Integrating multiple information sources: using redundancy in the design of warnings

Selcon, Steve J.; Taylor, Rachel; McKenna, Frank

doi:10.1080/00140139508925273

Cited by 42 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One group of researchers demonstrated the effects of combining alarm media (Selcon et al, 1995). All of these studies have been conducted independently of alarm presentation rate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A proposed psychological model of driving automation

Stanton¹,

Young²

2000

Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research in this paper considers the evidence on the success of alarm reduction strategies reported in the open literature. Despite strong beliefs to the contrary, the empirical evidence suggests that alarm reduction strategies have not been as successful as initially expected. This seems to be due to the fact that alarm reduction strategies actually deprive process control operators of information. In order to determine the ability of people to sift through alarm information, a study of alarm detection with three ratios of target to non-target alarms was devised (i.e. 2%, 6%, and 10%) and the information was presented at three rates (i.e. 1 second, 4 seconds and 8 seconds). The results show that the ratio of target alarms has no effect on detection performance, but the temporal rate does. Given that process operators are rarely required to acknowledge alarm information in realtime, it is suggested that more emphasis should be placed on initial definition of alarms and better presentation methods, rather than attempts to block the flow of alarms that have already been triggered. KEYWORDS: Alarms, False Alarms, Alarm Reduction, Signal Detection. PROBLEMS WITH ALARMSThe inappropriate presence of alarms can cause substantial problems for the process operator (Woods, O'Brien & Hanes, 1987). Typical problems are; the avalanche of alarms during a major transient or shift in operating mode, standing alarms, alarm inflation, nuisance alarms, and alarms serving as status messages (Stanton & Baber, 1995; Woods et al, 1987;Hoenig, Umbers & Andow, 1982;Andow & Lees, 1974). In a major incident, alarm presentation rate may be somewhere between 50-300 alarms a minute in a nuclear power station (Hickling, 1992). This may lead to problems for the operator in being able to identify and respond to alarms that are worthy of attention.Certainly, the limited number of actions that arise from alarms might suggest that there is a lot of redundant information present, e.g. Kragt & Bonten (1983) found that only 7% resulted in operator action. The problems appear to stem from the design of alarms based on 'normal' operation (Singleton, 1989) and on a 'one measurement -one indication' philosophy of presenting essentially raw plant data (Goodstein, 1985).However, a change in plant state would mean a change in what could be considered 'normal', i.e. what is 'normal' in start-up, maintenance, and shut-down? In addition, the oscillatory behaviour of a variable that is close to its alarm parameter can lead to distrust of the alarm. Hale & Glendon (1987) propose that a shift in confidence occurs, such that the next time the alarm occurs, the first hypothesis the individual will have is that the alarm is a false one. This lack of trust will grow with the number of false alarms experienced. Sorkin (1989) suggest that individuals are regularly disabling warning systems in locomotive, aircraft and process industries. All the examples are from situations where critical events could arise (e.g. potentially life threatening incidents). Sorkin sugg...

show abstract

“…One group of researchers demonstrated the effects of combining alarm media (Selcon et al, 1995). All of these studies have been conducted independently of alarm presentation rate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A proposed psychological model of driving automation

Stanton¹,

Young²

2000

Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To date, published studies have demonstrated mixed findings with regard to the superiority of multisensory over single channel (or unimodal) information presentation (e.g. Kappauf and Powe 1959, Baker et al 1962, Selcon et al 1995, Spence and Driver 1999, see also Luo andKay 1989, Campbell et al 1996). One important distinction to be made here is between those multisensory signals that convey the same (i.e.…”

Section: Multisensory Warning Signalsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Humphrey 1952, Begault 1993, Begault and Wenzel 1990, Bronkhorst et al 1996, Campbell et al 1996, Lee et al 1999, Bliss and Acton 2003, Svensson and Tap 2003, the use of multisensory warning signals (e.g. Mowbray and Gebhard 1961, Selcon et al 1995, Hirst and Graham 1997, Spence and Driver 1999, Mariani 2001, Kenny et al 2004; see also Haas 1995) and the use of synthetic warning signals (known as auditory earcons; Lucas 1995, McKeown andIsherwood 2007) that have been artificially engineered so as to deliver a 700 1500 0…”

Section: Traditional Auditory Warning Signal Design Alternativesmentioning

confidence: 97%

Multisensory warning signals for event perception and safe driving

Spence

2008

Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews various different approaches to the design of unimodal and multisensory warning signals, in particular warning signals for use in alerting drivers to potentially dangerous situations. The design of optimal warning signals that are maximally effective in terms of the limitations that constrain human information processing are discussed in light of the latest findings emerging from cognitive neuroscience research. A new approach to the design of multisensory warning signals, involving the presentation of warning signals in different regions of space around a driver, is then critically examined.

show abstract

“…Are multisensory spatial cuing effects any more resistant to the effects of concurrent perceptual load, or dual-task performance, than unimodal cues? As well as being of interest from a theoretical viewpoint, answering these questions also has a number of potentially important implications for the future design of warning signals in various applied settings (e.g., to alert and warn car drivers and other interface operators of impending danger; see Ho and Spence, 2008;Spence and Ho, 2008a,b; see also Ferris et al, 2006;Selcon et al, 1995). Ward (1994) conducted the first published exogenous spatial cuing study in which multisensory (audiovisual) cues were compared to unimodal auditory and visual cues.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%