Interactions between endogenous and exogenous attention during vigilance

Abstract

The ability to remain vigilant over long periods of time is critical for many everyday tasks, but controlled studies of visual sustained attention show that performance declines over time when observers are required to respond to rare stimulus events (targets) occurring in a sequence of standard stimulus events (non-targets). When target discrimination is perceptually difficult, this vigilance decrement manifests as a decline in perceptual sensitivity. We examined whether sudden-onset stimuli could act as exogenous attentional cues to improve sensitivity during a traditional sustained attention task. Sudden-onset cues presented immediately before each stimulus attenuated the sensitivity decrement, but only when event timing (the inter-event interval) was constant. When event timing was variable, exogenous cues increased overall sensitivity but did not prevent performance decline. Finally, independent of the effects of sudden onsets, a constant inter-event interval improved vigilance performance. Our results demonstrate that exogenous attention enhances perceptual sensitivity during vigilance performance, but that this effect is dependent on observers being able to predict the timing of stimulus events. Such a result indicates a strong interaction between endogenous and exogenous attention during vigilance. We relate our findings to a resource model of vigilance, as well as to theories of endogenous and exogenous attention over short time periods.

Sustaining visual attention in the face of distraction: a novel gradual-onset continuous performance task

“…The effect of these abrupt onsets may be particularly apparent during not-X CPTs (rather than raretarget tasks), as the visual onsets serve as cues to execute a motor response, and are thus consistently relevant behaviorally. In support of this idea, MacLean et al (2009) found that sudden-onset visual cues presented before stimuli in a rare-target CPT attenuated declines in perceptual sensitivity. In addition, it is possible that the frequent motor responses themselves may undermine the sustained-attention aspect of the task by tapping into other cognitive mechanisms, such as impulsivity and response strategy (e.g., Helton et al, 2009).…”

Viewing the Workload of Vigilance Through the Lenses of the NASA-TLX and the MRQ

“…In addition, these studies have also identified a workload signature in which Mental Demand and Frustration are the primary components of the workload associated with vigilance tasks (Helton et al, 2005;Szalma et al, 2004;Warm, Dember, & Hancock, 1996;. The findings with the NASA-TLX provide key support for a conceptual framework for understanding vigilance performance in terms of the availability and utilization of information-processing resources over prolonged periods of time (Johnson & Proctor, 2004;Langner, Eickhoff, & Steinborn, 2011;MacLean et al, 2009;Parasuraman, 1979;Parasuraman, Warm, & Dember, 1987;Proctor & Vu, 2010;Smit, Eling, & Coenen, 2004;Warm & Dember, 1998;Warm, Parasuraman, et al, 2008;Wiggins, 2011).…”

A functional near-infrared spectroscopy study of sustained attention to local and global target features

“…The cause of the vigilance decrement has been the subject of extensive debate by vigilance researchers Brache, Scialfa, & Hudson, 2010;MacLean et al, 2009). From these debates there have emerged two competing theories, the resource depletion theory and the boredom-mindlessness theory.…”