'I need a break': the effect of choice of rest break duration on vigilance.

Vigilance is the ability to sustain attention for an extended period of time and to respond to infrequently occurring critical signals. One of the most replicable findings within the vigilance literature is the performance decrement; the decline in performance as time on task increases. In an effort to attenuate the decrement, and decrease the workload and stress associated with vigilance, the present study investigated the role of choice of rest break duration on vigilance performance, perceived workload, and stress. Participants were assigned to one of three conditions: (1) choice condition, (2) no-choice condition (yoked-control), and (3) a no-break control condition. Participants completed a sensory vigilance task and common measures of workload and stress. A vigilance decrement was observed in all conditions. Participants in the choice condition exhibited more conservative responses and fewer false alarms than the no-choice condition. Across all conditions, task engagement and worry decreased, and distress increased. Practitioner Summary: This study shows the impact of rest breaks and autonomy on vigilance task performance. The findings suggest that resource theory is a plausible explanation for the vigilance decrement. Additionally, providing a choice in rest break length changes the operator's criterion following the break. Abbreviations: TSA: transportation security administration; SART: sustained attention to response task; ERP: event-related potential; S-DT: self-determination theory; ISI: interstimulus interval; DSSQ: dundee stress state questionnaire; CFQ: cognitive failures questionnaire; BP: boredom proneness; NASA-TLX: NASA task load index; IMI: intrinsic motivation inventory.

Effects of state motivation in overload and underload vigilance task scenarios.

Vigilance, or sustained attention, is the ability to maintain attention for prolonged periods of time. Interestingly, to date, few studies on vigilance have focused on the role of state motivation in sustaining attention. To address this disparity in the literature, the present study examined the effect of two types of state motivation on vigilance performance across task types (cognitive or sensory) and across the number of displays (one, two, or four). A sample of 105 participants completed a 24-min overload or underload vigilance task in a research laboratory. Participants were randomly assigned to either a cognitive or sensory vigilance task, and were randomly assigned to monitor one, two, or four displays for target stimuli. The results indicated that intrinsic state motivation predicted correct detection performance and state success motivation predicted sensitivity, but not false alarm performance, response bias, or global workload. We conclude with a discussion of the theoretical and practical applications of this research.

Evaluative social presence can improve vigilance performance, but vigilance is still hard work and is stressful.

Vigilance is the ability to sustain attention over a period of time. Previous research has indicated that vigilance tasks are hard work and are stressful for human operators. Performance tends to decline with time on task, and workload and stress typically increase during the course of the vigil. Methods that could be used to overcome the adverse effects of vigilance (i.e., stress, workload, poor performance) includes social facilitation factors, such as performing the task while under observation. Thus, the present experiments examined the effects of multiple forms of social facilitation on vigilance, as well as the stress and workload associated with performing the task. Over 2 experiments, 284 participants completed a 24-min cognitive vigilance task. The results indicated that evaluative-based forms of social presence (i.e., direct monitoring, electronic performance monitoring) were associated with improved detection performance. The mere social presence of a monitor did not significantly influence vigilance performance. The results also demonstrated that social facilitation (in any form) did not impose additional stress or workload on the observers. These novel results have both important practical and theoretical implications for both vigilance performance and social facilitation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Task Engagement and the Vigilance Decrement Revisited: Expanding Upon the Work of Joel S. Warm Using a Semantic Vigilance Paradigm.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of the present study is twofold: (1) demonstrate the importance of measuring and understanding the relationship between task engagement and vigilance performance, and (2) celebrate the work of Joel S. Warm and expand upon his previous research in two semantic vigilance paradigms. BACKGROUND: The importance of measuring task engagement in cognitive and sensory vigilance tasks has been well documented. But to date, our understanding of the effects of task engagement on semantic vigilance performance is limited. METHOD: Seventy-three participants completed either a standard semantic vigilance task or a lure semantic vigilance task. Participants also completed subjective measures of workload and stress. RESULTS: The results indicated that changes in task engagement are associated with correct detection performance. Changes in task engagement may be related to individual differences in the distress associated with performing semantic vigilance tasks. CONCLUSION: In line with the work of Warm and his colleagues (Dember, Warm, Bowers, & Lanzetta, 1984), participants who reported increased task engagement after the vigil outperformed their peers who noted decreased task engagement upon conclusion of the task. Participants reporting increases in engagement with the semantic vigilance tasks also reported significantly greater distress pretask, but not posttask. Instead, increases in postvigil distress were driven by the task to which participants were assigned, not task engagement. APPLICATION: The present study has several implications for applied settings that involve long duration semantic processing or semantic target identification. Such real-world tasks include aviation, cyber threat detection and analysis, driving, and reading.

Where is my mind? Examining mind-wandering and vigilance performance.

Vigilance is the ability to sustain attention to information for prolonged periods of time, particularly in environments where critical signals may be rare. Recent research in the domain of mind-wandering has suggested that processes associated with mind-wandering may underpin the typical decline in vigilance task performance. Current methods for measuring mind-wandering either disrupt vigils by asking probe questions throughout the task, or, require observers to reflect on how much mind-wandering occurred during the task upon conclusion of the vigil. Across three experimental studies, we treat mind-wandering as an individual difference, which was measured pre- and post-vigil. We argue this technique is a more holistic representation of mind-wandering and is less intrusive than probe measures, which serve to disrupt the vigil. The results of our first experiment challenge previous results in the literature: higher rates of mind-wandering were associated with improved correct detection performance. Interestingly, the second experiment suggests that increases in mind-wandering were not linked to vigilance performance deficits. However, significant differences in global workload emerged in the second experiment, implying individuals low in mind-wandering report greater workload. In a third experiment, wherein we manipulated event rate, mind-wandering typology had no significant effect on vigilance performance. We conclude with a discussion of the relevance of individual differences in mind-wandering in vigilance research considering the present findings.

Can vigilance tasks be administered online? A replication and discussion.

Recently, experimental studies of vigilance have been deployed using online data collection methods. This data collection strategy is not new to the psychological sciences, but it is relatively new to basic research assessing vigilance performance, as studies in this area of research tend to collect data in the laboratory or in the field. The present study partially replicated the results of a newly developed online vigilance task (Thomson, Besner, & Smilek, 2016). A sample of 130 participants completed the semantic vigilance task created by Thomson et al. (2016) in a research laboratory setting. The present results replicated Thomson et al. (2016) when nonparametric and corrected signal detection measures were used. We suggest that some vigilance tasks typically performed in the laboratory could be administered online. However, we encourage researchers to consider the following factors prior to studying vigilance performance online: (a) the type of vigilance task, (b) the length of the vigilance task, and (c) the signal detection indices most appropriate for their research. It is quite possible that some analyses may yield significant results, whereas other signal detection measures may not (i.e., parametric indices vs. nonparametric indices vs. "corrected" indices) and this point is discussed further in our article. (PsycINFO Database Record

Ceci n'est pas un walrus: lexical processing in vigilance performance.

Vigilance, or the ability to sustain attention for extended periods of time, has traditionally been examined using a myriad of symbolic, cognitive, and sensory tasks. However, the current literature indicates a relative lack of empirical investigation on vigilance performance involving lexical processing. To address this gap in the literature, the present study examined the effect of stimulus meaning on vigilance performance (i.e., lure effects). A sample of 126 observers completed a 12-min lexical vigilance task in a research laboratory. Observers were randomly assigned to a standard task (targets and neutral events only) or a lure task (lures, targets, and neutral events presented), wherein lures were stimuli that were categorically similar to target stimuli. A novel analytical approach was utilized to examine the results; the lure groups were divided based on false alarm performance post hoc. Groups were further divided to demonstrate that the presence of lure stimuli significantly affects the decision-making criteria used to assess the performance of lexical vigilance tasks. We also discuss the effect of lure stimuli on measures related to signal detection theory (e.g., sensitivity and response bias).

Establishing Measurement Equivalence Across Computer- and Paper-Based Tests of Spatial Cognition.

Objective The purpose of the present research is to establish measurement equivalence and test differences in reliability between computerized and pencil-and-paper-based tests of spatial cognition. Background Researchers have increasingly adopted computerized test formats, but few attempt to establish equivalence for computer-based and paper-based tests. The mixed results in the literature on the test mode effect, which occurs when performance differs as a function of test medium, highlight the need to test for, instead of assume, measurement equivalence. One domain that has been increasingly computerized and is thus in need of tests of measurement equivalence across test mode is spatial cognition. Method In the present study, 244 undergraduate students completed two measures of spatial ability (i.e., spatial visualization and cross-sectioning) in either computer- or paper-and-pencil-based format. Results Measurement equivalence was not supported across computer-based and paper-based formats for either spatial test. The results also indicated that test administration type affected the types of errors made on the spatial visualization task, which further highlights the conceptual differences between test mediums. Paper-based tests also demonstrated increased reliability when compared with computerized versions of the tests. Conclusion The results of the measurement equivalence tests caution against treating computer- and paper-based versions of spatial measures as equivalent. We encourage subsequent work to demonstrate test mode equivalence prior to the utilization of spatial measures because current evidence suggests they may not reliably capture the same construct. Application The assessment of test type differences may influence the medium in which spatial cognition tests are administered.

A model for mHealth skills training for clinicians: meeting the future now.

We describe the current state of mHealth skills acquisition, education, and training available to clinical professionals in educational programs. We discuss how telemedicine experienced exponential growth due in large part to the ubiquity of the mobile phone. An outcome of this unprecedented growth has been the emergence of the need for technology skills training programs for clinicians that address extant curricula gaps. We propose a model to guide the development of future training programs that incorporate effective training strategies across five domains: (I) digital communication skills; (II) technology literacy and usage skills; (III) deploying telehealth products and services; (VI) regulatory and compliance issues; and (V) telehealth business case. These domains are discussed within the context of interprofessional teams and broader organizational factors.

A critical examination of the research and theoretical underpinnings discussed in Thomson, Besner, and Smilek (2016).

Thomson, Besner, and Smilek (2016) propose that performance decrements associated with sustained attention are not consistently the result of a decline in perceptual sensitivity. Thomson et al. (2016) present empirical evidence using a novel, nontraditional vigilance task to support their assumptions. However, in the present rebuttal, we argue that the authors have not only have misinterpreted previous research in sustained attention, but also have misapplied those interpretations to their study. Thomson et al. have also neglected key elements of the literature in their argument, including research on expectancy theory and individual differences on vigilance performance. Furthermore, Thomson and colleagues implement an experimental paradigm that is not appropriate for evaluating sensitivity and bias changes in vigilance tasks. Finally, their analyses do not capture the manner in which changes in response bias and sensitivity can manifest in signal detection theory. We discuss the theoretical and experimental issues contained in Thomson et al. (2016) and propose suggestions for future vigilance research in this area. (PsycINFO Database Record