Dynamic vs static stimuli in their effect on visual vigilance performance.
This report describes a test of the prediction, made by Teichner in 1974, that on visual vigilance tasks dynamic stimuli result in greater performance decrements than do static stimuli. For correct detections and sensitivity there was only a nonsignificant trend in the predicted direction, but for response latency (RT) the prediction was supported. Positional uncertainty within displays did not affect vigilance performance. Teichner's assumption that ocular demand is responsible for the impairing effect of dynamic stimuli is questioned. Depletion of central capacity rather than an ocular effect may explain deteriorating performance. Just as in studies of visual fatigue, the contributions of central and modality-specific impairing effects are difficult to separate.
Koelega
H S
HS
Psychological Laboratory, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Brinkman
J A
JA
Zwep
B
B
Verbaten
M N
MN
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D001288:Attention; D004193:Discrimination Learning; D005556:Form Perception; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D009039:Motion Perception; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual; D011930:Reaction Time