Effects of task demands on tactile vigilance

A performance decline during sustained monitoring of unpredictable and occasional signals, the vigilance decrement, has been studied mostly in the visual and auditory modalities, but a tactile vigilance decrement also has been observed and has been associated with high perceived workload, declines in sensitivity and task engagement, and increases in distress. The primary aim of the current study was to determine whether task demands affect the vigilance decrement in the tactile modality and whether the effects are similar to those observed in the auditory and visual modalities. Participants completed a 40-min vigil in which they monitored vibrotactile stimuli generated by a tactor and had to discriminate between durations of bursts of vibrations. Task demand was varied by including low and high event rates. Although correct detections decreased over time (vigilance decrement) and sensitivity was greater for the slower event rate, there was not an interaction between period of watch and event rate. There also were no differences in workload and stress between event rates. Results indicate that mean performance in tactile vigilance tasks is negatively impacted by increases in event rate, indicating that a typical source of task demand known to affect visual and auditory vigilance also affects tactile vigilance. Results could be explained by either an underload or overload theory of the vigilance decrement.

Tactile Vigilance Is Stressful and Demanding

OBJECTIVE

The primary aims of the study were to replicate the vigilance decrement in the tactile modality, examine whether a decrease in sensitivity is associated with the decrement, and determine whether tactile vigilance is stressful and demanding.

BACKGROUND

When people monitor occasional and unpredictable signals for sustained durations, they experience a decline in performance known as the vigilance decrement, which has important practical consequences. Prior studies of the vigilance decrement focused primarily on visual vigilance and, to a lesser degree, on auditory vigilance. There are relatively few studies of tactile vigilance.

METHOD

Participants monitored vibrotactile stimuli that were created from a tactor, for 40 min.

RESULTS

Sensitivity declined, self-report ratings of distress increased, and ratings of task engagement decreased, during the vigil, and perceived workload was moderately high.

CONCLUSION

Monitoring tactile signals is demanding and stressful and results in a decrement in signal detection.

APPLICATION

Monitoring tactile signals may result in a decrement in tasks requiring discrimination, such as monitoring lane position with the use of rumble strips; these require discrimination between current road vibration and increased vibration when the car drifts out of its lane and crosses over the strip.

Is Physiobehavioral Monitoring Nonintrusive? An Examination of Transcranial Doppler Sonography in a Vigilance Task

OBJECTIVE

The current study was designed to determine whether continuous, physiobehavioral monitoring via transcranial Doppler sonography (TCD) has negative effects on human performance or user state in a vigilance task.

BACKGROUND

Physiobehavioral measures have been identified as a promising method of user state assessment, in part because they are thought to be relatively nonintrusive. The notion that physiobehavioral measures are nonintrusive should not be taken for granted and needs to be tested empirically. It is possible that, even though physiobehavioral measures do not require input from a user, they may still hinder performance by causing discomfort, distraction, or interfering with physical activities required for task performance.

METHOD

The current study employed TCD, a common method of monitoring user vigilance. Participants completed a 40-min vigilance task. During the task, 50% wore TCD apparatus, while 50% did not. Intrusiveness was measured in terms of vigilance performance as well as workload, stress, and simulator sickness.

RESULTS

Analyses revealed results that mirrored prototypical vigilance findings: performance declined over time, workload was high, distress and reported simulator sickness symptomology increased during the task, while engagement decreased. The presence or absence of TCD monitoring had no direct or interactive effects on performance or user state.

CONCLUSION

TCD monitoring of user vigilance appears to be nonintrusive.

APPLICATION

Findings support the recommendation that TCD should be used in research and operational settings where user vigilance is of paramount importance. More broadly, when developing and fielding physiobehavioral state measurement systems, intrusiveness should be considered and evaluated.