Literature DB >> 14702988

The vigilance decrement reflects limitations in effortful attention, not mindlessness.

Rebecca A Grier1, Joel S Warm, William N Dember, Gerald Matthews, Traci L Galinsky, Raja Parasuraman.   

Abstract

Robertson, Manly, Andrade, Baddeley, and Yiend (1997) proposed that the decline in performance efficiency over time in vigilance tasks (the vigilance decrement) is characterized by "mindlessness" or a withdrawal of attentional effort from the monitoring assignment. We assessed that proposal using measures of perceived mental workload (NASA-TLX) and stress (Dundee Stress State Questionnaire). Two types of vigilance task were employed: a traditional version, wherein observers made button-press responses to signify detection of rarely occurring critical signals, and a modified version, developed by Robertson et al. to promote mindlessness via routinization, wherein button-press responses acknowledged frequently occurring neutral stimulus events and response withholding signified critical signal detection. The vigilance decrement was observed in both tasks, and both tasks generated equally elevated levels of workload and stress, the latter including cognitions relating to performance adequacy. Vigilance performance seems better characterized by effortful attention (mindfulness) than by mindlessness. Actual or potential applications of this research include procedures to reduce the information-processing demand imposed by vigilance tasks and the stress associated with such tasks.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14702988     DOI: 10.1518/hfes.45.3.349.27253

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


  44 in total

1.  Text-speak processing and the sustained attention to response task.

Authors:  James Head; Paul N Russell; Martin J Dorahy; Ewald Neumann; William S Helton
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-11-04       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  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

Review 3.  Recent theoretical, neural, and clinical advances in sustained attention research.

Authors:  Francesca C Fortenbaugh; Joseph DeGutis; Michael Esterman
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2017-03-05       Impact factor: 5.691

4.  Practice does not make perfect in a modified sustained attention to response task.

Authors:  James Head; William S Helton
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2013-11-19       Impact factor: 1.972

Review 5.  An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance.

Authors:  Toni Schmader; Michael Johns; Chad Forbes
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 8.934

6.  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

7.  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

8.  Energetic effects of stimulus intensity on prolonged simple reaction-time performance.

Authors:  Robert Langner; Klaus Willmes; Anjan Chatterjee; Simon B Eickhoff; Walter Sturm
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2010-02-10

9.  The effects of warning cues and attention-capturing stimuli on the sustained attention to response task.

Authors:  Kristin M Finkbeiner; Kyle M Wilson; Paul N Russell; William S Helton
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-12-24       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Minimizing noise in pediatric task-based functional MRI; Adolescents with developmental disabilities and typical development.

Authors:  Catherine Fassbender; Prerona Mukherjee; Julie B Schweitzer
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2017-01-24       Impact factor: 6.556

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.