This study examined automaticity as a means by which training influences mental workload. Two groups were trained in a category search task. One group received a training paradigm designed to promote the development of automaticity; the other group received a training paradigm designed to prohibit it. Resultant performance data showed the expected improvement as a result of the development of automaticity. Subjective workload assessments mirrored the performance results in most respects. The results supported the position that subjective mental workload assessments may be sensitive to the effect of training when it produces a lower level of cognitive load.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CordesC. (1985). Military waste: The human factor. American Psychological Association Monitor, 16(7), 1, 17–18.
2.
FiskA. D.SchneiderW. (1983). Category and word search: Generalizing search principles to complex processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9, 177–195.
3.
NausM. J.GlucksbergS.OrnsteinP. A. (1972). Taxonomic word categories and memory search. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 643–654.
4.
HartS. G.BattisteV.LesterP. T. (1984). Popcorn: A supervisory control simulation for workload and performance research. In Twentieth Annual Conference on Manual Control (pp. 431–454). Washington D.C.: NASA Conference Publication 2341.
5.
SchneiderW. (1985). Training high-performance skills: Fallacies and guidelines. Human Factors, 27, 285–300.
6.
SchneiderW.ShiffrinR.M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.
7.
SheridanT. B. (1980). Mental workload: What is it? Why bother with it?Human Factor Society Bulletin, 23, 1–2.
8.
VidulichM. A. (in press). The cognitive psychology of subjective mental workload. In HancockP. A.MeshkatiN. (Eds.), Human Mental Workload, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
