The Effects of Divided Attention on Visual Monitoring of Multi-Channel Displays

Abstract

This study Investigated the effects of divided attention on monitoring multi-channel alpltamerlc displays for signals defined on the basis of the simltuaneous Values of all channels, i.e., multi-channel signals as opposed to single-channel signals. Variables Investigated Included (a) three methods of dividing attention (a short writing task, a long writting task, and blanking out the display), (b) number of channels monitored (4, 8, 12, and 16), (c) rate of display change (6 or 12 times per minute), (d) number of different signals simultaneously watched for (8 or 24), and (e) number of levels within channels (2 or 8). The main results were: (a) divided attention did not lead to a decrease in monitoring, compared to a control study without divided attention; (b) the rate of display change had the greatest effect upon performance, followed by the number of channels monitored; (c) even at the faster rate of display change, untrained subjects detected 80% or more of the signals when they monitored up to 12 channels: and (e) different methods used to divide attention affect performance differentially.

Signal Complexity, Response Complexity, and Signal Specification in Vigilance

“…This result is somewhat consistent with expectations derived from past research (Adams and Boulter, 1964;Bell, Symington. Bevan, 1974; Brown and Fox, 1965;Goldstein, Johnston, and Howell, 1969;Could and Schaffer, 1967). It is also consistent with some past theoretical formulations related to information processing capability (Deutsch andDeutsch, 1963: Treisman, 1964).…”

“…Although a few studies have provided discrepant results (Alluisi and Hall, 1963; Could and Schaffer, 1967; Komaki, 1967; Wiener, Poock, and Steele, 1964), the most general finding, with regard to task complexity in monitoring performance, is that either pronounced decrements occur relative to simpler tasks (Adams and Boulter, 1964; Bell, Symington, and Bevan, 1974; Brown, 1963; Brown and Fox, 1965;Conrad, 1955; Goldstein, Johnston, and Howell, 1969; Could and Schaffer, 1966; Hawkes, Meighan, and Alluisi, 1964; Kidd and Micocci, 1964) or decrements are minimal or absent but overall performance is substantially reduced (Harris, 1966; Jerison and Wallis, 1957; Kennedy, 1971).…”

Boredom and Distraction in Multiple Unmanned Vehicle Supervisory Control

“…These empirical results add to an increasing body of literature that shows that people are not as effective at multitasking as they might think [75,76], and that when given the opportunity, people typically gravitate towards a single attention state (in our case, either directed or distracted.) These results have important implications for supervisory control tasks, as previous research has shown that monitoring performance can be improved through dividing attention across tasks [77,78].…”

Interaction of behavioral and physiological stress reactions.

“…A large variety of studies are available which indicate that the more attention is "divided," the poorer the performance (e.g., Webster & Haslerud, 1964). The critical variable, however, appears to be the stimulus input rate of the tasks (e.g., Gould & Schaffer, 1967). This too appears to be an example of an experimental situation that would be predictable from assumptions about the attentional bandwidth and the data-processing ratio.…”