Top

Psychological Research

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in:

19-02-2016 | Original Article

Disrupting monotony while increasing demand: benefits of rest and intervening tasks on vigilance

Auteurs: Brandon C. W. Ralph, Kris Onderwater, David R. Thomson, Daniel Smilek

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 2/2017

Abstract

In the experiments presented here, we examined the impact of intervening tasks on the vigilance decrement. In Experiment 1 participants either (a) continuously performed a visuospatial vigilance task, (b) received a rest break, or (c) temporarily performed a different, demanding visuospatial task in the middle of the vigil. Both taking a rest break and performing the intervening task were found to alleviate the vigilance decrement in response times. Target detection accuracy was equivalent across groups. In Experiment 2 we obtained subjective ratings of task demand, boredom, motivation, and mind wandering for both the vigilance task and intervening task administered in Experiment 1. The intervening task was rated as more demanding in terms of mental demand, physical demand, temporal demand, own performance, effort, and frustration. In addition, participants also reported being more bored, less motivated, and reported mind wandering more frequently when completing the vigil. Disruptions to task monotony (even if cognitively demanding), can alleviate the vigilance decrement. The implications of this finding with respect to current theoretical accounts of the vigilance decrement are discussed.

vorige artikel The role of practice and strategy in mental rotation training: transfer and maintenance effects

volgende artikel How directions of route descriptions influence orientation specificity: the contribution of spatial abilities

We found no evidence of a performance trade-off between the change in correct RTs and the change in hit rates from pre-intervention (Block 2) to post-intervention (Block 3) for the Continuous Vigil condition, r(52) = −.10, p = .49, or the Car Task condition, r(52) = .17, p = .23. However, we did observe a marginal RT-hit rate trade-off for the Rest condition from pre-intervention to post-intervention, r(50) = .27, p = .05.

Data collection stopping rule: In Experiment 2 we aimed to collect similar sample sizes as those in Experiment 1 for each counterbalance. As such, our goal was approximately 50 participants per counterbalance. We stopped data collection slightly short of this goal due to a paucity of available participants for testing.

In our instantiation of the NASA-TLX, the scales ranged from 0 to 20, rather than from 1 to 21.

We would like to thank a reviewer of this manuscript for suggesting this mechanism by which temporarily performing a demanding task could confer performance benefits onto the primary vigil.

Ariga, A., & Lleras, A. (2011). Brief and rare mental “breaks” keep you focused: Deactivation and reactivation of task goals preempt vigilance decrements. Cognition, 118, 439–443. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.007. CrossRefPubMed

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working Memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 47–90). New York: Academic.

Bergum, B. O., & Lehr, D. J. (1962). Vigilance performance as a function of interpolated rest. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46, 425–427. doi: 10.1037/h0043505. CrossRef

Bevan, W., Avant, L. L., & Lankford, H. G. (1967). Influence of interpolated periods of activity and inactivity upon the vigilance decrement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 352–356. doi: 10.1037/h0024773. CrossRefPubMed

Caggiano, D. M., & Parasuraman, R. (2004). The role of memory representation in the vigilance decrement. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 932–937. doi: 10.3758/BF03196724. CrossRef

Caldeira, J. D. (1980). Parametric assumptions of some “nonparametric” measures of sensory efficiency. Human Factors: The Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 22, 119–120. doi: 10.1177/001872088002200113.

Craig, A. (1978). Is the vigilance decrement simply a response adjustment towards probability matching? Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 20, 441–446. doi: 10.1177/001872087802000408.

Davies, D. R., & Parasuraman, R. (1982). The psychology of vigilance. London: Academic Press.

Dember, W. N., Galinsky, T. L., & Warm, J. S. (1992). The role of choice in vigilance performance. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 30, 201–204. doi: 10.3758/BF03330441. CrossRef

Grier, R. A., Warm, J. S., Dember, W. N., Matthews, G., Galinsky, T. L., & Parasuraman, R. (2003). The vigilance decrement reflects limitations in effortful attention, not mindlessness. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 45, 349–359. doi: 10.1518/hfes.45.3.349.27253. CrossRef

Hart, S. G. (2006). NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (Vol. 50, pp. 904–908). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Human Mental Workload, 1, 139–183. doi: 10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9. CrossRef

Helton, W. S., & Russell, P. N. (2013). Visuospatial and verbal working memory loads: Effects on visuospatial vigilance. Experimental Brain Research, 224, 429–436. doi: 10.1007/s00221-012-3322-2. CrossRefPubMed

Helton, W. S., & Russell, P. N. (2015). Rest is best: The role of rest and task interruptions on vigilance. Cognition, 134, 165–173. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.001. CrossRefPubMed

Helton, W. S., & Warm, J. S. (2008). Signal salience and the mindlessness theory of vigilance. Acta Psychologica, 129, 18–25. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.04.002. CrossRefPubMed

Hitchcock, E. M., Warm, J. S., Matthews, G., Dember, W. N., Shear, P. K., tripp, L. D., Mayleben, D. W., & Parasuraman, R. (2003). Automation cueing modulates cerebral blood flow and vigilance in a simulated air traffic control task. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 4, 89–112. doi: 10.1080/14639220210159726. CrossRef

Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Halls Inc.

Langner, R., Eickhoff, S. B., & Steinborn, M. B. (2011). Mental fatigue modulates dynamic adaptation to perceptual demand in speeded detection. PLoS One,. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028399.

Langner, R., Steinborn, M. B., Chatterjee, A., Sturm, W., & Willmess, K. (2010). Mental fatigue and temporal preparation in simple reaction-time performance. Acta Psychologica, 133, 64–72. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.10.001. CrossRefPubMed

Mackworth, N. H. (1948). The breakdown of vigilance during prolonged visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1, 6–21. doi: 10.1080/17470214808416738. CrossRef

Manly, T., Robertson, I. H., Galloway, M., & Hawkins, K. (1999). The absent mind: Further investigations of sustained attention to response. Neuropsychologia, 37, 661–670. doi: 10.1016/S0028-3932(98)00127-4. CrossRefPubMed

McCormack, P. D. (1958). Performance in a vigilance task as a function of inter-stimulus interval and interpolated rest. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 12, 242–246. doi: 10.1037/h0083749. CrossRefPubMed

Parasuraman, R., & Davies, D. R. (1977). A taxonomic analysis of vigilance performance. In R. Mackie (Ed.), Vigilance (pp. 559–574). New York, NY: Springer. CrossRef

Parasuraman, R., & Mouloua, M. (1987). Interaction of signal discriminability and task type in vigilance decrement. Perception and Psychophysics, 41, 17–22. doi: 10.3758/BF03208208. CrossRefPubMed

Parasuraman, R., Warm, J. S., & Dember, W. N. (1987). Vigilance: Taxonomy and utility. In L. S. Mark, J. S. Warm, & R. I. Huston (Eds.), Ergonomics and human factors (pp. 11–32). New York, NY: Springer. CrossRef

Pattyn, N., Neyt, X., Henderickx, D., & Soetens, E. (2008). Psychophysiological investigations of vigilance decrement: Boredom or cognitive fatigue? Physiology & Behavior, 93, 369–378. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.09.016. CrossRef

Pop, V. L., Stearman, E. J., Kazi, S., & Durso, F. T. (2012). Using engagement to negate vigilance decrements in the nextgen environment. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 28, 99–106. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2012.634759. CrossRef

Risko, E. F., Anderson, N., Sarwal, A., Engelhardt, M., & Kingstone, A. (2012). Everyday attention: Variations in mind wandering and memory in a lecture. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 234–242. doi: 10.1002/acp.1814. CrossRef

Robertson, I. H., Manly, T., Andrade, J., Baddeley, B. T., & Yiend, J. (1997). “Oops!”: Performance correlates of everyday attentional failures in traumatic brain injured and normal subjects. Neuropsychologia, 35, 747–758. doi: 10.1016/S0028-3932(97)00015-8. CrossRefPubMed

Ross, H. W., Russell, P. N., & Helton, W. S. (2014). Effects of breaks and goal switches on the vigilance decrement. Experimental Brain Research, 232, 1729–1737. doi: 10.1007/s00221-014-3865-5. CrossRefPubMed

Sanders, A. (1983). Towards a model of stress and human performance. Acta Psychologica, 53(1), 61–97. doi: 10.1016/0001-6918(83)90016-1. CrossRefPubMed

Sanders, A. F. (1998). Elements of human performance: Reaction processes and attention in human skill. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

Shaw, T. H., Satterfield, K., Ramirez, R., & Finomore, V. (2013). Using cerebral hemovelocity to measure workload during a spatialized auditory vigilance task in novice and experienced observers. Ergonomics, 56, 1251–1263. doi: 10.1080/00140139.2013.809154. CrossRefPubMed

Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2006). The Restless Mind. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 946–958. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.946. CrossRefPubMed

Smit, A. S., Eling, P. A. T. M., & Coenen, A. M. L. (2004). Mental effort causes vigilance decrease due to resource depletion. Acta Psychologica, 115, 35–42. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2003.11.001. CrossRefPubMed

Szalma, J. L., & Hancock, P. A. (2006). Performance, workload and stress in vigilance: The power of choice. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 50, 1609–1613. doi: 10.1177/154193120605001620. CrossRef

Temple, J. G., Warm, J. S., Dember, W. N., Jones, K. S., LaGrange, C. M., & Matthews, G. (2000). The effects of signal salience and caffeine on performance, workload, and stress in an abbreviated vigilance task. Human Factors, 42, 183–194. doi: 10.1518/001872000779656480. CrossRefPubMed

Thomson, D. R., Besner, D., & Smilek, D. (2015a). A resource-control account of sustained attention: Evidence from mind-wandering and vigilance paradigms. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 82–96. doi: 10.1177/1745691614556681. CrossRefPubMed

Thomson, D. R., Smilek, D., & Besner, D. (2015b). Reducing the vigilance decrement: The effects of perceptual variability. Consciousness and Cognition, 33, 386–397. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2015.02.010. CrossRefPubMed

Thomson, D. R., Besner, D., & Smilek, D. (2016). A critical examination of the evidence for sensitivity loss in modern vigilance tasks. Psychological Review, 123, 70–83. doi: 10.1037/rev0000021. CrossRefPubMed

Tiwari, T., Singh, A. L., & Singh, I. L. (2009). Task demand and workload: Effects on vigilance performance and stress. Journal of Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 35, 265–275.

Warm, J. S., Dember, W. N., & Hancock, P. A. (1996). Vigilance and workload in automated systems. In R. Parasuraman & M. Mouloua (Eds.), Automation and human performance; theory and applications. Human factors in transportation (pp. 183–200). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.

Warm, J. S., Parasuraman, R., & Matthews, G. (2008). Vigilance requires hard mental work and is stressful. Human Factors, 50, 433–441. doi: 10.1518/001872008X312152. CrossRefPubMed

Wickens, C. D. (2002). Multiple resource and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3, 159–177. doi: 10.1080/14639220210123806. CrossRef

Wickens, C. D. (2008). Multiple resources and mental workload. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50, 449–455. doi: 10.1518/001872008X288394. CrossRef

Williges, R. C. (1973). Manipulating the response criterion in visual monitoring. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 15, 179–185. doi: 10.1177/001872087301500209. CrossRef

Titel: Disrupting monotony while increasing demand: benefits of rest and intervening tasks on vigilance
Auteurs: Brandon C. W. Ralph
Kris Onderwater
David R. Thomson
Daniel Smilek
Publicatiedatum: 19-02-2016
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 2/2017
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0752-7

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2017

Influence of verbal instructions on effect-based action control

Intrusive thoughts: linking spontaneous mind wandering and OCD symptomatology

Activation of context-specific attentional control sets by exogenous allocation of visual attention to the context?

Let it go: the flexible engagement and disengagement of monitoring processes in a non-focal prospective memory task

How directions of route descriptions influence orientation specificity: the contribution of spatial abilities

The specificity of practice hypothesis in goal-directed movements: visual dominance or proprioception neglect?