Objective: We aimed to provide an assessment of the impact of workload manipulations on various cardiac measurements. We further sought to determine the most effective measurement approaches of cognitive workload as well as quantify the conditions under which these measures are most effective for interpretation. Background: Cognitive workload affects human performance, particularly when load is relatively high (overload) or low (underload). Despite ongoing interest in assessing cognitive workload through cardiac measures, it is currently unclear which cardiac-based assessments best indicate cognitive workload. Although several quantitative studies and qualitative reviews have sought to provide guidance, no meta-analytic integration of cardiac assessment(s) of cognitive workload exists to date. Method: We used Morris and DeShon’s meta-analytic procedures to quantify the changes in cardiac measures due to task load conditions. Results: Sample-weighted Cohen’s d values suggest that several metrics of cardiac activity demonstrate sensitivity in response to cognitive workload manipulations. Heart rate variability measures show sensitivity to task load, conditions of event rate, and task duration. Authors of future work should seek to quantify the utility of leveraging multiple metrics to understand workload. Conclusion: Results suggest that assessment of cognitive workload can be done using various cardiac activity indicators. Further, given the number of valid and reliable measures available, researchers and practitioners should base their selection of a psychophysiological measure on the experimental and practical concerns inherent to their task/protocol. Applications: Findings bear implications for future assessment of cognitive workload within basic and applied settings. Future research should seek to validate conditions under which measurements are best interpreted, including but not limited to individual differences.

No abstract

Thomson, Besner, and Smilek (2016) propose that performance decrements associated with sustained attention are not consistently the result of a decline in perceptual sensitivity. Thomson et al. (2016) present empirical evidence using a novel, nontraditional vigilance task to support their assumptions. However, in the present rebuttal, we argue that the authors have not only have misinterpreted previous research in sustained attention, but also have misapplied those interpretations to their study. Thomson et al. have also neglected key elements of the literature in their argument, including research on expectancy theory and individual differences on vigilance performance. Furthermore, Thomson and colleagues implement an experimental paradigm that is not appropriate for evaluating sensitivity and bias changes in vigilance tasks. Finally, their analyses do not capture the manner in which changes in response bias and sensitivity can manifest in signal detection theory. We discuss the theoretical and experimental issues contained in Thomson et al. (2016) and propose suggestions for future vigilance research in this area. (PsycINFO Database Record

No abstract

Recently, experimental studies of vigilance have been deployed using online data collection methods. This data collection strategy is not new to the psychological sciences, but it is relatively new to basic research assessing vigilance performance, as studies in this area of research tend to collect data in the laboratory or in the field. The present study partially replicated the results of a newly developed online vigilance task (Thomson, Besner, & Smilek, 2016). A sample of 130 participants completed the semantic vigilance task created by Thomson et al. (2016) in a research laboratory setting. The present results replicated Thomson et al. (2016) when nonparametric and corrected signal detection measures were used. We suggest that some vigilance tasks typically performed in the laboratory could be administered online. However, we encourage researchers to consider the following factors prior to studying vigilance performance online: (a) the type of vigilance task, (b) the length of the vigilance task, and (c) the signal detection indices most appropriate for their research. It is quite possible that some analyses may yield significant results, whereas other signal detection measures may not (i.e., parametric indices vs. nonparametric indices vs. "corrected" indices) and this point is discussed further in our article. (PsycINFO Database Record