Automated instruction for vigilance training.

Abstract

Compared the performance of 34 male undergraduates trained in a visual monitoring task with an autoinstructional device with that of Ss trained by practice alone. The experimental group had 3 50-min training sessions on a device which included the standard monitoring task, but allowed S to select his signal schedule and call for immediate knowledge of results, or signal cueing (prompting), or both, and to test himself with no training aids available. Subsequent testing on the standard task revealed that Ss trained with autoinstruction showed a much higher detection rate (p < .01) than control Ss with no increase in commissive errors. Reasons for the success of autoinstruction in vigilance training are discussed. (15 ref.)

Vigilance: A Review of the Literature and Applications to Sentry Duty

“…Practically speaking, providing knowledge of results may be most useful during the training phase for a given vigilance task. In an early demonstration of the effects of knowledge of results during training, Attwood and Wiener (1969) provided an experimental group of subjects with an auto-instructional device during three 50-minute training sessions. The signal consisted of an abnormally large deflection of a voltmeter needle (30 degrees), embedded in background events of normal 20-degree deflections, presented at a rate of 50 stimuli per minute.…”