The capture of attention by spoken alarms in a simulated flight task EDUARDO ROSA1, JESSICA K. LJUNGBERG1,2, JOHN MARSH3 1Department of Psychology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden 2School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK 3University of Central Lancashire, UK We wanted to investigate capture of attention by spoken alarms with different intonation and its effects on concurrent flight task performance as an index of alarm’s efficiency. INTRODUCTION The capture of attention by spoken alarms in the flight deck is rarely studied using task performance as a key index of alarm’s efficiency [1;2]. The current study investigated the effects of attention capture by spoken alarm words [3] with different intonation and considering potentially disrupted background sounds. We have assessed the effectiveness of spoken warnings using three flight-related cognitive tasks typical of the real multi-tasking flight environment. METHODS The spoken alarms (task-relevant sound) were related to three simulated flight tasks: Data Entry Task (DET), Data Link Task (DLT) and Visual Monitoring Task (VMT). We have used the Aviation Multi-Tasking Environment (AMTE) software [4] (Figure 1). The task performance in each of the three tasks were compared between the two types of auditory warnings (one neutrally spoken, one urgently spoken) and one ‘no alarm’ condition. The three tasks were performed in combination. Participants (N=45) had to ignore background sounds (task-irrelevant sound) when present. They comprised of authentic sounds from technical equipment and conversations between pilots and from ATC communication. DATA ENTRY TASK VISUAL MONITORING DATA LINK TRACKING Figure 1. Aviation Multi-tasking Environment (AMTE) and the three tasks used. RESULTS Data Entry Task (DET) Neutrally spoken alarms have elicited increased accuracy compared with the no alarm condition (p< .01), both with (p = .03) and without background sound (p = .04). Neutrally spoken alarm also have elicited increased accuracy significantly when the background sound was off compared when it was on (p = .02). Urgently spoken alarm only seemed to capture attention and enhance accuracy more than no alarm when the background sound was on (p = .017) (Figure 2). Figure 2. Accuracy for DET (*p<.05). Data Link Task (DLT) Both neutrally and urgently spoken alarms have elicited increased accuracy compared with the no alarm condition (both p’s < .001). No differences in performance were found between the two spoken alarms (p = .327) (Figure 3). Faster response times when the spoken alarms were present compared with no alarm (both p’s < .001). Urgently spoken alarms induced even faster responses compared to neutrally spoken alarms (p < .001) (Figure 4). Figure 3. Accuracy for DLT (**p<.001). Figure 4. Reaction Time for DLT (**p<.001). Visual Monitoring Task (VMT) Both neutrally and urgently spoken alarms have elicited increased accuracy compared with the no alarm condition (both p’s < .001). Neutrally spoken alarm induced even better performance than the urgent spoken one (p = .042) (Figure 5). Faster response times when the spoken alarms were present compared with no alarm (p < .001) (Figure 6). No differences in RT were found between the two spoken alarms (p = .706). ** Figure 5. Accuracy for VMT (*p<.05) (**p<.001). Figure 6. Reaction Time for VMT (**p<.001). CONCLUSION Spoken alarms have generally been able to capture attention and improve task performance in a multi-tasking environment [1]. Neutral intonation alarms may offer less disturbance in drawing resources away for tasks that involve processing of order information (DET, VMT). Urgent intonation alarms may be better applied for shifting attention to tasks that involve auditory vigilance only (DLT). Background sounds are more disruptive in activities that require reproduction of sequences (DET) [2]. REFERENCES 1. Ljungberg, J. K., & Parmentier, F. (2012). The impact of intonation and valence on objective and subjective attention capture by auditory alarms. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54(5), 826-837. 3. Bliss, J. P., & Dunn, M. C. (2000). Behavioural implications of alarm mistrust as a function of task workload. Ergonomics, 43(9), 1283-1300. 2. Ljungberg, J. K., Parmentier, F. B., Hughes, R. W., Macken, W. J., & Jones, D. M. (2012). Listen out! Behavioural and subjective responses to verbal warnings. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(3), 451-461. 4. Hodgetts, H., Farmer, E., Joose, M., Parmentier, F., Schaefer, D., Hoogeboom, P., & Jones, D. (2005). The effects of party line communication on flight task performance. Human factors in design, safety, and management, 327-338.