Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baker CH (1959) Towards a theory of vigilance. Can J Exp Psychol 13:35–42

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Claypoole VL, Neigel AR, Fraulini NW, Hancock GM, Szalma JL (2017) Can vigilance tasks be administered online? A replication and discussion. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform

  • Craig A (1978) Is the vigilance decrement simply a response adjustment towards probability matching? Hum Factors 20:441–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig A (1987) Signal detection theory and probability matching apply to vigilance. Hum Factors 29:645–652

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davies DR, Parasuraman R (1982) The psychology of vigilance. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Deaton JE, Parasuraman R (1993) Sensory and cognitive vigilance effects of age on performance and subjective workload. Hum Perform 6:71–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deese J (1955) Some problems in the theory of vigilance. Psychol Rev 62:359–368

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Epling SL, Russell PN, Helton WS (2016) A new semantic vigilance task: vigilance decrement, workload, and sensitivity to dual-task costs. Exp Brain Res 234:133–139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frankmann JP, Adams J (1962) Theories of vigilance. Psychol Bull 59:257–272

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fraulini NW, Hancock GM, Neigel AR, Claypoole VL, Szalma JL (2017) A critical examination of the research and theoretical underpinnings discussed in Thomson, Besner, and Smilek (2016): a commentary. Psychol Rev 124:525–531

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Green DM, Swets JA (1966) Signal detection theory and psychophysics. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Grier RA, Warm JS, Dember WN, Matthews G, Galinsky TL, Szalma JL, Parasuraman R (2003) The vigilance decrement reflects limitations in effortful attention, not mindlessness. Hum Factors 45:349–359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hart SG (2006) NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX): 20 years later. Proc Hum Fact Ergo Soc Annu Meet 50:904–908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv Psychol Res 52:139–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Head J, Russel PN, Dorahy MJ, Neumann E, Helton WS (2012) Text-speak processing and the sustained attention to response task. Exp Brain Res 216:103–111

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Head J, Wilson KM, Helton WS, Neumann E, Russell PN, Shears C (2013a) Right hemisphere prefrontal cortical involvement in text-speak processing. Proc Hum Fact Ergo Soc Annu Meet 57:379–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Head J, Neumann E, Helton WS, Shears C (2013b) Novel word processing. Am J Psychol 126:323–333

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jerison HJ (1970) Vigilance, discrimination and attention. In: Mostofsky DI (ed) Attention: contemporary theory and analysis. Appleton, New York, pp 127–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackworth NH (1948) The breakdown of vigilance during prolonged visual search. Q J Exp Psychol 1:6–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macmillan NA, Creelman CD (2005) Detection theory. London Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Majtásová L, Šípoš I (1974) Vigilance in acoustic-semantic signals with and without meaningful continuity. Stud Psychol 16:214–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews G (2016) Multidimensional profiling of task stress states for human factors: a brief review. Hum Factors 58:801–813

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews G, Campbell SE, Falconer S et al (2002) Fundamental dimensions of subjective state in performance settings: task engagement, distress, and worry. Emotion 2:315–340

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parasuraman R, Mouloua M (1987) Interaction of signal discriminability and task type in vigilance decrement. Percept Psychophys 41:17–22

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw TH, Satterfield K, Ramirez R, Finomore V (2013) Using cerebral hemovelocity to measure workload during a spatialised auditory vigilance task in novice and experienced observers. Ergonomics 56:1251–1263

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson DR, Hasher L (2017) On the preservation of vigilant attention to semantic information in healthy aging. Exp Brain Res 235:2287–2300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson DR, Besner D, Smilek D (2016) A critical examination of the evidence for sensitivity loss in modern vigilance tasks. Psychol Rev 123:70–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vickers D (1979) Decisions processes in visual perception. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Warm JS (1977) Psychological processes in sustained attention. In: Mackie RR (ed) Vigilance: theory, operational performance and physiological correlates. Plenum, New York, pp 623–644

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Xiuying Q, Junying Z (1998) The vigilance performance of Chinese signal monitoring. CNKI 1:1671

    Google Scholar 

  • Yap M, Seow CS (2014) The influence of emotion on lexical processing: insights from RT distributional analysis. Psychon Bull Rev 21:526–533

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our reviewers for providing valuable feedback on this manuscript, which served to make it more robust and interesting.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computational and Information Sciences Directorate, United States Army Research Laboratory, 321 Johnson Street, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, USA

    Alexis R. Neigel

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

    Victoria L. Claypoole, Nicholas W. Fraulini & James L. Szalma

  3. Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach, Long Beach, CA, USA

    Gabriella M. Hancock

Authors
  1. Alexis R. Neigel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Victoria L. Claypoole
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gabriella M. Hancock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicholas W. Fraulini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. James L. Szalma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexis R. Neigel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Disclosure statement

The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the United States Army Research Laboratory or the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation herein.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 1.

Table 1 Distracter false alarm responses
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Neigel, A.R., Claypoole, V.L., Hancock, G.M. et al. Ceci n’est pas un walrus: lexical processing in vigilance performance. Exp Brain Res 236, 867–879 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-018-5184-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-018-5184-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation