1981
DOI: 10.3758/bf03333605
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of the rate and regularity of background events on sustained attention

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
8
1

Year Published

1985
1985
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
1
8
1
Order By: Relevance
“…As in previous investigations, performance efficiency in the present study was greater when the schedule of background events was temporally regular or synchronous than when it was temporally irregular or asynchronous, and performance efficiency declined over time on task (Richter et al, 1981;Scerbo et al, 1986;Scerbo et al, 1987).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 48%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As in previous investigations, performance efficiency in the present study was greater when the schedule of background events was temporally regular or synchronous than when it was temporally irregular or asynchronous, and performance efficiency declined over time on task (Richter et al, 1981;Scerbo et al, 1986;Scerbo et al, 1987).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 48%
“…The background events can be scheduled to occur in a temporally regular and predictable manner, such as one event every 10 s, or in a temporally unpredictable manner in which, for example, the 10 s interval could represent the mean of a range of interevent intervals. Previous research has demonstrated that performance efficiency is higher when the schedule of background events is temporally regular or synchronous than when it is temporally irregular or asynchronous (Richter, Senter, & Warm, 1981;Scerbo, Warm, Doettling, Parasuraman, & Fisk, 1987;Scerbo, Warm, & Fisk, 1986), a result termed the event asynchrony effect.…”
mentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Accordingly, one might expect that the quality of sustained attention would be enhanced if the stimuli to be inspected for the possibility that they are critical signals occur irregularly or asynchronously in time instead of at regular intervals as is normally the case in vigilance experiments (e.g., once every second as in the Clock Test described above). Contrary to predictions from the model, asynchronous event schedules have been found to suppress rather than augment signal detection in vigilance tasks (Richter, Senter, & Warm, 1981;Scerbo, Warm, Doettling, Parasuraman, & Fisk, 1987;. Taken collectively, the weight of neurophysiological and psychophysical evidence suggests that the quality of vigilance performance cannot be accounted for in terms of the habituation of cortical responses to incoming stimuli.…”
Section: The Habituation Modelcontrasting
confidence: 62%
“…The phone call interruption was a radical change in sensory stimuli, hence could have been a dishabituation stimulus. Later, human vigilance researchers rejected sensory habituation as an explanation because of inconsistent physiological evidence (Jerison, 1970; Rohrbaugh et al, 1987) and because temporal uncertainty made the decrement more prominent in people (Adams & Boulter, 1964; Richter, Senter, & Warm, 1981). The latter finding is the opposite of sensory habituation, where the more temporally regular and predictable the sensory input is, the more likely habituation occurs (Laming & McKinney, 1990).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%