Two experiments utilizing different psychophysical methods provided comparable estimates of the discriminability of differences in the rate of flashing of an alerting signal. In Exp. 1, a contingent-uncertainty analysis resulted in an estimated Weber ratio of < 0.07. In Exp. 2, the method of constant stimuli produced a mean Weber ratio of 0.06. Discriminability of flash rate differences was comparable for red and amber targets and for targets of ∼ 1° and 5° of visual angle.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
EngenT. (1972) Psychophysics: Discrimination and detection. In KlingJ. W.RiggsL. A. (Eds.), Woodworth & Schlosberg's ‘Experimental psychology’. Vol. 1. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Pp. 11–46.
2.
GarnerW. R. (1962) Uncertainty and structure as psychological concepts. New York: Wiley.
3.
HutchingsonR. D. (1981) New horizons for human factors in design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
4.
McCormickE. J.SandersM. S. (1982) Human factors in engineering and design. (5th ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
5.
MortimerR. G.KupecJ. D. (1983) Scaling of flash rate for a deceleration signal. Human Factors, 25, 313–318.
6.
MunsonW. A.KarlinJ. E. (1954) The measurement of human channel transmission characteristics. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 26, 542–553.
7.
TolinP. (1984) An information transmission analysis of signal flash rate discriminability. Human Factors, 26, 489–493.
8.
Van CottH. P.WarrickM. J. (1972) Man as a system component. In Van CottH. P.KinkadeR. G. (Eds.), Human engineering guide for equipment design. (Rev. ed.) Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
9.
VoevodskyJ. (1974) Evaluation of a deceleration warning light for reducing tear-end automobile collisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 270–273.
10.
WoodsonW. E.ConoverD. W. (1964) Human engineering guide for equipment designers. (2nd ed.) Berkeley, CA: Univer. of California Press.
