A vigilance experiment was performed using a visual monitoring task with multiple stimulus sources. Under investigation were effects of repeated sessions on monitoring behavior. Nine 3-hour sessions were given on consecutive days. Following a longer 7-day interval, a 10th session was given. The main findings were a significant decrement in detection latency within each session, but no statistically reliable evidence for a between-sessions effect. Evidence was presented to suggest that the spatial configuration of stimulus sources was a factor for vigilance decrement because efficiency of the observing response decreased as a function of observation time.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamsJ. A.Vigilance in the detection of low-intensity visual stimuli. J. Exp. Psychol., 1956, 52, 204–208.
AdamsJ. A.BoulterL. R.Monitoring of complex visual displays: I. Effects of response complexity and intersignal interval on vigilant behavior when visual load is moderate. Air Force Command and Control Development Division Technical Note 60-63, 30 October 1960.
4.
AdamsJ. A.StensonH. H.HumesJ. M.Monitoring of complex visual displays: II. Effects of visual load and response complexity on human vigilance. Human Factors, 1961, 3, 213–221.
5.
BakerC. H.Attention to visual displays during a vigilance task. I. Biasing attention. Brit. J. Psychol., 1958, 49, 279–288.
6.
BakerC. H.Towards a theory of vigilance. Canad. J. Psychol, 1959, 13, 35–42.
7.
BlairW. C.Measurement of observing responses in human monitoring. Science, 1958, 128, 255–256.
8.
DavisD. R.Pilot error: Some laboratory experiments. Air Ministry Report A. P. 3139A. London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1948.
9.
FrankmannJudith P.AdamsJ. A.Theories of vigilance. Psychol. Bull., 1962, 59, In press.
10.
HebbD. O.Drives and the C.N.S. (Conceptual Nervous System). Psychol. Rev., 1955, 62, 243–254.
11.
HollandJ. G.Technique for behavioral analysis of human observing. Science, 1957, 125, 348–350.
JenkinsH. M.The effect of signal-rate on performance in visual monitoring. Amer. J. Psychol., 1958, 71, 647–661.
14.
LindquistE. F.Design and analysis of experiments in psychology and education.New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 1953.
15.
LindsleyD. B.Radar operator “fatigue.” The effects of length and repetition of operating periods on efficiency of performance. OSRD Report 3334, 1944.
16.
MackworthN. H.Researches on the measurement of human performance. Med. Res. Council Special Rep. Series, No. 268. London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1950.
17.
MathenyW. G.Human operator performance under non-normal environmental operating conditions. In SellsS. B.BerryC. A. (Eds.), Human factors in jet and space travel.New York: Ronald, 1961.
18.
PollackI.KnaffP. R.Maintenance of alertness by a loud auditory signal. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., 1958, 30, 1013–1016.
19.
RayJ. T.MartinO. E.Jr.AlluisiE. A.Human performance as a function of the work-rest cycle. National Academy of Sciences—National Research Council, Publication 882. 1961.
20.
WebbW. B.WherryR. J.Jr.Vigilance in prolonged and repeated sessions. Percep. Mot. Skills., 1960, 10, 111–114.
21.
WycoffL. B.Jr.The role of observing response in discrimination learning. Psychol. Rev., 1952, 59, 431–442.
