Effects of Noise and Response Complexity upon Vigilance Performance

Abstract

Visual vigilance performance was investigated with respect to environmental stimulation (90 db, 1000 cps noise) and intra-organismic stimulation (simple vs complex response). 140 Ss monitoring a display for 1 hr. under 1 of 2 noise types were instructed either to press a button upon detection of aperiodic signals (simple response) or to perform also a checklist operation subsequent to the signal detection (complex response). Significant correct detection differences occurred between response groups with complex groups showing higher performance ( p < .05). Differences in correct detection were obtained for noise conditions (for continuous, M = 83%; for intermittent, M = 78.5%). Results were evaluated in terms of the activation hypothesis.

Effect of Auditory Stimulation on Visual Tracking as Functions of Stimulus Intensity, Task Complexity and Personality

“…Similarly, improved visual perception only in simple task under auditory stimulation reported by Andreassi (1965), and enhanced visual performance in simple, and decreased performance in complex, tasks under auditory stimulation reported by Zwosta & Zenhausern (1969) and Zenhausern, Ciaiola & Pompo (1973), were possibly obtained with relatively extraverted subjects. In addition, the greater increase in visual performance in complex, than simple, tasks under such stimulation reported by Warner & Heimstra (1971) and the similar results by Childs & Halcomb (1972), were probably obtained with relatively introverted subjects. In this way, some of the negative reports in the literature could be understood in terms of these possibilities, as interpreted above.…”

Beyond the Vigilance End-Spurt with Event-Related Potentials

“…The end-spurt effect is a phenomenon that has been reported in some vigilance studies (e.g., Bergum & Klein, 1961;Childs & Halcomb, 1972;De Joux et al, 2013). Researchers have commonly associated this increase in performance with increases in motivation or arousal with knowledge or anticipation of completing the vigil, resulting in increased cognitive resources (Dannhaus et al, 1976).…”

“…This has been supported by a majority of vigilance studies (e.g,, See, Howe, Warm, & Dember, 1995;Mackworth, 1948;Warm, Parasuraman, & Matthews, 2008). However, some studies examining more nuanced trends in behavioral data have reported an end-spurt effect (Bergum & Klein, 1961;Childs & Halcomb, 1972;De Joux, Russell, & Helton, 2013). The end-spurt effect results in a boost of performance toward the end of a vigil, usually resulting in a decreasing, quadratic trend in vigilance performance.…”

An Unattended Study of Users Performing Security Critical Tasks Under Adversarial Noise

“…This hypothesized relationship views noise as a general stimulant that heightens general sensory arousal: if a subject is at a very low level of arousal before the introduction of the noise, it can help sharpen their focus and improve task performance [20], [21]. However, for a subject who is already at a high level of sensory arousal, the added stressor can overload them and introduce errors in task completion [18], [22]. Furthermore, O'Malley and Poplawsky [16] showed that noise can affect behavioral selectivity.…”