Is CCTV Surveillance as Effective as Popular Television Crime Series Suggest? Cognitive Challenges

  • Fiona M. DonaldEmail author
  • Craig Donald
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 822)


The aim of this paper is to review the human and information processing factors that need to be addressed in order to improve closed circuit television (CCTV) surveillance effectiveness and to make recommendations regarding future research. This is done by contrasting the way in which CCTV is portrayed in popular television crime series with the challenges inherent in real world CCTV surveillance systems. Despite considerable amounts of money being spent on the equipment needed for CCTV systems, the work of operators is often poorly valued although the monitoring process is difficult and mentally demanding. There are many factors that affect the effectiveness of CCTV surveillance systems, and this paper focuses on the information processing demands on CCTV surveillance operators. Previous research on the human factors in CCTV were reviewed, and episodes in popular crime series which showed CCTV were observed and analysed. Key aspects that emerged were the cognitive demands made on CCTV surveillance operators by the design of the technical system and their job, the nature of scenes observed and the characteristics of significant events. These placed demands on the interaction of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention, search strategies employed, distributed situation awareness, visual analysis, processes that impair detection, and the effects of certain job designs on monitoring. Recommendations for future research were made.


CCTV Monitoring Information processing Visual search Visual analysis Operator 


  1. 1.
    Blechko A, Darker I, Gale A (2008) Skills in detecting gun carrying from CCTV. In: Klima M (ed) IEEE international Carnahan conference on security technology. IEEE Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bruce V, Henderson Z, Newman C, Burton AM (2001) Matching identities of familiar and unfamiliar faces caught on CCTV images. J Exp Psychol Appl 7(3):207–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Castelhano MS, Heaven C (2010) The relative contribution of scene context and target features to visual search in scenes. Atten Percept Psychophys 72:1283–1297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cole H, Wood J (2006) The relationship between image complexity and task difficulty as rated by experienced and novice viewers. In: Meeting diversity in ergonomics, international ergonomics association congress. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davis J, Valentine T (2008) CCTV on trial: matching video images with the defendant in the dock. Appl Cogn Psychol 23(4):482–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Donald C (2006) High performing CCTV operators. Hi Tech Security.
  7. 7.
    Donald C (2004) How many monitors should a CCTV operator view? Hi-tech Security Solutions.
  8. 8.
    Donald C (2001) Vigilance. In: Noyes J, Bransby M (eds) People in control: human factors in control room design. The Institute of Electrical Engineers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Donald F (2010) A model of CCTV surveillance operator performance. Ergon SA 22(2):2–13Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Donald FM (2008) The classification of vigilance tasks in the real world. Ergonomics 51(11):1643–1655. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Donald FM, Donald CHM (2015) Task disengagement and implications for vigilance performance in CCTV surveillance. Cogn Technol Work 17:121–130. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Donald FM, Donald C, Thatcher A (2015) Work exposure and vigilance decrements in closed circuit television surveillance. Appl Ergon 47:220–228. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eimer M, Nattkemper D, Schröger F, Prinz W (1996) Involuntary attention. In: Neumann O, Sanders AF (eds) Handbook of perception and action, vol. 3: attention. Academic Press, London, pp 155–184Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Einhaüser W, Rutishauser U, Koch C (2008) Task demands can immediately reverse the effects of sensory-driven saliency in complex visual stimuli. J Vis 8(2):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Evans KK, Treisman A (2005) Perception of objects in natural scenes: is it really attention free? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 31(6):1476–1492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Foulsham T, Underwood G (2008) What can saliency models predict about eye movements? Spatial and sequential aspects of fixations during encoding and recognition. J Vis 8(2):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gilchrist I, Harvey M (2000) Refixation frequency and memory mechanisms in visual search. Curr Biol 10(19):1209–1212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gill M, Spriggs A, Allen J, Hemming M, Jessiman P, Kara D, Kilworth J, Little R, Swain D (2005) Control room operation: findings from control room observations. Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate. Online Report 14/05Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Helten F, Fischer B (2004) Reactive attention: video surveillance in Berlin shopping malls. Surveill Soc 2(2/3):323–345.
  20. 20.
    Hillstrom AP, Hope L, Nee C (2008) Applying psychological science to the CCTV review process: a review of cognitive and ergonomic literature. Home Office Scientific Development Branch, St AlbansGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Howard CJ, Gilchrist ID, Troscianko T, Behera A, Hogg DC (2011) Task relevance predicts gaze in videos of real moving scenes. Exp Brain Res 214:131–137. Scholar
  22. 22.
    Itti L, Koch C (2000) A saliency-based search mechanism for overt and covert shifts of visual attention. Vis Res 40(10–12):1489–1506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Keval H (2008) CCTV control room collaboration and communication: does it work? In: 9th human centred technology group postgraduate workshop, Department of Informatics, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, pp 45–48Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Keval H, Sasse MA (2008) Man or a gorilla? Performance issues with CCTV technology in security control rooms. Perception 33:87–101. Scholar
  25. 25.
    Layne R, Hospedales T, Gong S (2012) Person re-identification by attributes. Br Mach Vis Conf 2(3):1–8Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Menneer T, Donnelly N, Godwin HJ, Cave KR (2010) High or low target prevalence increases the dual-target cost in visual search. J Exp Psychol Appl 16(2):133–144. Scholar
  27. 27.
    Norris C, Armstrong G (1999) The maximum surveillance society: the rise of CCTV. Berg, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Parasuraman R, Mouloua M (1996) Automation and human performance: theory and applications. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., MahwahGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pikaar R, Lenior D, Schreibers K, de Bruijn D (2015) Human factors guidelines for CCTV system design. In: 9th Triennial Congress of the IEA, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pikaar R (2015) Human factors guidelines for the design of CCTV-systems, revision 1.3. Published by HAN University of Applied Sciences, Arnhem; vhp human performance, The Hague; ErgoS Human Factors Engineering, Enschede; Intergo Human Factors & Ergonomics, Utrecht.
  31. 31.
    Schreibers KBJ, Landman RB, Pikaar RN (2012) Human Factors of CCTV: part 1 technology and literature review. ErgoS Engineering and Ergonomics, Enschede, Reference: S386-R1.CCTGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Simons DJ, Rensink RA (2005) Change blindness: past, present, and future. Trends Cogn Sci 9(1):16–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Smith GJD (2004) Behind the scenes: examining constructions of deviance and informal practices among CCTV control room operators in the UK. Surveill Soc 2(2/3):376–395Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stainer MJ, Scott-Brown KC, Tatler BW (2017) On the factors causing processing difficulty of multiple-scene displays. i-Perception. Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stainer MJ, Scott-Brown KC, Tatler BW (2013) Looking for trouble: a description of oculomotor search strategies during live CCTV operation. Front Hum Neurosci 7:615. Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tickner AH, Poulton EC (1973) Monitoring up to 16 synthetic television pictures showing a great deal of movement. Ergonomics 16(4):381–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Torralba A, Castelhano MS, Henderson JM, Oliva A (2006) Contextual guidance of eye movements and attention in real-world scenes: the role of global features in object search. Psychol Rev 113(4):766–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Troscianko T, Holmes A, Stillmanô J, Mirmehdi M, Wright D, Wilson A (2004) What happens next? The predictability of natural behavior viewed through CCTV cameras. Perception 33:87–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wallace E, Diffley C, Baines E Aldridge J (n.d.) Ergonomic design considerations for public area CCTV safety and security applications. Home Office, Police Scientific Development Branch, UKGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Warm JS, Parasuraman R, Matthews G (2008) Vigilance requires hard mental work and is stressful. Hum Factors 50(3):433–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wells H, Allard T, Wilson P (2006) Crime and CCTV in Australia: understanding the relationship. Centre of Applied psychology and Criminology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Bond University, Gold CoastGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yantis S (1996) Attentional capture in vision. In: Kramer AF, Coles GH, Logan GD (eds) Converging operations in the study of visual selective attention. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp 45–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of the WitwatersrandJohannesburgSouth Africa
  2. 2.Leaderware, South Africa and Edith Cowan UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations