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, nonthoughtful 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.
BolesD. B. (1998). Relationships among multiple task asymmetries: II. A large-sample factor analysis. Brain and Cognition, 36, 268–289. doi:10.1006/brcg.1998.0995
2.
BolesD. B.BurskJ. H.PhillipsJ. B.PerdelwitzJ. R. (2007). Predicting dual-task performance with the Multiple Resources Questionnaire (MRQ). Human Factors, 49, 32–45. doi:10.1518/001872007779598073
3.
BolesD. B.DillardM. B. (in press). The measurement of perceptual resources. In HoffmanR. R.HancockP. A.ParasuramanR.SzalmaJ. L.ScerboM. (Eds.), The handbook of applied perception research. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BolesD. B.LawM. B. (1998). A simultaneous task comparison of differentiated and undifferentiated hemispheric resource theories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 204–215. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.24.1.204
5.
CamilliM.TerenziM.Di NoceraF. (2007). Concurrent validity of an ocular measure of mental workload. In de WaardD.HockeyG. R. J.NickelP.BrookhuisK. A. (Eds.), Human factors issues in complex system performance (pp. 117–129). Maastricht, Netherlands: Shaker.
6.
CarterL.RussellP. N.HeltonW. S. (2013). Target predictability, sustained attention, and response inhibition. Brain and Cognition, 82, 35–42. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2013.02.002
7.
ClarkP. J.EvansF. C. (1954). Distance to nearest neighbor as a measure of spatial relationships in populations. Ecology, 35, 445–453. doi:10.2307/1931034
8.
CorenS.WardL. M.EnnsJ. T. (1999). Sensation and perception (5th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt-Brace.
9.
DaviesD. R.ParasuramanR. (1982). The psychology of vigilance. London, UK: Academic Press.
10.
Di NoceraF.BoliaR. S. (2007). PERT networks as a method for analyzing the visual scanning strategies of aircraft pilots. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, 14, 165–169.
11.
Di NoceraF.CamilliM.TerenziM. (2007). A random glance to the flight deck: Pilot’s scanning strategies and real-time assessment of mental workload. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 3, 271–285. doi:10.1518/155534307X255627
12.
Di NoceraF.TerenziM.CamilliM. (2006). Another look at scanpath: Distance to nearest neighbour as a measure of mental workload. In de WaardD.BrookhuisK. A.ToffettiA. (Eds.), Developments in human factors in transportation, design, and evaluation (pp. 295–303). Maastricht, Netherlands: Shaker.
13.
FieldA. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
14.
FinomoreV. S.Jr.ShawT. H.WarmJ. S.MatthewsG.BolesD. B. (2013). Viewing the workload of vigilance through the lenses of the NASA-TLX and the MRQ. Human Factors, 55, 1044–1063. doi:10.1177/0018720813484498
15.
FunkeM. E.WarmJ. S.MatthewsG.FinomoreV.VidulichM. A.KnottB. A.HeltonW. S.ShawT. H.ParasuramanR. (2011). Static and dynamic discriminations in vigilance: Effects on cerebral hemodynamics and workload. In MarekT.KarwowskiW.RiceV. (Eds.), Advances in understanding human performance (pp. 80–90). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
16.
FunkeM. E.WarmJ. S.MatthewsG.FunkeG. J.ChiuP.RileyM. (2012, August). Neuroergonomic dynamics associated with spatial uncertainty during vigilance task performance. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Orlando, FL.
17.
GrierR. A.WarmJ. S.DemberW. N.MatthewsG.GalinskiT. L.SzalmaJ. A.ParasuramanR. (2003). The vigilance decrement reflects limitations in effortful attention, not mindlessness. Human Factors, 45, 349–359. doi:10.1518/hfes.45.3.349.27253
18.
HancockP. A. (2013). In search of vigilance. The problem of iatrogenically created psychological phenomena. American Psychologist, 68, 97–109.
19.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of a multi-dimensional workload scale: Results of empirical and theoretical research. In HancockP. A.MeshkatiN. (Eds.), Human mental workload (pp. 139–183). Amsterdam, Netherlands: North-Holland.
20.
HeadJ.HeltonW. S. (2013). Perceptual decoupling or motor decoupling?Consciousness and Cognition, 22, 913–919. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2013.06.003
21.
HeadJ.HeltonW. S. (in press). Practice does not make perfect in a modified sustained attention to response task. Experimental Brain Research. doi:10.1007/s00221-013-3765-0.
22.
HeltonW. S.HeadJ.RussellP. N. (2011). Reliable and unreliable warning cues in the sustained attention to response task (SART). Experimental Brain Research, 209, 401–407. doi:10.1007/s00221-011-2563-9
23.
HeltonW. S.HollanderT. D.WarmJ. S.MatthewsG.DemberW. N.WallartM.. . . HancockP. A. (2005). Signal regularity and the mindlessness model of vigilance. British Journal of Psychology, 96, 249–261. doi:10.1348/000712605X38369
24.
HeltonW. S.RussellP. N. (2013). Visuospatial and verbal working memory load: Effects on visuospatial vigilance. Experimental Brain Research, 224, 429–436. doi:10.1007/s00221-012-3322-2
25.
HeltonW. S.WeilL.MiddlemissA.SawersA. (2010). Global interference and spatial uncertainty in the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART). Consciousness and Cognition, 19, 77–85. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2010.01.006
26.
KleinT. A.WarmJ. S.RileyM. A.MatthewsG.DoarnC.DonovanJ. F.GaitondeK. (2012). Mental workload and stress perceived by novice operators in the laparoscopic and robotic minimally invasive surgical interfaces. Journal of Endourology, 26, 1089–1094. doi:10.1089/end.2011.0641
27.
LangnerR.WillmesK.ChatterjeeA.EickhoffS. B.SturmW. (2010). Energetic effects of stimulus intensity on prolonged simple reaction-time performance. Psychological Research, 74, 499–512. doi:10.1007/s00426-010-0275-6
28.
LavineR. A.SibertJ. L.GokturkM.DickensB. (2002). Eye-tracking measures and human performance in a vigilance task. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 73, 367–372.
29.
LintonC. S. (1996). General internal medicine. In PrakashU. B. S. (Ed.), Mayo Internal Medicine Board review 1996-1997 (pp. 333–352). Rochester, MN: Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research.
30.
ManlyT.RobertsonI. H.GallowayM.HawkinsK. (1999). The absent-mind: Further investigations of sustained attention to response. Neuropsychologia, 37, 661–670. doi:10.1016/S0028-3932(98)00127-4
31.
McCarleyJ. S.KramerA. F. (2008). Eye movements as a window on perception and cognition. In ParasuramanR.RizzoM. (Eds.,), Neuroergonomics: The brain at work (pp. 95–112). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
32.
MedinD. L.RossB.MarkmanA. (2005). Cognitive psychology (4th ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
33.
MorrisT. L.MillerJ. C. (1996). Electrooculographic and performance indices of fatigue during simulated flight. Biological Psychology, 42, 343–360. doi:10.1016/0301-0511(95)05166-X
34.
ParasuramanR. (1979). Memory load and event rate control sensitivity decrements in sustained attention. Science, 205, 924–927. doi:10.1126/science.472714
35.
ParasuramanR.De VisserE.ClarkeE.McGarryW. R.HusseyE.ShawT.ThompsonJ. (2009). Detecting threat-related intentional actions of others: Effects of image quality, response mode, and target cueing on vigilance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 275–290. doi:10.1037/a0017132
ReasonJ. (1984). Lapses in attention in everyday life. In ParasuramanR.DaviesD. R. (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 515–549). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
38.
RobertsonI. H.ManlyT.AndradeJ.BaddeleyB. T.YiendJ. (1997). “Oops!”: Performance correlates of everyday attentional failures in traumatic brain injured and normal subjects. Neuropsychologia, 35, 747–758. doi:10.1016/S0028-3932(97)00015-8
39.
SalvucciD. D.GoldbergJ. H. (2000). Identifying fixations and saccades in eye-tracking protocols. In DuchowskiA. T. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eye Tracking Research and Application Symposium (pp. 71–78). New York, NY: ACM Press.
40.
SchroderS. R.HollandJ. G. (1968). Operant control of eye movements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 161–166. doi:10.1901/jaba.1968.1-161
41.
SeliP.CheyneJ. A.SmilekD. (2012). Attention failures versus misplaced diligence: Separating attention lapses from speed-accuracy trade-offs. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 277–291. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2011.09.017
42.
ShalliceT. (1988). From neuropsychology to mental structure. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
43.
ShawT. H.FunkeM. E.DillardM.FunkeG. J.WarmJ. S.ParasuramanR. (2013). Event-related cerebral hemodynamics reveal target-specific resource allocation for both “go” and “no-go” response-based vigilance tasks. Brain and Cognition, 82, 265–273. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2013.05.003
44.
SmallwoodJ.McSpaddenM.SchoolerJ. W. (2007). The lights are on but no one’s home: Meta-awareness and the decoupling of attention when the mind wanders. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 527–533. doi:10.3758/BF03194102
45.
SmilekD.CarriereJ. S. A.CheyneJ. A. (2010). Failures of sustained attention in life, lab, and brain: Ecological validity of the SART. Neuropsychologia, 48, 2564–2570. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.05.002
46.
SternJ. A.BoyerD.SchroderD.TouchstoneM.StoliarovN. (1994). Blinks, saccades, and fixation pauses during vigilance task performance: I. Time on task (Tech. Rep. DOT-FAA-AM-94-26). Washington, DC: Office of Aviation Medicine, Federal Aviation Administration.
47.
StussD. T.ShalliceT.AlexanderM. P.PictonT. W. (1995). A multidisciplinary approach to anterior attentional functions. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 769, 191–211. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1995.tb38140.x
48.
SzalmaJ. L.HancockP. A.WarmJ. S.DemberW. N.ParsonsK. S. (2006). Training for vigilance: Using predictive power to evaluate feedback effectiveness. Human Factors, 48, 682–692. doi:10.1518/001872006779166343
49.
VidulichM. A.WickensC. D.TsangP. A.FlachJ. M. (2010). Information processing in aviation. In SalasE.MaurinoD. (Eds.), Human factors in aviation (2nd ed., pp. 175–215). New York, NY: Elsevier.
50.
WarmJ. S.FinomoreV. S.VidulichM. A.FunkeM. E. (in press). Vigilance: A perceptual challenge. In HoffmanR. R.HancockP. A.ParasuramanR.SzalmaJ. L.ScerboM. (Eds.), The handbook of applied perception research. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
51.
WarmJ. S.ParasuramanR.MatthewsG. (2008). Vigilance requires hard mental work and is stressful. Human Factors, 50, 433–441. doi:10.1518/001872008X312152
52.
WarmJ. S.TrippL. D.MatthewsG.HeltonW. S. (2012). Cerebral hemodynamic indices of operator fatigue in vigilance. In MatthewsG.DesmondP. A.NeubauerC.HancockP. A. (Eds.), The handbook of operator fatigue (pp. 197–207). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
53.
WickensC. D.HollandsJ. G.BanburyS.ParasuramanR. (2013). Engineering psychology and human performance (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
