Two possible sources of vigilance decrement are inadequate training of operators and taxing information-processing demands. This study attempted to compensate for both of these sources. Although compensation for training was effective, processing demands may have been set too high, as detection sensitivity declined. This result suggests that an event rate much less than the current threshold of 24/min is necessary to stabilize sensitivity. Response latency increased progressively during the task and was greater for “unsure” as compared with “sure” decisions. Consistent with an adaptation-level hypothesis, reduced sensitivity was compensated by a general negative shift in response bias. This adaptive process may account for the absence in this study of the usual form of vigilance decrement: a positive shift in bias, which reduces both detection and false-alarm scores.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bergum, B. O., and Lehr, D.J. (1963). End spurt in vigilance. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 383–385.
2.
Broadbent, D. E.. (1971). Decision and stress. London: Academic Press.
3.
Buck, L. (1966). Reaction time as a measure of perceptual vigilance. Psychological Bulletin, 65, 291–308.
4.
Craig, A. (1977). Broadbent and Gregory revisited: Vigilance and statistical decision. Human Factors, 19, 25–36.
5.
Craig, A. (1978). Is the vigilance decrement simply a response adjustment towards probability matching?Human Factors, 20, 441–446.
6.
Craig, A., and Colquhoun, W. P. (1977). Vigilance effects in complex inspection. In R. R. Mackie (Ed.), Vigilance: Theory, operational performance and physiological correlates (pp. 239–262). New York: Plenum.
7.
Dannhaus, D. M., Hopson, J. A., and Halcomb, C. G. (1976). Effect of instructional set on end spurt phenomenon. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 43, 786.
8.
Dorfman, D. D., and Alf, E., Jr. (1969). Maximum likelihood estimation of parameters of signal detection theory and determination of confidence intervals---Rating method data. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 6, 487–496.
9.
Gabriel, K. R.. (1978). A simple method of multiple comparisons of means. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 73,724–729.
10.
Green, D. M., and Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.
11.
Grey, D. R., and Morgan, B. J. T. (1972). Some aspects of ROC curve-fitting: Normal and logistic models. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 9, 128–139.
12.
Mackworth, N. H.. (1950). Researches on the measurement of human performance (MRC Special Report 268). London: H.M.S.O., Medical Research Council.
13.
Metz, C. E., (1984, March). Statistical analysis of ROC data in evaluating diagnostic performance. Paper presented at the AAPM First Mid-Year Topical Symposium, Mobile, Alabama.
14.
Parasuraman, R. (1976). Task classification and decision processes in monitoring behaviour. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Aston in Birmingham, England.
15.
Parasuraman, R. (1979). Memory load and event rate control sensitivity decrements in sustained attention. Science, 205, 924–926.
16.
Parasuraman, R., and Davies, D. R.(1977). A taxonomic analysis of vigilance performance. In R. R. Mackie (Ed.), Vigilance: Theory, operational performance and physiological correlates (pp. 559–574). New York: Plenum.
17.
Peterson, W. W., Birdsall, T. G., and Fox, W. C. (1954). The theory of signal detectability. In Transactions of the 1954 Symposium on Information Theory (PGIT-4:171-212). New York: Institute of Radio Engineers.
18.
Swets, J. A.. (1973). The relative operating characteristic in psychology. Science, 182, 990–999.
19.
Swets, J. A.. (1977). Signal detection theory applied to vigilance. In R. Mackie (Ed.), Vigilance: Theory, operational performance, and physiological correlates. New York: Plenum.
20.
Swets, J. A., and Pickett, R. M. (1982). Evaluation of diagnostic systems (methods from signal detection theory). New York: Academic Press.
21.
Swets, J. A., Tanner, W. P., Jr., and Birdsall, T. G. (1955). The evidence for a decision-making theory of visual detection (Tech. Report No. 40). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Electronic Defense Group.
22.
Tanner, W. P., and Swets, J. A (1954). A decision-making theory of visual detection. Psychological Review, 61, 401–409.
23.
Taylor, M. M.. (1967). Detectability theory and the interpretation of vigilance data. Acta Psychologica, 27, 390–399.
24.
Vickers, D., and Leary, J. N. (1983). Criterion control in signal detection. Human Factors, 25. 283–296.
25.
Vickers, D., Leary, J., and Barnes, P. (1977). Adaptation to decreasing signal probability. In R. R. Mackie (Ed.), Vigilance: Theory, operational performance and physiological correlates. New York: Plenum.
26.
Williams, P. S.. (1985). User guide for computer derivation of signal detection theory parameters (Tech. Memo. AMTE[M]TM84402). Gosport, Hants., England: Admiralty Research Establishment, Physiological Laboratory.
