1964
DOI: 10.1037/h0042875
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Role of pretest expectancy in vigilance decrement.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
22
1

Year Published

1966
1966
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 58 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
2
22
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, we assume that our passive task, especially when directly compared to the ignore and focused tasks, shared commonalities with vigilance and sustained attention tasks, which are characterized by a low rate of relevant stimuli and require concentrated attention over a prolonged period of time (e.g., Haga, 1984; Warm et al, 1996; Noyes, 2009). A vigilance decrement in such tasks (Colquhoun and Baddeley, 1964) leads to a drop in performance, sometimes already within 5 min after the initiation of the task (for a review, see Warm et al, 2008a). Warm and colleagues rejected the previous view that the decline of arousal and performance is exclusively due to monotony (Warm et al, 2008b).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, we assume that our passive task, especially when directly compared to the ignore and focused tasks, shared commonalities with vigilance and sustained attention tasks, which are characterized by a low rate of relevant stimuli and require concentrated attention over a prolonged period of time (e.g., Haga, 1984; Warm et al, 1996; Noyes, 2009). A vigilance decrement in such tasks (Colquhoun and Baddeley, 1964) leads to a drop in performance, sometimes already within 5 min after the initiation of the task (for a review, see Warm et al, 2008a). Warm and colleagues rejected the previous view that the decline of arousal and performance is exclusively due to monotony (Warm et al, 2008b).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Increased conservatism over time is a common finding in vigilance studies, and is often due to normal changes in probability expectations under conditions of low target probability (Parasuraman & Davies, 1976). Response bias can also increase as observers come to believe that signal probability is less than they originally thought (See et al, 1997), such as when target probability during a training session influences expectations about target probability in a subsequent sustained attention task (e.g., Colquhoun & Baddeley, 1964, 1967; Williams, 1986). In Experiment 1, the threshold procedure was not like the sustained attention task at all, thus subjects would have developed no expectation of a particular target probability.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Four groups of subjects were formed, each being assigned to a different task and event rate condition. The training and practice sessions included a 10-minute "expectancy-matching" (20) task that accurately sampled the main task features. A digital computer controlled the presentation of stimuli and the acquisition of responses in all phases of the experiment.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%