department of psychology s institute for simulation and training university of central florida
DESCRIPTION
Vigilance and Sustained Attention. P.A. Hancock. Presentation for the Class of 2008 Human Factors II EXP 6257 January 31st, 2008. Department of Psychology s Institute for Simulation and Training University of Central Florida Orlando, FL 32826. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Department of Psychology Department of Psychology Institute for Simulation and Training Institute for Simulation and TrainingUniversity of Central FloridaUniversity of Central Florida
Orlando, FL 32826Orlando, FL 32826
Vigilance and Vigilance and Sustained AttentionSustained Attention
P.A. Hancock
Presentation for the Class of 2008
Human Factors II EXP 6257
January 31st, 2008
Norman MackworthNorman Mackworth
Mackworth was the founder of modern vigilance research, a term he took from the neurologist, Sir Henry Head. Hisoriginal experimental research was triggered by WW II concerns for radaroperators looking for submarines outover the Bay of Biscay. His original monograph on the topic, republishedin Sinako’s text, still represents the best introduction to the area.
Mackworth was the first to formally identified the ‘vigilance decrement function’ which remains pertinent to all operations in automated and semi-automated systems today. His work on stress effects was also pivotal. He worked at the APU Cambridge for part of his career, as did many other influential scientists who have had a fundamental impact on applied human performance theory. Others include Broadbent, Poulton, Baddeley, Wilkinson, etc.
The Vigilance DecrementThe Vigilance Decrement
Theories of Vigilance
Inhibition theory (behaviorism)
Expectancy Theory
Arousal Theory
Resource Theory
Raja Parasuraman has long-standing research programs in two areas, human factors and cognitive neuroscience. The first concerns human performance in human-machine systems, particularly with respect to the influence of automation and computer technology on attention, memory, and vigilance. His second area of research is the cognitive neuroscience of attention, where he has conducted studies using information-processing paradigms, event-related brain potentials and functional brain imaging (PET, fMRI), both in normal populations and in relation to aging and Alzheimer’s disease. He also has a research thrust in the molecular genetics of cognition, specifically attention and working memory. Finally, he has recently combined his interests in human factors (ergonomics) and cognitive neuroscience by developing the field of neuroergonomics, which he defines as the study of brain and behavior at work.
Raja Parasuraman
The Vigilance Taxonomy
Task Type: Simultaneous vs. Successive
Modality: Visual vs. Auditory
Source Complexity: Single vs. Multiple
Event Rate: Slow vs. Fast
Psychophysics of Vigilance
First Order Factors: Immediate physical properties of the stimulus
ModalitySignal Salience (Conspicuity)Event Rate
Second Order Factors:Characteristics of the stimulus inferred by the observer based on experience with the task
Signal Uncertainty (Spatial & Temporal)
Psychophysics of Vigilance: Modality
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4Periods of Watch (10-min)
Per
cent
Cor
rect
Det
ecti
ons
Auditory
Visual
Psychophysics of Vigilance: Event Rate
Psychophysics of Vigilance: Signal Salience
Psychophysics of Vigilance: Signal Duration
90
80
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
100
Periods of Watch (10-min)
Ove
rall
Wor
kloa
d
Card sorting task
1 2 3 4
AuditoryVisual
Overall Workload as a Function of Periods of Watch
Periods of Watch (10 min)
Wei
ghte
d F
rust
rati
on R
atin
g
0
50
100
150
200
250
WFR = 87.9 + 35.9PW
1 2 3 4
Weighted Frustration as a Function of Periods of Watch
Workload and PerformanceEvent Rate
Time Modality Task Type
Source Complexity
Perf - - A>VSIM >SUC
or SIM<SUC
-
WL + +/0 A=V T x C/0 +
Note. A= Auditory Task; V= Visual TaskSIM = Simultaneous Task; SUC = Successive TaskT x C = interaction between task type and display complexity
Workload and Performance
SignalSalience
P(S) KR/cueingSpatial
uncertaintyTemporal
Uncertainty
Perf + + +/0(KR) - -
WL - ? -/0(both) + ?
Task-Based Stress and Performance
Event Rate
Time Modality Task Type
Source Complexity
Perf - - A>VSIM >SUC
or SIM<SUC
-
Perceived Stress
0 + A < V SUC>SIM? ?
Note. A= Auditory Task; V= Visual TaskSIM = Simultaneous Task; SUC = Successive TaskT x C = interaction between task type and display complexity
Task-Based Stress and Performance
SignalSalience
P(S) KR/cueingSpatial
uncertaintyTemporal
Uncertainty
Perf + + +/0(KR) - -
Perceived Stress
- ?- (KR)
0 ?(cueing)? ?
DSSQ
Task EngagementEnergetic Arousal
MotivationConcentration
WorrySelf-focused Attention
Self-EsteemTask-related Cognitive Interference
Task-irrelevant Cognitive Interference
DistressTense ArousalHedonic Tone
Confidence & Control
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Sta
ndar
d S
core
EA Motivation Concen.
Task Engagement
TA HT C&C S-Focus S-Esteem CI-TR CI-TI
Distress Worry
Pre-vigilPost-vigil
Pre- and Post-Vigil Scores for the DSSQ Scales
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
1 2 3 4
Periods of Watch (10-min)
Stan
dard
Sco
re
Energetic Arousal Motivation Concentration
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
VisualAuditory
Periods of Watch (10-min) Periods of Watch (10-min)
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
1 2 3 4
Stan
dard
Sco
re
Tense Arousal Hedonic Tone Confidence & Control
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Periods of Watch (10-min) Periods of Watch (10-min) Periods of Watch (10-min)
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
1 2 3 4
Stan
dard
Sco
re
Self-Focused Attention Self-Esteem CI-TR
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
CI-TI
Periods of Watch (10-min) Periods of Watch (10-min) Periods of Watch (10-min) Periods of Watch (10-min)
Task Engagement
Distress
Worry
Configural Displays and Vigilance
Input 1 Input 2Output Input 1 Input 2OutputInput 1 Input 2Output Input 1 Input 2Output
Configural Bar Graph Display
Integration TaskFocused Attention Task
Neutral Event Critical Signal Neutral Event Critical Signal
Configural Displays and Vigilance
Input 1 Input 2OutputInput 1 Input 2Output Input 1 Input 2OutputInput 1 Input 2Output
Non-Configural Bar Graph Display
Integration TaskFocused Attention Task
Neutral Event Critical Signal Neutral Event Critical Signal
Configural Displays and Vigilance
Input 1 Input 2OutputInput 1 Input 2Output
Object Configural Display
Input 1 Input 2Output Input 1 Input 2Output
Integration TaskFocused Attention Task
Neutral Event Critical Signal Neutral Event Critical Signal
Sensitivity as a function of periods of Watch for the integration task
0.8
0.82
0.84
0.86
0.88
0.9
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.98
1
1 2 3 4
Periods of Watch (6-min)
A'
conint
nonint
objinit
Sensitivity as a function of periods of Watch for the focused attention task
0.8
0.82
0.84
0.86
0.88
0.9
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.98
1
1 2 3 4
Periods of Watch (6-min)
A'
conf
nonf
objf
Response Bias as a function of periods of Watch for the integration task
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1 2 3 4
Periods of Watch (6-min)
Res
po
nse
Bia
s
conint
nonint
objinit
Response Bias as a function of periods of Watch for the focused attention task
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1 2 3 4
Periods of Watch (6-min)
Res
po
nse
Bia
s
conf
nonf
objf
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
group
Ov
eral
l Wo
rklo
ad
Non-ConfiguralDisplay
ConfiguralDisplay
Object Configural Display
Overall Workload as a Function of Display Type
Overall pre-post vigil changes as a function of DSSQ scale
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Z-s
co
re
EA TA HT S-MOT I-MOT CONC SF SE CC CITR CITI
DSSQ Scale