Vigilance as a Function of Stimulus Variety and Response Complexity

Abstract

A vigilance experiment was conducted in which subjects monitored a multistimulus source display for a 100-min period. The purpose of the experiment was to determine the effects on vigilance performance of random insertion of artificial signals and complexity of required response. Several measures of task performance were analyzed: average time to detect real signals; intrasubject variability in detection time; percentage of real signals detected; number of errors made under different conditions of response complexity; and occurrence of movements extraneous to task requirements. Results indicated that the introduction of artificial signals enhanced vigilance performance by reducing the variability in detection response times and by increasing percentage of signals detected. There was no significant decrement in response times over the task session. Introduction of a complex response requirement into the task did not result in improved vigilance performance, as predicted. Results are discussed in terms of a single “construct” of vigilance and in terms of implications for applied situations.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

J. A.

Boulter

L. R.

An evaluation of the Activationist Hypothesis of Human Vigilance. J. exp. Psychol., 1962, 64, 5, 495–504.

Adams

J. A.

Stenson

H. H.

Humes

J. W.

Monitoring of complex visual displays: II. Effects of visual load and response complexity on human vigilance. Human Factors, 1961, 3, 4, 213–221.

Baker

C. H.

Maintaining the level of vigilance by means of artificial signals. J. appl. Psychol., 1959, 57, 49–56.

Broadbent

D. E.

The Twenty Dials Test under quiet conditions. Med. Res. Council, Cambridge, Appl. Res. Unit, APU 130/50, 1950.

Colquhoun

W. P.

The effect of “unwanted” signals on performance in a vigilance task. Ergonomics, 1961, 4, 1,41–51.

Davis

S. W.

Auditory and visual flicker-fusion as measures of fatigue. Amer. J. Psychol., 1955, 68, 654–657.

Deese

Ormond

Studies of detectability during continuous visual search. USAF WADC Tech. Rep., 1953, No. 53–58.

Faulkner

T. W.

Variability of performance in a vigilance task. J. appl. Psychol., 1962, 46, 5, 325–328.

Frankmann

Judith P.

Adams

J. A.

Theories of vigilance. Psychol. Bull., 1962, 59, 4, 257–272.

10.

Fraser

D. C.

The relation between angle of display and performance in a prolonged visual task. Quart. J. exp. Psychol., 1950, 2, 176–181.

11.

Garvey

W. D.

Henson

J. B.

Newlin

E. P.

The use of “artificial signals” to enhance monitoring performance. U.S. Naval Res. Lab. Rep., 1959 (Feb.), No. 5269.

12.

Howland

An investigation of the performance of the human monitor. USAF Wright Air Development Center Technical Note, No. 57–431, July, 1958.

13.

Jenkins

H. M.

The effect of signal-rate on performance in visual monitoring. Amer. J. Psychol., 1958, 71, 647–661.

14.

Jerison

H. G.

Wallis

R. A.

Experiments on vigilance: One-clock and three-clock monitoring. USAF Wright Air Develop. Center Tech. Rep., No. 57–206, April, 1957.

15.

Kappauf

W. E.

Powe

W. E.

Performance decrement at an audio-visual checking task. J. exp. Psychol., 1959, 57, 49–56.

16.

Loeb

Jeantheau

The influence of noxious environmental stimuli on vigilance. J. appl. Psychol., 1958, 42, 47.

17.

Viteles

M. S.

Industrial psychology. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1932.

18.

Whittenburg

J. A.

Ross

Andrews

T. G.

Sustained Perceptual Efficiency as measured by the Mackworth “Clock” Test. Percep. Mot. Skills, 1956, 6, 109.

19.

Wyatt

Fraser

J. A.

Stock

F. G. L.

The effects of monotony in work. In. Fat. Res. Brd. Rep., 1929, 56, 44.