A Closer Look at Warning Cues on the Sustained Attention to Response Task Performance

Abstract

Objectives

We investigated the effects of auditory cues of varying reliability levels on response inhibition performance using a target detection task to determine if external cues offer performance benefits. Further, we examined how the slope of the speed accuracy trade-off changes as a function of auditory cue reliability and used the trade-off to understand where any performance gains may be realized.

Background

Researchers have proposed that the sustained attention to response task (SART) can be used to study the mechanisms causing failures of response inhibition. External cues may mitigate the results of motor inhibition failure. The extent to which external cues can effectively aid performance depends on the level of cue reliability.

Method

Ninety-one participants performed three SARTs with auditory cue assistance at three different levels of reliability (i.e. 0%, 60% and 100% reliable at cueing imminent No-Go stimuli).

Results

We observed fewer errors of commission and faster reaction time in conditions with higher cue reliability. The slope of speed-accuracy trade-off relationship was impacted by cue reliability and was not a simple linear function.

Conclusion

Reliable auditory cues aid performance by reducing reaction time and errors of commission. Auditory cues also impact the relationship between speed and accuracy trade-off.

Application

Insights of cue effectiveness at different reliability levels help people make informed decisions in developing automation interfaces or sensors based on expected performance. Reliable cues mitigate the risk of impulsive errors; however, the reliability has to be high to have a noticeable impact on the speed-accuracy trade-off.

Keywords

human error warning systems < accidents vigilance (sustained attention)monitoring

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Biggs

A. T.

Cain

M. S.

Mitroff

S. R.

(2015). Cognitive training can reduce civilian casualties in a simulated shooting environment. Psychological Science, 26(8), 1164–1176. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615579274

Bliss

J. P.

Acton

S. A.

(2003). Alarm mistrust in automobiles: How collision alarm reliability affects driving. Applied Ergonomics, 34(6), 499–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2003.07.003

Dang

J. S.

Figueroa

I. J.

Helton

W. S.

(2018). You are measuring the decision to be fast, not inattention: The sustained attention to response task does not measure sustained attention. Experimental Brain Research, 236(8), 2255–2262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-018-5291-6

Department of the Army . (1992). Fratricide: Reducing self-inflicted losses. Newsletter No. 92-4. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Center for Army Lessons Learned, U.S. Army Combined Arms Command, p. 3.

Dixon

S. R.

Wickens

C. D.

(2006). Automation reliability in unmanned aerial vehicle control: A reliance-compliance model of automation dependence in high workload. Human Factors, 48(3), 474–486. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872006778606822

Dockree

P. M.

Kelly

S. P.

Roche

R. A.

Hogan

M. J.

Reilly

R. B.

Robertson

I. H.

(2004). Behavioural and physiological impairments of sustained attention after traumatic brain injury. Cognitive Brain Research, 20(3), 403–414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.03.019

Drescher

L. H.

Bussche

E. V. D.

Desender

(2018). Absence without leave or leave without absence: Examining the interrelations among mind wandering, metacognition and cognitive control. Plos One, 13(2), e0191639. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191639

Finkbeiner

K. M.

Wilson

K. M.

Russell

P. N.

Helton

W. S.

(2014). The effects of warning cues and attention-capturing stimuli on the sustained attention to response task. Experimental Brain Research, 233(4), 1061–1068. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-014-4179-3

Head

Helton

W. S.

(2013). Perceptual decoupling or motor decoupling? Consciousness and Cognition, 22(3), 913–919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.06.003

10.

Head

Tenan

M. S.

Tweedell

A. J.

Lafiandra

M. E.

Morelli

Wilson

K. M.

Ortega

S. V.

Helton

W. S.

(2017). Prior mental fatigue impairs marksmanship decision performance. Frontiers in Physiology, 8, 680. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2017.00680

11.

Helton

W. S.

(2009). Impulsive responding and the sustained attention to responsetask. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 31(1), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803390801978856

12.

Helton

W. S.

Head

Russell

P. N.

(2011). Reliable- and unreliable-warning cues in the sustained attention to response task. Experimental Brain Research, 209(3), 401–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2563-9

13.

Neyedli

H. F.

Hollands

J. G.

Jamieson

G. A.

(2011). Beyond identity: Incorporating system reliability information into an automated combat identification system. Human Factors, 53(4), 338–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720811413767

14.

Peebles

Bothell

(2004). Modelling performance in the Sustained Attention to Response Task. Proceedings of International Conference on Cognitive Modeling, 231–236. Carnegie Mellon University/University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.

15.

Rasmussen

R. E.

(2007). The wrong target: The problem of mistargeting resulting in fratricide and civilian casualties. National Defense University of Norfolk VA Joint Advanced Warfighting School.

16.

Robertson

I. H.

Manly

Andrade

Baddeley

B. T.

&Yiend

(1997). ‘Oops!’: performance correlates of everyday attentional failures in traumatic brain injured and normal subjects. Neuropsychologia, 35(6), 747–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0028-3932(97)00015-8

17.

Seli

(2016). The attention-lapse and motor decoupling accounts of SART performance are not mutually exclusive. Consciousness and Cognition, 41, 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.02.017

18.

Shelton

Kumar

G. P.

(2010). Comparison between auditory and visual simple reaction times. Neuroscience and Medicine, 40(7), 30–32. https://doi.org/10.4236/nm.2010.11004

19.

Wang

Jamieson

G. A.

Hollands

J. G.

(2009). Trust and reliance on an automated combat identification system. Human Factors, 51(3), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720809338842

20.

Wickens

C. D.

Dixon

(2007). The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: A synthesis of the literature. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 8(3), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220500370105

21.

Wilson

Head

Helton

W. S.

(2013). Friendly fire in a simulated firearms task. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 57(1), 1244–1248. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213571276

22.

Wilson

K. M.

Russell

P. N.

Helton

W. S.

(2015). Spider stimuli improve response inhibition. Consciousness and Cognition, 33, 406–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2015.02.014

23.

Wood

C. C.

Jennings

J. R.

(1976). Speed-accuracy tradeoff functions in choice reaction time: Experimental designs and computational procedures. Perception & Psychophysics, 19, 92–102. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199392

24.

Yeh

Wickens

C. D.

(2001). Display signaling in augmented reality: Effects of cue reliability and image realism on attention allocation and trust calibration. Human Factors, 43(3), 355–365. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872001775898269