OBJECTIVE: In this study, we evaluated the validity of the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) as a means for promoting mindlessness in vigilance performance. BACKGROUND: Vigilance tasks typically require observers to respond to critical signals and to withhold responding to neutral events. The SART features the opposite response requirements, which supposedly leads it to promote a mindless, non-thoughtful approach to the vigilance task To test that notion, we compared the SART to the traditional vigilance format (TVF) in terms of diagnostic accuracy assessed through decision theory measures of positive and negative predictive power (PPP and NPP), perceived mental workload indexed by the Multiple Resource Questionnaire, and oculomotor activity reflected in the Nearest Neighbor Index and fixation dwell times. METHOD: Observers in TVF and SART conditions monitored a video display for collision flight paths in a simulated air traffic control task. RESULTS: Diagnostic accuracy in terms of NPP was high in both format conditions. While PPP was poorer in the SART than in the TVF, that result could be accounted for by a loss of motor control rather than a lack of mindfulness. Identical high levels of workload were generated by the TVF and SART tasks, and observers in both conditions showed similar dynamic scanning of the visual scene. CONCLUSION: The data indicate that the SART is not an engine of mindlessness. APPLICATION: The results challenge the widespread use of the SART to support a model in which mindlessness is considered to be the principal root of detection failures in vigilance.
OBJECTIVE: In this study, we evaluated the validity of the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) as a means for promoting mindlessness in vigilance performance. BACKGROUND: Vigilance tasks typically require observers to respond to critical signals and to withhold responding to neutral events. The SART features the opposite response requirements, which supposedly leads it to promote a mindless, non-thoughtful approach to the vigilance task To test that notion, we compared the SART to the traditional vigilance format (TVF) in terms of diagnostic accuracy assessed through decision theory measures of positive and negative predictive power (PPP and NPP), perceived mental workload indexed by the Multiple Resource Questionnaire, and oculomotor activity reflected in the Nearest Neighbor Index and fixation dwell times. METHOD: Observers in TVF and SART conditions monitored a video display for collision flight paths in a simulated air traffic control task. RESULTS: Diagnostic accuracy in terms of NPP was high in both format conditions. While PPP was poorer in the SART than in the TVF, that result could be accounted for by a loss of motor control rather than a lack of mindfulness. Identical high levels of workload were generated by the TVF and SART tasks, and observers in both conditions showed similar dynamic scanning of the visual scene. CONCLUSION: The data indicate that the SART is not an engine of mindlessness. APPLICATION: The results challenge the widespread use of the SART to support a model in which mindlessness is considered to be the principal root of detection failures in vigilance.
Authors: Nichole M Emerson; Timothy J Meeker; Joel D Greenspan; Mark I Saffer; Claudia M Campbell; Anna Korzeniewska; Fred A Lenz Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2019-10-09 Impact factor: 2.714
Authors: Jui-Hong Chien; Luana Colloca; Anna Korzeniewska; Timothy J Meeker; O Joe Bienvenu; Mark I Saffer; Fred A Lenz Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2020-11-26 Impact factor: 3.576