It has been proposed that using speech controls could improve time-sharing efficiency in environments previously dominated by manual controls (e.g., military aviation). However, it has been suggested that the research supporting the use of speech controls was potentially contaminated by asymmetric transfer. The present study examined the value of speech controls in a dual-task experiment that also evaluated asymmetric transfer effects. Despite significant effects supporting the advantage of mixing manual and speech responses, there was no evidence of asymmetric transfer. Thus although asymmetric transfer remains an experimental design concern, it is not a sufficient explanation for the observed response modality effects. The results suggested that speech controls can be used to enhance performance in operational multiple-task environments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aretz, A. J. (1983). A comparison of manual and vocal response modes for the control of aircraft systems. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 27th Annual Meeting (pp. 97–101). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
2.
Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
3.
Damos, D. L. (1985a). The effect of using speech generation and recognition systems on the performance of discrete tasks. In Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Aviation Psychology (pp. 127–133). Columbus, OH: OSU Aviation Psychology Laboratory.
4.
Damos, D. L. (1985b). The effect of asymmetric transfer and speech technology on dual-task performance. Human Factors, 27, 409–421.
5.
Damos, D. L. (1986). The effect of using voice generation and recognition systems on the performance of dual tasks, Ergonomics, 29, 1359–1370.
6.
Damos, D. L. (1987). The role of asymmetric transfer in the evaluation of voice generation and recognition systems. In AGARD Conference Proceedings No. 414—Information Management and Decision Making in Advanced Airborne Weapon Systems (pp. 25-1–25-8). Loughton, England: AGARD.
7.
Damos, D. L., and Lyall, E. A. (1984). The role of asymmetric transfer on dual-task assessment of voice technology. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 28th Annual Meeting (pp. 21–25). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
8.
Damos, D. L., and Lyall, E. A. (1986). The effect of varying stimulus and response modes and asymmetric transfer on the dual-task performance of discrete tasks. Ergonomics, 29, 519–533.
9.
Fitts, P. M. (1954). The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 381–391.
10.
Friedman, A., and Polson, M. C. (1981). Hemispheres as independent resource systems: Limited-capacity processing and cerebral specialization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 1031–1058.
11.
Gopher, D., and Navon, D. (1980). How is performance limited: Testing the notion of central capacity. Acta Psychologica, 46, 161–180.
12.
Harris, S. D., North, R. A., and Owens, J. M. (1978). A system for the assessment of human performance in concurrent verbal and manual control tasks. Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation, 10, 329–333.
13.
Harris, S. D., Owens, J. M., and North, R. A. (1979). Human performance in time-shared verbal and tracking tasks (Report No. ZF51.524.004-9017). Pensacola, FL: Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory.
14.
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
15.
Kinsbourne, M., and Hicks, R. (1978). Functional cerebral space: A model for overflow, transfer and interference effects in human performance: A tutorial review. In J. Requin (Ed.), Attention and performance Vll (pp. 345–362). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16.
Logan, G. D., Zbrodoff, N. J., and Fostey, A. R. W. (1983). Costs and benefits of strategy construction in a speeded discrimination task. Memory and Cognition, 11, 485–493.
17.
Martin, J., Long, J., and Broome, D. (1984). The division of attention between a primary tracking task and secondary tasks of pointing with a stylus or speaking in a simulated ship's-gunfire-control task. Ergonomics, 27, 397–408.
18.
McCauley, M. E. (1984). Human factors in voice technology. In F. A. MuckIer (Ed.), Human factors review (pp. 131–166). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
19.
McLeod, P. (1977). A dual-task response modality effect: Support for multiprocessor models of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29, 651–667.
20.
McLeod, P. (1978). Does probe RT measure central processing demand?Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30, 83–89.
21.
McLeod, P. (1980). What can probe RT tell us about the attentional demands of movement? In G. E. Stelmach and J. Requin (Eds.), Tutorials in motor behavior (pp. 579–589). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
22.
Mountford, S. J., and North, R. A. (1980). Voice entry for reducing pilot workload. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 24th Annual Meeting (pp. 185–189). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
23.
Mountford, S. J., North, R. A., Metz, S. V., and Warner, N. (1982). Methodology for exploring voice-interactive avionics tasks: Optimizing interactive dialogues. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 26th Annual Meeting (pp. 207–211). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
24.
Mountford, S. J., Schwartz, J., and Gaffunder, K. (1983). Evaluation of speech technology for automatic target recognition. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 27th Annual Meeting (pp. 965–969). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
25.
Mullen, B., and Rosenthal, R. (1985). BASIC meta-analysis: Procedures and programs. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
26.
National Research Council Committee on Computerized Speech Recognition Technologies. (1984). Automatic speech recognition in severe environments.Washington, DC: National Academy Press. (NTIS No. PB85-121697).
27.
Navon, D. (1984). Resources-A theoretical soup stone?Psychological Review, 91, 216–234.
28.
Navon, D., and Gopher, D. (1979). On the economy of the human-processing system. Psychological Review, 86, 214–255.
29.
North, R., and Lea, W. A. (1982). Application of advanced speech technology in manned penetration bombers (Report No. AFWAL-TR-82-3004). Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: Flight Dynamics Laboratory.
30.
Posner, M. I. (1978). Chronometric explorations of mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31.
Posner, M. I., and Boies, S. J. (1971). Components of attention. Psychological Review, 78, 391–408.
32.
Poulton, E. C. (1982). Influential companions: Effects of one strategy on another in the within-subject designs of cognitive psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 673–690.
33.
Poulton, E. C., and Freeman, P. R. (1966). Unwanted asymmetrical transfer with balanced experimental designs. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 1–8.
34.
Skriver, C. P. (1979). Vocal and manual response modes: Comparison using a time-sharing paradigm (Report No. NADC-79127-50). Washington, DC: Naval Air Systems Command.
35.
Spiker, V. A. (1986). Recommendations and guidelines for applying voice technology to Atmy helicopters based on analyses of research data, task workload, and aviator interviews (Report No. 625-5). Santa Monica, CA: Anacapa Sciences.
36.
Tsang, P. S., Hartzell, E. J., and Rothschild, R. A. (1985). To speak or not to speak: A multiple resources perspective. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 29th Annual Meeting (pp. 76–80). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
37.
Tsang, P. S., and Wickens, C. D. (1984). The effects of task structures on time-sharing efficiency and resource allocation optimality. In Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference on Manual Control–Volume 2 (pp. 305–317). Washington, DC: NASA.
38.
Vidulich, M. A., and Wickens, C. D. (1981). Time-sharing manual control and memory search: The joint effects of input and output modality competition, priorities and control order (Report No. EPL-81-4/0NR-81-4). Urbana: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Engineering-Psychology Research Laboratory.
39.
Wickens, C. D. (1980). The structure of attentional resources. In R. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance VII 1 (pp. 239–257). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
40.
Wickens, C. D., Sandry, D., and Vidulich, M. (1983). Compatibility and resource competition between modalities of input, central processing, and output. Human Factors, 25, 227–248.
