Szalma

Vigilance and Sustained Attention

VIGILANCE

AND

SUSTAINED ATTENTION

Instructor: P.A. Hancock

Introduction
Vigilance, or sustained attention, refers to the ability to monitor
displays for stimulus events over prolonged periods of time.

The term

vigilance as applied to human behavior was coined by Sir Henry Head

(1923), who referred to it as a state of maximum physiological and
psychological readiness to react. However, the origin of modern vigilance
research, as in many other areas of human factors, was in the Second World
War. The British Royal Air Force were employing a new technology, RADAR,
in their aircraft to scan for German U-boats sinking allied shipping and
impairing the Anglo-American war effort. These were highly motivated and
skilled operators, and yet they were missing targets. Norman H. Mackworth
was assigned the task of determining why motivated and skilled airmen were
missing signals (although see Ditchburn, 1943). He devised the Clock Test
which consisted of a blank-faced clock and a black pointer that would make
movements of .3 inches per second. Observers were to monitor this display
for the occurrence of double jumps of .6 inches. The length of the session
of the original experiment was 2 hours. The figure in the second PowerPoint
slide shows the results he observed (Mackworth, 1948). Observers ability to
detect signals declined over the course of the vigil, with the steepest decline
early in the watch. This progressive decline in the quality of performance
over the course of a watch keeping session is one of the most ubiquitous
effects in vigilance (See, Howe, Warm, & Dember, 1995), and is referred to
as the decrement function

or the vigilance decrement (Davies &

Parasuraman, 1982). The decrement has been observed in both laboratory

and field settings, across a variety of domains.

These include RADAR,

SONAR, cytological screening, anesthesia gauge monitoring, nuclear power

plant operation, industrial quality control, baggage screening, and detection

Szalma

Vigilance and Sustained Attention

of criminal or insurgent activity (e.g., friend/foe identification during long

shifts). Vigilance is

also a

component

of

tasks

requiring sustained

performance, such as shift work and driving.

Theories of Vigilance

Inhibition Theory. Since Mackworths (1948) original findings there

have been several theories of vigilance, and the progression of theoretical
change has mirrored general trends in psychology.

Thus, the earliest

explanations for vigilance relied on behaviorist theories, particularly the

Hullian (Hull, 1943) theory dominant at that time. The central construct for
this view was inhibition. Inhibition was conceived as a force opposing the
tendency of organisms to expend energy through behavior. Inhibition can be
overcome by either stopping the behavior for some period of time (e.g., a
rest

break),

allowing

the

inhibition

reinforcements for the behavior.

to

dissipate,

or

by

providing

The process of inhibition was therefore

similar to that observed in extinction in conditioning experiments. According

to this perspective, vigilance declines because of a progressive rise in
response inhibition. Data were reported that were consistent with this view,
that knowledge of results (reinforcement) increases detection responses,
and that performance improves after brief rest periods, presumably a
reflection of dissipation of inhibition.

In addition, introducing a novel

stimulus event can re-establish vigilance levels to levels obtained at the

beginning of the watch, a process known as dis-inhibition.
However, inhibition theory cannot explain why in some cases
performance never declines during the watch-keeping session, while in other
cases performance is poor from the very beginning of the vigil. In addition,
the operators responses may not always decline over time. In other words,
sustained attention may decline over time, but the number of responses may
remain relatively stable. However, one of the most problematic empirical
findings for this theory was that increasing signal probability, which should

Szalma

Vigilance and Sustained Attention

increase inhibition and thereby decrease performance, actually improves

vigilance.
Expectancy Theory. The decline of behavioristic and drive-based
theories of behavior led to a cognitive revolution in psychology (Dember,
1974).

The

information

processing

manifestations of this shift.

theories

of

the

1950s

were

Although Broadbent (1958) applied his

attentional filter theory to vigilance, the evidence has not strongly supported
his assertions (see Craig, 1985; but see also Broadbent, 1971). During this
same time period, the expectancy theory of vigilance emerged. Expectancy
theory was not intended to explain the performance decrement, but rather to
account for findings problematic for inhibition theory: maintenance of a low
but persistent level of responding, and the increase in responding as a
function of signal probability. The theory, first presented by Baker (1959),
asserts that observers expectancies regarding signal events often differ
from reality, and this discrepancy accounts for the response patterns
observed in vigilance experiments. Thus, observers adjust their level of
responses (and thereby their level of detections) according to the perceived
signal frequency and their prior experiences on the task or similar tasks.
Expectancy can also account for the increase in conservatism with time on
watch, since observers may learn that the signals they are looking for are
rare and adjust their responding accordingly (Craig, 1978). Although this
theory still has utility in explaining response bias effects and responses by
observers to changes in signal and event rate, it does not provide a complete
explanation for vigilance effects. An attempt to more fully explain vigilance
was emerged with the application of arousal theory.
Arousal Theory. This theory draws on the inverted-U model of arousal
attributed the Yerkes and Dodson (1908) but actually presented in its most
recognized form by Hebb (1955). According to this view, an individuals level
of vigilance depends on their arousal, and the performance decrement

Szalma

Vigilance and Sustained Attention

results from under-arousal resulting from the under stimulating environment

of the vigilance task. While there is some evidence for this contention (e.g.,
electro-cortical activity and autonomic activity tends to decline during a vigil;
see Davies & Parasuraman, 1982), arousal theory cannot account for the
high stress levels associated with vigilance. For instance, vigilance is
associated with increased levels of catecholamine (e.g., see Frankenhaeuser,
Nordheden, Myrsten, & Post, 1971), which is associated with the endocrine
systems response to stress, and observers report more symptoms of stress
before a vigil than prior to its start (for a review, see Szalma, 1999).
addition,

because

arousal

theory

argues

that

vigilance

tasks

In
are

underarousing, the mental workload associated with such tasks should be

low. However, it has been well established that the workload of vigilance is,
in fact, quite high (Warm, Dember, & Hancock, 1996).
Resource Theory. The problems associated with the arousal theory of
vigilance coincided with the problem of unitary arousal theories in general.
Resource theory (Kahneman, 1973; Moray, 1967; Navon & Gopher, 1979;
Norman & Bobrow, 1975) emerged as an alternative to arousal theory, and it
was adopted as a theory of vigilance. Thus, according to resource theory, an
individuals vigilance depends on the mental capacities or resources that
can be allocated to the task. The concept of resources draws on economic
and thermodynamic metaphors, utilizing the notions of supply and demand
for the former and pools of energy or processing units available for the
latter. According to this theory, the performance decrement occurs because
individuals expend resources for maintaining attention at a rate faster than
they can be replenished (Parasuraman, Warm, & Dember, 1987). This theory
is consistent with empirical findings related to tests of the vigilance
taxonomy (Warm & Dember, 1998) and with the findings in regard to
workload (Warm, Dember, & Hancock, 1996) and stress (Szalma, 1999).
However, as extensive as the favorable evidence is, it is still difficult to argue
that the data support resource theory. This is because it is very difficult (and

Szalma

Vigilance and Sustained Attention

may be impossible; but see Szalma & Hancock, 2002) to test the concept of
resources itself. Like other constructs in psychology, resources are difficult to
define operationally, and therefore difficult to empirically test. The future of
this theory in general and as a theory of vigilance rests on current and future
efforts to understand what resources are.
The Vigilance Taxonomy

By the early 1970s it was clear that whether performance decrements

were observed depended in part on task characteristics. However, it was
unclear what task properties were important determinants. Parasuraman and
Davies (1977) noted that although the correlations in performance across
task types were low, they were not zero. They derived a taxonomic scheme
for classifying vigilance tasks in categories according to sensory modality,
number of sources to be monitored (source complexity), the rate of stimulus
events (event rate), and memory load. For the last category Parasuraman
and Davies (1977) distinguished between tasks that required observers to
compare a stimulus to a standard held in memory (successive tasks requiring
absolute judgment) from those tasks in which the standard and the test
stimulus were both presented (simultaneous tasks requiring comparative
judgment). In an extensive review of the literature they observed that the
vigilance decrement only occurred for certain categories of task. Specifically,
they found that performance decrements were most likely to occur with
successive tasks at high event rate (event rates> 24 events per minute) with
multiple sources to be monitored. In regard to modality, visual tasks elicited
lower performance levels than auditory tasks (but see Hatfield & Loeb,
1968). Later meta-analytic work (See, Howe, Warm, & Dember, 1995)
confirmed that event rate was a major determinant to vigilance performance,
but they also found that there was evidence that the decrement can be
obtained for both successive and simultaneous tasks. In addition, they also
reported

differences

discrimination

from

between
those

tasks

that

that

imposed

required
cognitive

primarily

sensory

demands

(e.g.,

Szalma

Vigilance and Sustained Attention

mathematical calculations), and suggested that the sensory/cognitive

distinction be added as an additional taxonomic category.
The Psychophysics of Vigilance

In addition to the taxonomic categories, there are psychophysical

variables that influence performance in vigilance.

These include modality

and complexity, which are also categories of the taxonomy, as well as signal
salience (conspicuity), event rate, signal rate, and spatial and temporal
uncertainty. In class we will review the effects of each of these categories on
vigilance performance, as well as the influence of feedback and cueing on
performance and transfer of training (but see also Warm & Jerison, 1984).
Current Learning Objectives

The objective for the unit on vigilance is to provide you with an

introduction to the phenomenon, its importance in human factors, the
relevant characteristics of vigilance tasks, and theories of vigilance. Thus, if
you understand the taxonomy and the theoretical issues surrounding
vigilance, and the factors that influence performance, workload, and stress in
vigilance, you will gain an understanding of how to avoid the problem in
design and how to account for vigilance effects that may occur in your
research. In addition, it will be important for you to understand the relations
among

measures

of

performance,

workload,

and

stress

(i.e.,

associations/dissociations).

References
Baker, C.H. (1959). Attention to visual displays during a vigilance task: II. Maintaining the level of
vigilance. British Journal of Psychology, 50, 30-36.
Broadbent, D.E. (1958). Perception and communication. London: Pergamon Press.
Broadbent, D.E. (1971). Decision and stress. New York: Academic Press.
Craig, A. (1978). Is the vigilance decrement simply a response toward probability matching?
Human Factors, 20, 441-446.
Craig, A. (1985). Vigilance: Theories and laboratory studies. In: S. Folkard and T.H. Monk (Eds.), Hours

Szalma

Vigilance and Sustained Attention

of work. (pp. 107-121).Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Davies, D.R., & Parasuraman, R. (1982). The psychology of vigilance. London: Academic Press.
Dember, W.N. (1974). Motivation and the cognitive revolution. American Psychologist, 29, 161-168.
Ditchburn, R.W. (1943). Some factors affecting the efficiency of work by lookouts (Report No.
ARC/R1/84/46/0). Admiralty Research Laboratory.
Frankenhaeuser, M., Nordheden, B., Myrsten, A.L., & Post, B. (1971). Psychophysiological
reactions to understimulation and overstimulation. Acta Psychologica, 35, 298-308.
Hatfield, J.L., & Loeb, M. (1968). Sense mode and coupling in a vigilance task. Perception &
Psychophysics, 4, 29-36.
Head, H. (1923). The conception of nervous and mental energy. II. Vigilance: A physiological
state of the nervous system. British Journal of Psychology, 14, 126-147.
Hebb, D. O. (1955). Drives and the CNS (conceptual nervous system). Psychological Review, 62, 243254.
Hull, C.L. (1943). Principles of behavior: An introduction to behavior theory. New York: Appleton.
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Mackworth, N.H. (1948). The breakdown of vigilance during prolonged visual search. Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1, 6-21.
Moray, N. (1967). Where is capacity limited? A survey and a model. Acta Psychologica, 27, 84-92.
Navon, D., & Gopher, D. (1979). On the economy of the human information processing system.
Psychological Review, 86, 214-255.
Norman, D., & Bobrow, D. (1975). On data-limited and resource-limited processing. Journal of Cognitive
Psychology, 7, 44-60.
Parasuraman, R., & Davies, D.R. (1977). A taxonomic analysis of vigilance performance. In: R.R.
Mackie (Ed.), Vigilance: Theory, operational performance, and physiological correlates. (pp. 559574). New York: Plenum Press.
Parasuraman, R., Warm, J.S., & Dember, W.N. (1987). Vigilance: Taxonomy and utility. In L.S. Mark,
J.S. Warm, & R.L. Huston (Eds.), Ergonomics and human factors: Recent research (pp. 11-32).
New York: Springer-Verlag.
See, J.E., Howe, S.R., Warm, J.S., & Dember, W.N. (1995). A meta-analysis of the sensitivity
decrement in vigilance. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 230-249.
Szalma, J.L. (1999). Sensory and temporal determinants of workload and stress in sustained attention.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH
Szalma, J.L., & Hancock, P.A. (2002). On mental resources and performance under stress. Unpublished

Szalma

Vigilance and Sustained Attention

white paper, MIT2 Laboratory, University of Central Florida. Available at www.mit.ucf.edu

Warm, J.S., & Dember, W.N. (1998). Tests of a vigilance taxonomy. In R.R. Hoffman, M.F. Sherrick, &
J.S. Warm (Eds.), Viewing psychology as a whole: The integrative science of William N. Dember
(pp. 87-112). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Warm, J.S., Dember, W.N., & Hancock, P.A. (1996). Vigilance and workload in automated systems.
In R. Parasuraman & M. Mouloua (Eds.), Automation and human performance: Theory and
applications (pp. 183-200) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Warm, J.S., & Jerison, H.J. (1984). The psychophysics of vigilance. In: J.S. Warm (Ed.), Sustained
attention in human performance. (pp. 15-59). Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley.
Yerkes, R.M., & Dodson, J.D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation.
Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18, 459-482.