Results of a study of time sharing and vigilance reported by Wiener, et al. (1964) have been reanalysed from the viewpoint of signal detection theory. The reported decline in probability of detecting a signal is shown to be due entirely to a progressive change in the observers' response criteria and not to a change in the detectability of the signal. In contrast to the original report that time sharing had a non-significant effect on the probability of detecting a signal, the effect on the detectability of the signal is large. The importance of considering detectability rather than detection measures in vigilance studies is stressed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BroadbentD. E.GregoryM.Division of attention and the decision theory of signal detection. Proc. Roy. Soc., 1963, 158, B, 222–231. (a)
2.
BroadbentD. E.GregoryM.Vigilance considered as a statistical decision. Brit. J. Psychol., 1963, 54, 309–323. (b)
3.
MackworthJ. F.The effect of true and false knowledge of results on the detectability of signals in a vigilance task. Canad. J. Psychol., 1964, 18, 106–117. (a)
4.
MackworthJ. F.Performance decrement in vigilance, threshold, and high-speed perceptual motor tasks. Canad. J. Psychol., 1964, 18, 209–223. (b)
5.
MackworthJ. F.Decision interval and signal detectability in a vigilance task. Canad. J. Psychol., in press.
6.
MackworthJ. F.TaylorM. M.The d' measure of signal detectability in vigilancelike situations. Canad. J. Psychol., 1963, 17, 302–325.
TannerW. P.SwetsJ. A.A decision-making theory of visual detection. Psychol. Rev., 1954, 61, 401–409.
9.
WienerE. L.PoockG. K.SteeleM.Effect of time sharing on monitoring performance: Simple mental arithmetic as a loading task. Percept. mot. Skills, 1964, 19, 435–440.
