Attention, workload, and performance: A dual-task simulated shooting study

Diekfuss, Jed A.; Ward, Paul; Raisbeck, Louisa D.

doi:10.1080/1612197x.2015.1121508

Cited by 17 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… Holgado et al (2019) reported an impairment in accuracy and reaction time with a high cognitive load (2-back) compared to a low cognitive load (1-back) despite no impairments in power-output (217 W:222 W) and RPE during a 20 min self-paced cycling time-trial. Moreover, numerous studies have reported a decline in visual attention when mental load is increased which corresponds with the findings in the current study ( Hancock and McNaughton, 1986 ; Vickers et al, 1999 ; Pesce et al, 2003 ; Bundesen et al, 2005 ; Diekfuss et al, 2017 ; Mancioppi et al, 2019 ). The accumulation in mental fatigue with multiple feedback as the exercise progressed resulted in a lower average power-output (227.99 ± 42.02 W) compared to single feedback (287.9 ± 60.07 W; Figure 2 ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Less Is More—Cyclists-Triathlete’s 30 min Cycling Time-Trial Performance Is Impaired With Multiple Feedback Compared to a Single Feedback

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The purpose of this article was to (i) compare different modes of feedback (multiple vs. single) on 30 min cycling time-trial performance in non-cyclist’s and cyclists-triathletes, and (ii) investigate cyclists-triathlete’s information acquisition.Methods: 20 participants (10 non-cyclists, 10 cyclists-triathletes) performed two 30 min self-paced cycling time-trials (TT, ∼5–7 days apart) with either a single feedback (elapsed time) or multiple feedback (power output, elapsed distance, elapsed time, cadence, speed, and heart rate). Cyclists-triathlete’s information acquisition was also monitored during the multiple feedback trial via an eye tracker. Perceptual measurements of task motivation, ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and affect were collected every 5 min. Performance variables (power output, cadence, distance, speed) and heart rate were recorded continuously.Results: Cyclists-triathletes average power output was greater compared to non-cyclists with both multiple feedback (227.99 ± 42.02 W; 137.27 ± 27.63 W; P < 0.05) and single feedback (287.9 ± 60.07 W; 131.13 ± 25.53 W). Non-cyclist’s performance did not differ between multiple and single feedback (p > 0.05). Whereas, cyclists-triathletes 30 min cycling time-trial performance was impaired with multiple feedback (227.99 ± 42.02 W) compared to single feedback (287.9 ± 60.07 W; p < 0.05), despite adopting and reporting a similar pacing strategy and perceptual responses (p > 0.05). Cyclists-triathlete’s primary and secondary objects of regard were power (64.95 s) and elapsed time (64.46 s). However, total glance time during multiple feedback decreased from the first 5 min (75.67 s) to the last 5 min (22.34 s).Conclusion: Cyclists-triathletes indoor 30 min cycling TT performance was impaired with multiple feedback compared to single feedback. Whereas non-cyclist’s performance did not differ between multiple and single feedback. Cyclists-triathletes glanced at power and time which corresponds with the wireless sensor networks they use during training. However, total glance time during multiple feedback decreased over time, and therefore, overloading athletes with feedback may decrease performance in cyclists-triathletes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Less Is More—Cyclists-Triathlete’s 30 min Cycling Time-Trial Performance Is Impaired With Multiple Feedback Compared to a Single Feedback

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Figure 2: Overview model depicting the functional net of trust, attention, concurrent tasks and automation attributes. The continuous green lines indicate how the communication of uncertainties can affect situation awareness (Diekfuss et al, 2017;Endsley, 2017;Hoff & Bashir, 2015;Lee & See, 2004;Parasuraman & Manzey, 2010;Wickens & Dixon, 2007;Young & Stanton, 2002) Experimental scenario and Takeover Situation (Kunze, 2018) Effects of linear mixed model Monitoring frequency relative to section prior to TOR Figure 8: Monitoring frequency towards driving-related AOIs in a low uncertainty section and high uncertainty section Relative glance duration for each area of interest between groups Figure 9: Monitoring ratio for each AOI and two sections between groups, FRD = field relevant for driving, NDRT = non-driving related / concurrent task, UD = uncertainty display…”

Section: Overview Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thereby, the attention allocation to concurrent tasks may be expanded with an increasing degree of automation (Carsten, Lai, Barnard, Jamson, & Merat, 2012). Moreover, workload affects the attention allocation strategy of operators (Young & Stanton, 2002), as does the type of concurrent tasks (Diekfuss, Ward, & Raisbeck, 2017). This emphasises that not only the implications of uncertainty communication on trust are relevant, but also those on operator workload under consideration of concurrent tasks.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Automation transparency: implications of uncertainty communication for human-automation interaction and interfaces

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

words)Operators of highly automated driving systems may exhibit behaviour characteristic for overtrust issues due to an insufficient awareness of automation fallibility. Consequently, situation awareness in critical situations is reduced and safe driving performance following emergency takeovers is impeded. A driving simulator study was used to assess the impact of dynamically communicating system uncertainties on monitoring, trust, workload, takeovers, and physiological responses. The uncertainty information was conveyed visually using a stylised heart beat combined with a numerical display and users were engaged in a visual search task.Multilevel analysis results suggest that uncertainty communication helps operators calibrate their trust and gain situation awareness prior to critical situations, resulting in safer takeovers.Additionally, eye tracking data indicate that operators can adjust their gaze behaviour in correspondence with the level of uncertainty. However, conveying uncertainties using a visual display significantly increases operator workload and impedes users in the execution of nondriving related tasks. Keywords: vehicle ergonomics; attitudes and behaviour; attention and vigilance; humancomputer-interaction; information displaysPractitioner summary (50 words): This paper illustrates how the communication of system uncertainty information helps operators calibrate their trust in automation and, consequently, gain situation awareness. Multilevel analysis results of a driving simulator study affirm the benefits for trust calibration and highlight that operators adjust their behaviour according to multiple uncertainty levels.

show abstract

“…First, the general decrease in performance to both the mental arithmetic task (i.e., number of operations and number of errors) and the alarm- response task (i.e., both accuracy and speed; in line with literature; e.g., Causse et al, 2022; Giraudet et al, 2015 ) show that participants followed the instructions they were given, that is to consider the two tasks as of equal importance and not prioritize one over the other. Second, these results also suggest that the reserve of attentional and cognitive resources was not sufficient to enable the completion of the alarm-response task in the high MWL run with the same level of performance, as in the no MWL and low MWL runs ( Jaquess et al, 2017; Wickens, 2008 ; 2020 ), resulting in a significant drop in response accuracy and longer reactions times (in line with De Sanctis et al, 2014 ; Diekfuss et al, 2017; Shaw et al, 2018 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Fast & Scrupulous: Gesture-Based Alarms Improve Accuracy and Reaction Times Under Various Mental Workload Levels. An ERSP Study

Fabre

Somon

Baragona

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In high-risk environments, fast and accurate responses to warning systems are essential to efficiently handle emergency situations and prevent potential catastrophic events. The aim of the present experiment was twofold: 1) investigating whether hand action videos, referred as to gesture alarms, are more efficient to trigger fast and accurate responses than text alarm messages (referred as written alarms), especially when the mental workload is high; and 2) investigating the brain activity in response to both types of alarms as a function of the level of mental workload. Regardless the level of mental workload, participants were found to be both faster and more accurate when responding to the gesture alarms than to the written alarms. Brain electrophysiological results suggest that this greater efficiency might be due to the fact that (compared to written alarms) gesture alarms facilitate the action execution reflected by the mu and beta power decrease observed around the response time window. Taken together, these results demonstrate that gesture alarm systems may help improving operators’ performances in emergency situations.

show abstract

Attention, workload, and performance: A dual-task simulated shooting study

Cited by 17 publications

References 27 publications

Less Is More—Cyclists-Triathlete’s 30 min Cycling Time-Trial Performance Is Impaired With Multiple Feedback Compared to a Single Feedback

Less Is More—Cyclists-Triathlete’s 30 min Cycling Time-Trial Performance Is Impaired With Multiple Feedback Compared to a Single Feedback

Automation transparency: implications of uncertainty communication for human-automation interaction and interfaces

Fast & Scrupulous: Gesture-Based Alarms Improve Accuracy and Reaction Times Under Various Mental Workload Levels. An ERSP Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About