1968
DOI: 10.1037/h0026444
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Training for vigilance: Combined cueing and knowledge of results.

Abstract: To test transfer of training in a visual monitoring task, 44 undergraduate Ss were given a 48-min training session to 1 of 4 conditions forming a 2 * 2 factorial design. The 4 training conditions were knowledge of results (KR), cueing (also known as prompting), KR and cueing, and a control group receiving neither training aid. 7 days later all Ss performed the same task with no training aids. Results showed that the KR-trained groups detected significantly more signals during transfer, but the cueing groups sh… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
10
0

Year Published

1976
1976
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
(17 reference statements)
1
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…More recent work has failed to see benefits from content-free cueing in detection tasks; instead benefits are seen from reducing the cognitive load of the task using content-related cueing (Helton et al 2011a, b). This later finding is actually in line with previous research regarding the benefits of warning cues in vigilance (Aiken and Lau 1967;Annett and Patterson 1967;Hitchcock et al 1999;Weiner and Attwood 1968). In a recent study, Seli et al (2012) found that content unrelated cues actually impaired performance and in similar context, the inclusion of highly arousing taskunrelated stimuli in a vigil has a significantly detrimental impact on vigilance performance (Helton and Russell 2011a, b;Ossowski et al 2011).…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 85%
“…More recent work has failed to see benefits from content-free cueing in detection tasks; instead benefits are seen from reducing the cognitive load of the task using content-related cueing (Helton et al 2011a, b). This later finding is actually in line with previous research regarding the benefits of warning cues in vigilance (Aiken and Lau 1967;Annett and Patterson 1967;Hitchcock et al 1999;Weiner and Attwood 1968). In a recent study, Seli et al (2012) found that content unrelated cues actually impaired performance and in similar context, the inclusion of highly arousing taskunrelated stimuli in a vigil has a significantly detrimental impact on vigilance performance (Helton and Russell 2011a, b;Ossowski et al 2011).…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 85%
“…All prior studies of cueing and vigilance have made use of completely veridical cueing regimens (Aiken & Lau, 1967;Annett, 1966;Annett & Clarkson, 1964;Annett & Patterson, 1966;Hitchcock et al, 1999;Weiner & Attwood, 1968). The present study represents the initial experimental effort to examine the effects of less than reliable cueing on vigilant behavior.…”
Section: Chapter 5 Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition to increasing the signal-to-noise ratio, signal detection in vigilance can also be improved by providing observers with consistent and reliable cues as to the imminent arrival of critical signals. As several experiments have shown, the principal consequence of such forewarning is the elimination of the vigilance decrement (Aiken & Lau, 1967;Annett, 1966;Annett & Clarkson, 1964;Annett & Patterson, 1966;Weiner & Attwood, 1968). A recent illustration of this effect comes from a study by Hitchcock, Dember, Warm, Moroney, and See (1999) using a simulated air-traffic control display in which critical signals for detection were planes traveling on a collision course.…”
Section: The Present Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, little research has been conducted during the learning of an interpersonal or complex skill. Most of the literature has been conducted within a training design that consists of simple tasks or motor tasks (Chadda, 1991;Kluger & DeNisi, 2005;Mesch, 1994;Wiener, 1963;Wiener & Attwood, 1968). The few studies that involved the influence of negative feedback on interpersonal or complex skills have focused on performance appraisals or upward feedback programs (Atawater, 1995;Johnson & Ferstl, 1999;Reilly et al, 1996;Smither et al, 1995;Walker & Smither, 1999).…”
Section: Feedback Signmentioning
confidence: 99%