Observations were made on certain verbal and non-verbal signals in quiet, noisy and in simulated RT conditions where it was required to select and to respond to up to twelve sound signals. Verbal signals appeared to be significantly better than non-verbal even where channel noise was higher than signal level. Ambient noise was not detectable as an effect because of the confounding nature of the learning curve.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BroadbentD. E.Effects of noise of high and low pitch on behaviour.Cambridge: Medical Research Council, Applied Psychology Unit, Report No. APU 222, 1954.
2.
BurrowsA. A.Noise and its relevance to the working environment. Unpublished thesis, University of London, 1954.
3.
DeFlorezL.True blind flight. J. aero. Sci., 1936, 3, 168.
EllisW. H.BurrowsA. A.JacksonK. F.Presentation of airspeed while deck-landing; a comparison of auditory and visual methods.London: Air Ministry, Flying Personnel Research Committee Report No. FPRC841, 1953.
6.
ForbesT. W.Auditory signals for instrument flying. J. aero. Sci., 1946, 13, 5.
7.
HoustonR. C.WalkerR. Y.The evaluation of auditory warning signals for aircraft. Tech. Report No. 5762, Hq. Air Materiel Command, WPAFB, Ohio, June 1949.
8.
MacDougallW.On the influence of varying intensities and qualities of visual stimulation upon the rapidity of reaction to auditory stimuli. Amer. J. Physiol., 1903, 9, 116–121.
Royal Navy Service Trial Report No. STU 524/52. London: Admiralty, 1952.
11.
SpencerJ.A comparison of an auditory warning system with a controlled visual warning system for use in aircraft.London: Air Ministry, Flying Personnel Research Committee Report No. FPRC818, 1953.
