russell
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-06-04       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Reliable- and unreliable-warning cues in the Sustained Attention to Response Task.

Authors:  William S Helton; James Head; Paul N Russell
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-02-02       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Visuospatial and verbal working memory load: effects on visuospatial vigilance.

Authors:  William S Helton; Paul N Russell
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-11-10       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Effects of breaks and goal switches on the vigilance decrement.

Authors:  Hayden A Ross; Paul N Russell; William S Helton
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Interactions between endogenous and exogenous attention during vigilance.

Authors:  Katherine A MacLean; Stephen R Aichele; David A Bridwell; George R Mangun; Ewa Wojciulik; Clifford D Saron
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  The Role of Language in Nonlinguistic Stimuli: Comparing Inhibition in Children With Language Impairment.

Authors:  Hettie Roebuck; Heidi Sindberg; Susan Ellis Weismer
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 2.297

10.  Fit and vigilant: the relationship between poorer aerobic fitness and failures in sustained attention during preadolescence.

Authors:  Matthew B Pontifex; Mark R Scudder; Eric S Drollette; Charles H Hillman
Journal:  Neuropsychology       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 3.295

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.