Presentation for the Class of 2008 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

Mackworth was the founder of modern vigilance research, a term he took from the neurologist, Sir Henry Head. His original experimental research was triggered by WW II concerns for radar operators looking for submarines out over the Bay of Biscay. His original monograph on the topic, republished in 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. Norman Mackworth

The Vigilance Decrement

Inhibition theory (behaviorism) 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 Revisions of the taxonomy by See, Howe, Warm, & Dember (1995). Sensitivity decrement can occur in SIM as well as SUC tasks, and at low as well as high event rates. Sensory vs. cognitive tasks should be added to the classification system. These may differ according to the types of processing required to distinguish signals from non-signals. This dimension interacts with SIM/SUC: In a SIM task, the decrement correlates positively with event rate for cognitive tasks but negatively for sensory. The reverse was found for SUC tasks. The “cognitive increment” will occur in SIM tasks at low event rates. They found the decrement was not significantly moderated by modality, regularity, p(signal), spatial uncertainty, and KR.

Psychophysics of Vigilance First Order Factors: Immediate physical properties of the stimulus Modality Signal 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

Psychophysics of Vigilance: Event Rate

Psychophysics of Vigilance: Signal Salience

Psychophysics of Vigilance: Signal Duration

Overall Workload as a Function of Periods of Watch

Weighted Frustration as a Function of Periods of Watch

Workload and Performance Event Rate Time Modality Task Type Source Complexity Perf - A>V SIM >SUC or SIM<SUC WL + +/0 A=V T x C/0 Note. A= Auditory Task; V= Visual Task SIM = Simultaneous Task; SUC = Successive Task T x C = interaction between task type and display complexity

Workload and Performance Signal Salience P(S) KR/cueing Spatial uncertainty Temporal Uncertainty Perf + +/0(KR) - WL ? -/0(both)

Task-Based Stress and Performance Event Rate Time Modality Task Type Source Complexity Perf - A>V SIM >SUC or SIM<SUC Perceived Stress + A < V SUC>SIM? ? + manipulation increases values on the dependent measure manipulation decreases values on the dependent measure 0 manipulation has no significant impact on dependent measure Note. A= Auditory Task; V= Visual Task SIM = Simultaneous Task; SUC = Successive Task T x C = interaction between task type and display complexity

Task-Based Stress and Performance Signal Salience P(S) KR/cueing Spatial uncertainty Temporal Uncertainty Perf + +/0(KR) - Perceived Stress ? - (KR) 0 ?(cueing)

DSSQ Distress Task Engagement Worry Tense Arousal Energetic Arousal Hedonic Tone Confidence & Control Task Engagement Energetic Arousal Motivation Concentration Worry Self-focused Attention Self-Esteem Task-related Cognitive Interference Task-irrelevant Cognitive Interference Task engagement, distress, and worry are secondary factors derived from the primary factors listed below them.

Pre- and Post-Vigil Scores for the DSSQ Scales Scores were calculated by computing z-scores using normative means and standard deviations obtained from Matthews et al., 1999 (cited in ch. 1 of Hancock & Desmond)

DSSQ standard scores as a function of time on task and stimulus modality. The task required temporal discrimination.

Configural Displays and Vigilance Input 1 Input 2 Output Configural Bar Graph Display Integration Task Focused Attention Task Neutral Event Critical Signal

Configural Displays and Vigilance Input 1 Input 2 Output Non-Configural Bar Graph Display Integration Task Focused Attention Task Neutral Event Critical Signal

Configural Displays and Vigilance Input 1 Input 2 Output Object Configural Display Integration Task Focused Attention Task Neutral Event Critical Signal

A' Periods of Watch (6-min) Sensitivity as a function of periods of Watch for the integration task 1 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 A' 0.9 conint 0.88 nonint objinit 0.86 0.84 0.82 0.8 1 2 3 4 Periods of Watch (6-min)

Periods of Watch (6-min) Sensitivity as a function of periods of Watch for the focused attention task 1 0.98 0.96 0.94 0.92 A' 0.9 conf 0.88 nonf objf 0.86 0.84 0.82 0.8 1 2 3 4 Periods of Watch (6-min)

Periods of Watch (6-min) Response Bias as a function of periods of Watch for the integration task 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Response Bias 0.5 conint 0.4 nonint objinit 0.3 0.2 0.1 1 2 3 4 Periods of Watch (6-min)

Periods of Watch (6-min) Response Bias as a function of periods of Watch for the focused attention task 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 conf Response Bias 0.5 nonf objf 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 1 2 3 4 Periods of Watch (6-min)

Overall Workload as a Function of Display Type