This paper contrasts the positive evidence for a cognitive vigilance increment with several unsuccessful attempts at replication and reports three further experiments. Experiment 1 employs six different levels of task complexity involving the use of auditory cues, finding a weak overall decrement over time. Experiment 2 obtains similar results using the original simple and complex tasks in conditions of cuing. Experiment 3 compares three uncued conditions, finding a slight improvement in response times on the most complex task. Reviewing the evidence suggests three groups of reasons for nonreplication: differences in tasks and presentation variables, possible sex differences, and the presence of cue tones. Making allowance for these variables, it is concluded that fixed-range tasks produce an increment whereas variable-range tasks do not, although all the cognitive versions are relatively resistant to decrement.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ash, D. W., Noonan, T. K., Loeb, M., and Warm, J. S. (1983, April). Is processing mode or degree of challenge the critical variable in vigilance? Or is it neither?Paper presented at the 75th Annual Meeting of the Southern Society for Philosophy and Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
2.
Ash, D. W., Noonan, T. K., Loeb, M., and Warm, J. S. (1985, April). Complexity and vigilance: The cognitive increment regained. Paper presented at the 77th Annual Meeting of the Southern Society for Philosophy and Psychology, New Orleans, LA.
3.
Bakan, P. (1959). Extraversion-introversion and decrement in an auditory vigilance task. British Journal of Psychology, 50, 325–332.
4.
Baker, M. A., Holding, D. H., and Loeb, M. (1984). Noise, sex and time-of-day effects in a mathematics task. Ergonomics, 27, 67–80.
5.
Davies, D. R., and Parasuraman, R. (1982). The psychology of vigilance. London: Academic Press.
6.
Deci, E. C. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.
7.
Dember, W. N., Warm, J. S., Bowers, J. C., and Lanzetta, T. M. (1984). Intrinsic motivation and the vigilance decrement. In A. Mital (Ed.), Trends in ergonomics/human factors I (pp. 21–26). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.
8.
Fisk, A. D., and Schneider, W. (1981). Controlled and automatic processing during tasks requiring sustained attention: A new approach to vigilance. Human Factors, 23, 737–750.
9.
Holding, D. H., and Baker, M. A. (in press). Toward meaningful noise research. Journal of General Psychology.
10.
Lanzetta, T. M., Bowers, J. C., Riegler, G. L., Dember, W. N., and Warm, J. S. (1984, April). Capacity demands in a cognitive vigilance task. Paper pesented at the 76th Annual Meeting of the Southern Society for Philosophy and Psychology, Columbia, SC.
11.
Loeb, M. (1986). Noise and human efficiency. Chichester, England: Wiley.
12.
Loeb, M., and Alluisi, E. A. (1984). Theories of vigilance. In J. S. Warm (Ed.), Sustained attention in human performance (pp. 179–205). Chichester, England: Wiley.
13.
Loeb, M., Ash, D. W., Noonan, T. K., and Warm, J. S. (1982, November). Task complexity, memory, observing response, and vigilance decrement or increment. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Minneapolis, MN.
14.
Loeb, M., Holding, D. H., and Baker, M. A. (1982). Noise stress and circadian arousal in self-paced computation. Motivation & Emotion, 6, 43–48.
15.
Lysaght, R. J., Warm, J. S., Dember, W. N., and Loeb, M. (1984). Effects of noise and information-processing demand on vigilance performance in men and women. In A. Mital (Ed.), Trends in ergonomics/human factors I (pp. 27–32). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.
16.
Montague, W. E., Webber, C. E., and Adams, J. A. (1965). The effects of signal and response complexity on eighteen hours of visual monitoring. Human Factors, 7, 163–172.
17.
Noonan, T. K., Ash, D. W., Loeb, M., and Warm, J. S. (1984). Task complexity, noise and cognitive vigilance performance. In A. Mital (Ed.), Trends in ergonomics/human factors I (pp. 33–38). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.
18.
Noonan, T. K., Ash, D. W., Loeb, M., and Warm, J. S. (1985). Task complexity, subject sex, and noise meaningfulness as determinants of cognitive vigilance performance. In R. E. Eberts and C. G. Eberts (Eds.), Trends in ergonomics/human factors II (pp. 181–187). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.
19.
Noonan, T. K., Karwowski, W., and Loeb, M. (1985). Perception of challenge and difficulty in a cognitive vigilance task. In R. E. Eberts and C. G. Eberts (Eds.), Trends in ergonomics/human factors II (pp. 189–193). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.
20.
Waag, W. L., Halcomb, C. G., and Tyler, D. M. (1973). Sex differences in monitoring performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 272–274.
21.
Warm, J. S. (1984). Sustained attention in human performance. Chichester, England: Wiley.
22.
Warm, J. S., Dember, W. N., Lanzetta, T. M., Bowers, J. C., and Lysaght, R. J. (1985). Information processing in vigilance performance: Complexity revisited. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 29th Annual Meeting (pp. 19–23). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
23.
Warm, J. S., Howe, S. R., Fishbein, H. D., Dember, W. N., and Sprague, R. L. (1984). Cognitive demand and the vigilance decrement. In A. Mital (Ed.), Trends in ergonomics/human factors I (pp. 15–20). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.
