Sense mode and coupling in a vigilance task

Hatfield, Jimmy L.; Loeb, Michel

doi:10.3758/bf03210443

Cited by 48 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Instructions to subjects may set up expectancies that facilitate or degrade performance (Berch & Kanter, 1984;Dember, Galinsky, & Warm, 1992;Lucaccini, Freedy, & Lyman, 1968;. With respect to sensory modality, visual and tactile tasks usually yield steeper decrements and lower overall accuracy than do auditory tasks (Buckner, Harabedian, & McGrath, 1968;Davies et al, 1984;Hatfield & Loeb, 1968;Warm & Jerison, 1984). Visual tasks also appear more stressful to the subject than do auditory tasks (Galinsky, Rosa, Warm, & Dember, 1993).…”

Section: Task Parametersmentioning

confidence: 97%

Computerized assessment of sustained attention: A review of factors affecting vigilance performance

Ballard

1996

Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology

154

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Results of empirical studies using computerized tests of sustained attention are summarized. Factors that affect vigilance performance fall into three broad categories: task parameters, environmental or situational factors, and subject characteristics. Complex interactions of factors from each category affect performance further. Such interactions may help to explain inconsistencies in the literature regarding effects on vigilance. Implications for both research and clinical practice are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Task Parametersmentioning

confidence: 97%

Computerized assessment of sustained attention: A review of factors affecting vigilance performance

Ballard

1996

Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology

154

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Third, at the level of the lax criterion, there are the Temporal vs Spatial Uncertainty Under the conditions examined, the sensitivity index, d', does not change consistently during the course of the run, but the response criterion, beta, does increase in three of the four tasks. These data tend to support Broadbent and Gregory (1963) and later workers (e.g., Broadbent & Gregory, 1965;Jerison et al, 1965;Loeb & Binford, 1968;Hatfield & Loeb, 1968;MiloSevic, 1969).…”

Section: Correlation Of Detection In the Tasks With The Single Light mentioning

confidence: 96%

Effect of time and space uncertainty on a vigilance task

Milošević

1974

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two groups, each of 12 Ss, were instructed to detect increments in light level from displays of one or five lights. Signals appeared in regular and in irregular intervals. The display was flashed on simultaneously for 0.8 sec every 3.2 sec. Signal detection was superior with a display of one light than with a display of five lights. For two extreme response criteria, there was a decrement of false alarms and an increment of beta during a run. These changes were not dependent upon time and spatial uncertainty. There were no systematic changes in correct detections and d' during a run. No difference was found between central and peripheral light positions. Correlation of measures was also examined.

show abstract

“…Finally, precedent exists for using d′ as a means to calibrate tasks (Davies, Jones, & Taylor, 1984). Studies have sought to match difficulty across tasks by equating group (Hatfield & Loeb, 1968) or individual (e.g., Tyler, Waag, & Halcomb, 1972) values of d′. For example, Parasuraman and Mouloua (1987) equated simultaneous and successive discrimination vigilance tasks in adults by applying the perceptual sensitivity index of d′.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%