2017
DOI: 10.1177/0018720816688394
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of a Psychomotor Vigilance Task for Touch Screen Devices

Abstract: Objective: Our goals were to compare three techniques for performing a psychomotor vigilance task (PVT) on a touch screen device (fifth-generation iPod) and to determine the device latency.Background: The PVT is a reaction-time test that is sensitive to sleep loss and circadian misalignment. Several PVT tests have been developed for touch screen devices, but unlike the standard PVT developed for laboratory use, these tests allow for touch responses to be recorded at any location on the device, with contact fro… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
23
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…it subtracts) the mobile device and software latency, which we characterized using the same RTBox apparatus (Li, et al, ) used to develop the PC‐PVT and PC‐PVT 2.0 software (Khitrov et al, ; Reifman, et al, ) The hardware–software RT latency for the 2B‐Alert App was 58 and 68 ms for the iPhone 6s and iPad Air 2, respectively, running iOS 10.3.2, and 79 ms for the Samsung Note 4 running Android 6.0.1. We also assessed whether RT latencies depend on the orientation of the smartphone (portrait vs. landscape) and the finger used for responding (index vs. thumb; Arsintescu, Mulligan, & Flynn‐Evans, ), but found no significant statistical differences among the configurations. Nonetheless, we recommend that PVTs in the app be performed consistently, always using the same configuration.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…it subtracts) the mobile device and software latency, which we characterized using the same RTBox apparatus (Li, et al, ) used to develop the PC‐PVT and PC‐PVT 2.0 software (Khitrov et al, ; Reifman, et al, ) The hardware–software RT latency for the 2B‐Alert App was 58 and 68 ms for the iPhone 6s and iPad Air 2, respectively, running iOS 10.3.2, and 79 ms for the Samsung Note 4 running Android 6.0.1. We also assessed whether RT latencies depend on the orientation of the smartphone (portrait vs. landscape) and the finger used for responding (index vs. thumb; Arsintescu, Mulligan, & Flynn‐Evans, ), but found no significant statistical differences among the configurations. Nonetheless, we recommend that PVTs in the app be performed consistently, always using the same configuration.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…We also assessed whether RT latencies depend on the orientation of the smartphone (portrait vs. landscape) and the finger used for responding (index vs. thumb; Arsintescu, Mulligan, & Flynn-Evans, 2017), but found no significant statistical differences among the configurations. Nonetheless, we recommend that PVTs in the app be performed consistently, always using the same configuration.…”
Section: Pvt Settings and Latency Characterizationmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…NOTE: This is especially important for the PVT task where the accuracy of the internal stopwatch is influenced by connectivity functions, thus influencing the reaction time 38 . 3.…”
Section: Instruct Participants To Keep the Touchscreen Device In Airpmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, the PVT shows little to no learning effects and is simple to use, making it a practical test for deploying in field environments where study participants may not be observed during testing 36 . The ubiquity of touch-screen devices allows for easy deployment of the PVT, but researchers should be cautious when implementing the PVT, because there are numerous aspects of touch-screen devices that can introduce error into the collection of PVT data 37,38 . For example, different hardware and software combinations have different system latencies, and other applications running in the background can introduce unknown error into the recorded reaction times.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation