No abstract

In a complex visual vigilance task lasting 1 br., Ss in 5 experimental groups were rewarded for correct detections and punished either (or missed targets or for false alarms Ss in a control group performed the task without possibility of reward or punishment 3 levels of monetary incentive were used as rewards The major results of the study indicated that (a) some combinations of reward and punishment facilitated detection performance while others did not, and (b) Ss punished for missed targets performed better than Ss punished for false alarms. Implications for vigilance research and theory arc discussed.

No abstract

This visual wgilance study simulated an industrial inspection task in which Ss were alerted to possible targets by a semiautomatic detection device. 1 experimental firoup wab forewarned of possible targets by a buzzer with 1-sec I'oreperiod and rested between alerting signals A 2nd experimental group worked on a problem-solving secondary task instead of resting between buzzes A control group observed the display continuously Other variables of interest were sex of observer, target type, and size of display window It was found that (a) performance by alerted groups was far superior to that of controls and continued to improve throughout the task; (b) a vigilance decrement was not in evidence in any condition; (c) the problem-solving task did not interfere with detection performance; (d) male and female Ss performed equally well; (e) Ss engaged in the problem-solving task greatly underestimated the duration of the detection task and reported it "interesting" while the other groups estimated duration accurately and indicated boredom.

Notes 1 Unfortunately for the modern reader, Vlamingh's original journal has been lost to time, and the extant English translations do not include Péron's assertion (Vlamingh). 2 Given that a French foot was 32.48cm (Dyer 50-1) this height converts to approximately 173-176 cm.