Blinding efficacy and adverse events following repeated transcranial alternating current, direct current, and random noise stimulation.

As transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) protocols advance, assumptions underlying the technique need to be retested to ensure they still hold. Whilst the safety of stimulation has been demonstrated mainly for a small number of sessions, and small sample size, adverse events (AEs) following multiple sessions remain largely untested. Similarly, whilst blinding procedures are typically assumed to be effective, the effect of multiple stimulation sessions on the efficacy of blinding procedures also remains under question. This is especially relevant in multisite projects where small unintentional variations in protocol could lead to inter-site difference. We report AE and blinding data from 1,019 participants who received up to 11 semi-consecutive sessions of active or sham transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS), direct current stimulation (tDCS), and random noise stimulation (tRNS), at 4 sites in the UK and US. We found that AEs were often best predicted by factors other than tES, such as testing site or session number. Results from the blinding analysis suggested that blinding was less effective for tDCS and tACS than tRNS. The occurrence of AEs did not appear to be linked to tES despite the use of smaller electrodes or repeated delivery. However, blinding efficacy was impacted in tES conditions with higher cutaneous sensation, highlighting a need for alternative stimulation blinding protocols. This may be increasingly necessary in studies wishing to deliver stimulation with higher intensities.

Vigilance Tasks: Unpleasant, Mentally Demanding, and Stressful Even When Time Flies.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether perceived time progression (PTP) moderates participants' negative reactions to vigilance tasks. BACKGROUND: Vigilance tasks are rated by participants to be unenjoyable and as having high levels of workload and stress. Based on the adage, "You are having fun when time flies," we tested the possibility that accelerating PTP might reduce these negative experiences. METHOD: Two studies were performed, involving a long 30-min and a short 12-min vigil. We manipulated participants' PTP by creating a mismatch between their expectations about how long they would perform the task and the actual time that they were engaged. RESULTS: PTP was significantly faster for participants who were led to expect that the vigilance task would last longer than it did relative to those led to expect that task duration would be shorter than it actually was and for controls for whom task duration was equal to the expected duration. However, accelerating PTP had no effect in either experiment on undesirable reactions to the vigilance tasks. Participants uniformly rated both tasks as unenjoyable, as having a high level of workload, and as stressful. Apparently, vigilance isn't fun even when time flies. CONCLUSION: Our findings greatly underscore the depth to which negative subjective reactions are embedded in the nature of vigilance tasks and therefore that these tasks can have potentially serious costs to participants in terms of health, safety, and productivity. APPLICATION: These costs must be considered at the operational level.

The Independence and Interdependence of Coacting Observers in Regard to Performance Efficiency, Workload, and Stress in a Vigilance Task.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated performance, workload, and stress in groups of paired observers who performed a vigilance task in a coactive (independent) manner. BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated that groups of coactive observers detect more signals in a vigilance task than observers working alone. Therefore, the use of such groups might be effective in enhancing signal detection in operational situations. However, concern over appearing less competent than one's cohort might induce elevated levels of workload and stress in coactive group members and thereby undermine group performance benefits. Accordingly, we performed the initial experiment comparing workload and stress in observers who performed a vigilance task coactively with those of observers who performed the vigilance task alone. METHOD: Observers monitored a video display for collision flight paths in a simulated unmanned aerial vehicle control task. Self-reports of workload and stress were secured via the NASA-Task Load Index and the Dundee Stress State Questionnaire, respectively. RESULTS: Groups of coactive observers detected significantly more signals than did single observers. Coacting observers did not differ significantly from those operating by themselves in terms of workload but did in regard to stress; posttask distress was significantly lower for coacting than for single observers. CONCLUSION: Performing a visual vigilance task in a coactive manner with another observer does not elevate workload above that of observers working alone and serves to attenuate the stress associated with vigilance task performance. APPLICATION: The use of coacting observers could be an effective vehicle for enhancing performance efficiency in operational vigilance.

The sustained attention to response task (SART) does not promote mindlessness during vigilance performance.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we evaluated the validity of the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) as a means for promoting mindlessness in vigilance performance. BACKGROUND: Vigilance tasks typically require observers to respond to critical signals and to withhold responding to neutral events. The SART features the opposite response requirements, which supposedly leads it to promote a mindless, non-thoughtful approach to the vigilance task To test that notion, we compared the SART to the traditional vigilance format (TVF) in terms of diagnostic accuracy assessed through decision theory measures of positive and negative predictive power (PPP and NPP), perceived mental workload indexed by the Multiple Resource Questionnaire, and oculomotor activity reflected in the Nearest Neighbor Index and fixation dwell times. METHOD: Observers in TVF and SART conditions monitored a video display for collision flight paths in a simulated air traffic control task. RESULTS: Diagnostic accuracy in terms of NPP was high in both format conditions. While PPP was poorer in the SART than in the TVF, that result could be accounted for by a loss of motor control rather than a lack of mindfulness. Identical high levels of workload were generated by the TVF and SART tasks, and observers in both conditions showed similar dynamic scanning of the visual scene. CONCLUSION: The data indicate that the SART is not an engine of mindlessness. APPLICATION: The results challenge the widespread use of the SART to support a model in which mindlessness is considered to be the principal root of detection failures in vigilance.

Event-related cerebral hemodynamics reveal target-specific resource allocation for both "go" and "no-go" response-based vigilance tasks.

Transcranial Doppler sonography was used to measure cerebral blood flow velocity (CBFV) in the right and left cerebral hemispheres during the performance of a 50-min visual vigilance session. Observers monitored a simulated flight of unmanned aerial vehicles for cases in which one of the vehicles was flying in an inappropriate direction relative to its cohorts. Two types of vigilance tasks were employed: a traditional task in which observers made button press ("go") responses to critical signals, and a modification of the traditional task called the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) in which "go" responses acknowledged nonsignal events and response withholding ("no-go") signified signal detection. Signal detections and global CBFV scores declined over time. In addition, fine-grained event-related analyses revealed that the detection of signals was accompanied by an elevation of CBFV that was not present with missed signals. As was the case with the global scores, the magnitude of the transient CBFV increments associated with signal detection also declined over time, and these findings were independent of task type. The results support the view of CBFV as an index of the cognitive evaluation of stimulus significance, and a resource model of vigilance in which the need for continuous attention produces a depletion of information-processing assets that are not replenished as the task progresses. Further, temporal declines in the magnitude of event-related CBFV in response to critical signals only is evidence that the decrement function in vigilance is due to attentional processing and not specific task elements such as the required response format.