Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Disrupting monotony while increasing demand: benefits of rest and intervening tasks on vigilance

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the experiments presented here, we examined the impact of intervening tasks on the vigilance decrement. In Experiment 1 participants either (a) continuously performed a visuospatial vigilance task, (b) received a rest break, or (c) temporarily performed a different, demanding visuospatial task in the middle of the vigil. Both taking a rest break and performing the intervening task were found to alleviate the vigilance decrement in response times. Target detection accuracy was equivalent across groups. In Experiment 2 we obtained subjective ratings of task demand, boredom, motivation, and mind wandering for both the vigilance task and intervening task administered in Experiment 1. The intervening task was rated as more demanding in terms of mental demand, physical demand, temporal demand, own performance, effort, and frustration. In addition, participants also reported being more bored, less motivated, and reported mind wandering more frequently when completing the vigil. Disruptions to task monotony (even if cognitively demanding), can alleviate the vigilance decrement. The implications of this finding with respect to current theoretical accounts of the vigilance decrement are discussed.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We found no evidence of a performance trade-off between the change in correct RTs and the change in hit rates from pre-intervention (Block 2) to post-intervention (Block 3) for the Continuous Vigil condition, r(52) = −.10, p = .49, or the Car Task condition, r(52) = .17, p = .23. However, we did observe a marginal RT-hit rate trade-off for the Rest condition from pre-intervention to post-intervention, r(50) = .27, p = .05.

  2. Data collection stopping rule: In Experiment 2 we aimed to collect similar sample sizes as those in Experiment 1 for each counterbalance. As such, our goal was approximately 50 participants per counterbalance. We stopped data collection slightly short of this goal due to a paucity of available participants for testing.

  3. In our instantiation of the NASA-TLX, the scales ranged from 0 to 20, rather than from 1 to 21.

  4. We would like to thank a reviewer of this manuscript for suggesting this mechanism by which temporarily performing a demanding task could confer performance benefits onto the primary vigil.

References

  • Ariga, A., & Lleras, A. (2011). Brief and rare mental “breaks” keep you focused: Deactivation and reactivation of task goals preempt vigilance decrements. Cognition, 118, 439–443. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.12.007.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working Memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 47–90). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergum, B. O., & Lehr, D. J. (1962). Vigilance performance as a function of interpolated rest. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46, 425–427. doi:10.1037/h0043505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bevan, W., Avant, L. L., & Lankford, H. G. (1967). Influence of interpolated periods of activity and inactivity upon the vigilance decrement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 352–356. doi:10.1037/h0024773.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Caggiano, D. M., & Parasuraman, R. (2004). The role of memory representation in the vigilance decrement. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 932–937. doi:10.3758/BF03196724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldeira, J. D. (1980). Parametric assumptions of some “nonparametric” measures of sensory efficiency. Human Factors: The Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 22, 119–120. doi:10.1177/001872088002200113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, A. (1978). Is the vigilance decrement simply a response adjustment towards probability matching? Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 20, 441–446. doi:10.1177/001872087802000408.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dember, W. N., Galinsky, T. L., & Warm, J. S. (1992). The role of choice in vigilance performance. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 30, 201–204. doi:10.3758/BF03330441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grier, R. A., Warm, J. S., Dember, W. N., Matthews, G., Galinsky, T. L., & Parasuraman, R. (2003). The vigilance decrement reflects limitations in effortful attention, not mindlessness. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 45, 349–359. doi:10.1518/hfes.45.3.349.27253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. G. (2006). NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (Vol. 50, pp. 904–908). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

  • Hart, S. G., & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Human Mental Workload, 1, 139–183. doi:10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helton, W. S., & Russell, P. N. (2013). Visuospatial and verbal working memory loads: Effects on visuospatial vigilance. Experimental Brain Research, 224, 429–436. doi:10.1007/s00221-012-3322-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Helton, W. S., & Russell, P. N. (2015). Rest is best: The role of rest and task interruptions on vigilance. Cognition, 134, 165–173. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Helton, W. S., & Warm, J. S. (2008). Signal salience and the mindlessness theory of vigilance. Acta Psychologica, 129, 18–25. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.04.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hitchcock, E. M., Warm, J. S., Matthews, G., Dember, W. N., Shear, P. K., tripp, L. D., Mayleben, D. W., & Parasuraman, R. (2003). Automation cueing modulates cerebral blood flow and vigilance in a simulated air traffic control task. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 4, 89–112. doi:10.1080/14639220210159726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Halls Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langner, R., Eickhoff, S. B., & Steinborn, M. B. (2011). Mental fatigue modulates dynamic adaptation to perceptual demand in speeded detection. PLoS One,. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0028399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langner, R., Steinborn, M. B., Chatterjee, A., Sturm, W., & Willmess, K. (2010). Mental fatigue and temporal preparation in simple reaction-time performance. Acta Psychologica, 133, 64–72. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.10.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mackworth, N. H. (1948). The breakdown of vigilance during prolonged visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1, 6–21. doi:10.1080/17470214808416738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manly, T., Robertson, I. H., Galloway, M., & Hawkins, K. (1999). The absent mind: Further investigations of sustained attention to response. Neuropsychologia, 37, 661–670. doi:10.1016/S0028-3932(98)00127-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCormack, P. D. (1958). Performance in a vigilance task as a function of inter-stimulus interval and interpolated rest. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 12, 242–246. doi:10.1037/h0083749.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parasuraman, R., & Davies, D. R. (1977). A taxonomic analysis of vigilance performance. In R. Mackie (Ed.), Vigilance (pp. 559–574). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Parasuraman, R., & Mouloua, M. (1987). Interaction of signal discriminability and task type in vigilance decrement. Perception and Psychophysics, 41, 17–22. doi:10.3758/BF03208208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parasuraman, R., Warm, J. S., & Dember, W. N. (1987). Vigilance: Taxonomy and utility. In L. S. Mark, J. S. Warm, & R. I. Huston (Eds.), Ergonomics and human factors (pp. 11–32). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pattyn, N., Neyt, X., Henderickx, D., & Soetens, E. (2008). Psychophysiological investigations of vigilance decrement: Boredom or cognitive fatigue? Physiology & Behavior, 93, 369–378. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.09.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pop, V. L., Stearman, E. J., Kazi, S., & Durso, F. T. (2012). Using engagement to negate vigilance decrements in the nextgen environment. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 28, 99–106. doi:10.1080/10447318.2012.634759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Risko, E. F., Anderson, N., Sarwal, A., Engelhardt, M., & Kingstone, A. (2012). Everyday attention: Variations in mind wandering and memory in a lecture. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 234–242. doi:10.1002/acp.1814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, I. H., Manly, T., Andrade, J., Baddeley, B. T., & Yiend, J. (1997). “Oops!”: Performance correlates of everyday attentional failures in traumatic brain injured and normal subjects. Neuropsychologia, 35, 747–758. doi:10.1016/S0028-3932(97)00015-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, H. W., Russell, P. N., & Helton, W. S. (2014). Effects of breaks and goal switches on the vigilance decrement. Experimental Brain Research, 232, 1729–1737. doi:10.1007/s00221-014-3865-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, A. (1983). Towards a model of stress and human performance. Acta Psychologica, 53(1), 61–97. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(83)90016-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, A. F. (1998). Elements of human performance: Reaction processes and attention in human skill. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, T. H., Satterfield, K., Ramirez, R., & Finomore, V. (2013). Using cerebral hemovelocity to measure workload during a spatialized auditory vigilance task in novice and experienced observers. Ergonomics, 56, 1251–1263. doi:10.1080/00140139.2013.809154.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2006). The Restless Mind. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 946–958. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.946.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smit, A. S., Eling, P. A. T. M., & Coenen, A. M. L. (2004). Mental effort causes vigilance decrease due to resource depletion. Acta Psychologica, 115, 35–42. doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2003.11.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Szalma, J. L., & Hancock, P. A. (2006). Performance, workload and stress in vigilance: The power of choice. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 50, 1609–1613. doi:10.1177/154193120605001620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Temple, J. G., Warm, J. S., Dember, W. N., Jones, K. S., LaGrange, C. M., & Matthews, G. (2000). The effects of signal salience and caffeine on performance, workload, and stress in an abbreviated vigilance task. Human Factors, 42, 183–194. doi:10.1518/001872000779656480.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, D. R., Besner, D., & Smilek, D. (2015a). A resource-control account of sustained attention: Evidence from mind-wandering and vigilance paradigms. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 82–96. doi:10.1177/1745691614556681.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, D. R., Smilek, D., & Besner, D. (2015b). Reducing the vigilance decrement: The effects of perceptual variability. Consciousness and Cognition, 33, 386–397. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2015.02.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, D. R., Besner, D., & Smilek, D. (2016). A critical examination of the evidence for sensitivity loss in modern vigilance tasks. Psychological Review, 123, 70–83. doi:10.1037/rev0000021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tiwari, T., Singh, A. L., & Singh, I. L. (2009). Task demand and workload: Effects on vigilance performance and stress. Journal of Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 35, 265–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. Human factors in transportation (pp. 183–200). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warm, J. S., Parasuraman, R., & Matthews, G. (2008). Vigilance requires hard mental work and is stressful. Human Factors, 50, 433–441. doi:10.1518/001872008X312152.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, C. D. (2002). Multiple resource and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 3, 159–177. doi:10.1080/14639220210123806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickens, C. D. (2008). Multiple resources and mental workload. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50, 449–455. doi:10.1518/001872008X288394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williges, R. C. (1973). Manipulating the response criterion in visual monitoring. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 15, 179–185. doi:10.1177/001872087301500209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) discovery grant to Daniel Smilek, and an NSERC Postgraduate Doctoral Scholarship to Brandon Ralph. We would also like to thank Jenny Wan, Kirstie Thompson and Emily Seitl for their assistance with data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave. West, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada

    Brandon C. W. Ralph, Kris Onderwater, David R. Thomson & Daniel Smilek

Authors
  1. Brandon C. W. Ralph
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kris Onderwater
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David R. Thomson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daniel Smilek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brandon C. W. Ralph.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ralph, B.C.W., Onderwater, K., Thomson, D.R. et al. Disrupting monotony while increasing demand: benefits of rest and intervening tasks on vigilance. Psychological Research 81, 432–444 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0752-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0752-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation