Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Decrements in the proportion of signals detected over time on task and large individual differences in performance are typical findings in studies of vigilance. This study investigates the effects of signal probability on individual differences in vigilance performance. Participants monitored stimulus events on computer displays over 2-h periods at three signal probability levels (.01, .04, & .12). Results were analyzed between groups, within groups, and within subjects. Detection decrements were found to be inversely related to signal probability levels across groups. High signal probabilities generated consistent within-group and within-subject performance, whereas low probabilities generated both lower performance and larger within-subject variance. This relationship between signal probability and within-group and within-subject variance has not been previously demonstrated. Future investigations should focus on the sources of both between-subjects and within-subject variation in vigilance performance in order to identify optimal interventions. Actual or potential applications include designing work to minimize vigilance decrement and maximize human performance under conditions that require sustained attention.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baddeley, A. D. , & Colquhoun, W. P. (1969). Signal probability and vigilance: A reappraisal of the “signal-rate” effect. British ournal of Psychology, 60, 169–178.

Baker, C. H. (1963). Consistency of performance in two visual vigilance tasks. In N. Buckner & J. J. McGrath (Eds.) Vigilance: A symposium (pp. 43–52). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Craig, A. (1980). Effect of prior knowledge of signal probabilities on vigilance performance at a two-signal task. Human Factors, 22, 361–371.

Davies, D. R. , & Parasuraman, R. (1982). The psychology of vigilance. London: Academic.

Eysenck, M. W. (1989). Individual differences in vigilance performance. In A. Coblentz (Ed.), Vigilance et performance de l'Homme dans les systemes automatises [Vigilance and performance in automated systems]. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Gallwey, T. J. (1982). Selection tests for visual inspection on a multiple fault type test. Ergonomics, 25, 1077–1092.

Harris, D. H. (1968). Effect of defect rate on inspection accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 377–379.

Holland, J. G. (1963). Human vigilance. In D. N. Buckner & J. J. McGrath (Eds.), Vigilance: A symposium (pp. 247–264). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Jerison, H. J. (1970). Vigilance, discrimination, and attention. In D. I. Mostofsky (Ed.), Attention: Contemporary theory and analysis (pp. 127–147). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

10.

Koelega, H. S. (1992). Extraversion and vigilance performance: 30 years of inconsistencies. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 239–258.

11.

Koelega, H. S. , Brinkman, J. A. , Hendricks, L. & Verbaten, M. N. (1989). Processing demands, effort, and individual differences in four different vigilance tasks. Human Factors, 31, 45–62.

12.

Mackie, R. R. (1987). Vigilance research—Are we ready for countermeasures? Human Factors, 29, 707–723.

13.

Mackie, R. R. , Wylie, C. D. , & Smith, M. J. (1994). Countering loss of vigilance in sonar watchstanding using signal injection and performance feedback. Ergonomics, 37, 1157–1184.

14.

Matthews, G. , Davies, D. R. , & Holley, P. J. (1993). Cognitive predictors of vigilance. Human Factors, 35, 3–24.

15.

Matthews, G. , Jones, D. M. , & Chamberlain, A. G. (1992). Predictors of individual differences in mail-coding skills and their variation with ability level. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 406–418.

16.

Murrell, G. A. (1975). A reappraisal of artificial signals as an aid to a visual monitoring task. Ergonomics, 18, 693–700.

17.

Parasuraman, R. (1976). Consistency of individual differences in human vigilance performance: An abilities classification analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 486–492.

18.

Stanislaw, H. (1995). Effect of type of task and number of inspectors on performance of an industrial inspection-type task. Human Factors, 37, 182–192.

19.

Warm, J. S. (1984). Epilogue. In J. S. Warm (Ed.), Sustained attention in human performance (pp. 323–331). New York: Wiley.

20.

Warm, J. S. , Dember, W. N. , Murphy, A. Z. , & Dittmar, M. L. (1992). Sensing and decision-making components of the signal-regularity effect in vigilance performance. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 30, 297–300.

21.

Warm, J. S. , & Jerison, H. J. (1984). The psychophysics of vigilance. In J. S. Warm (Ed.), Sustained attention in human performance (pp. 15–60). New York: Wiley.

22.

Wiener, E. L. (1975). Individual and group differences in inspection. In C. G. Drury & J. G. Fox (Eds.), Human reliability in quality control (pp. 101–122). London: Taylor & Francis.

23.

Wilkinson, R. T. (1964). Artificial “signals” as an aid to an inspection task. Ergonomics, 7, 63–72.

Effects of Signal Probability on Individual Differences in Vigilance

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References