The Human Operator as a Monitor and Controller of Multidegree of Freedom Systems

Senders, John W.

doi:10.1109/thfe.1964.231647

Cited by 182 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

123

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This fact suggests, for any preCise informationprocessing model relating these two parameters of visual input, that their relationship is not necessarily multiplicative, as has been suggested for continuous tasks (Senders, 1964).…”

Section: Diseussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Eye-movement patterns during visual information processing

Gould

Schaffer

1965

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Diseussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Eye-movement patterns during visual information processing

Gould

Schaffer

1965

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Previous investigations of scanning behavior across instrumented AOIs have focused on the information content and rate of presentation (e.g., [28,29].These are factors that can be easily manipulated in visualization design. In contrast, the current work emphasises the importance of the user's psychological state in dictating changes in planned gaze behavior.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of anxiety and cognitive load on instrument scanning behavior in a flight simulation

Allsop

Gray

Bülthoff

et al. 2016

2016 IEEE Second Workshop on Eye Tracking and Visualization (ETVIS)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has rarely examined the combined influence of anxiety and cognitive load on gaze behavior and performance whilst undertaking complex perceptual-motor tasks. In the current study, participants performed an aviation instrument landing task in neutral and anxiety conditions, while performing a low or high cognitive load auditory n-back task. Both self-reported anxiety and heart rate increased from neutral conditions indicating that anxiety was successfully manipulated. Response accuracy and reaction time for the auditory task indicated that cognitive load was also successfully manipulated. Cognitive load negatively impacted flight performance and the frequency of gaze transitions between areas of interest. Performance was maintained in anxious conditions, with a concomitant decrease in n-back reaction time suggesting that this was due to an increase in mental effort. Analyses of individual responses to the anxiety manipulation revealed that changes in anxiety levels from neutral to anxiety conditions were positively correlated with changes in visual scanning entropy, which is a measure of the randomness of gaze behavior, but only when cognitive load was high. This finding lends support for an interactive effect of cognitive anxiety and cognitive load on attentional control.

show abstract

“…In a model of supervisory sampling, which integrates concepts from earlier models by Senders (1964), Carbonnell et al (1968, and Moray (1986), Wickens et al (2003) proposed four mediating factors that drive the allocation of visual attention: 1) Salience, 2) Effort, 3) Expectancy, and 4) Value. This SEEV model encapsulates findings from previous research and models described below.…”

Section: Supervisory Monitoringmentioning

confidence: 99%