Automated instruction for vigilance training

Compared the performance of 34 male undergraduates trained in a visual monitoring task with an autoinstructional device with that of Ss trained by practice alone. The experimental group had 3 50-min training sessions on a device which included the standard monitoring task, but allowed S to select hi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of applied psychology 1969-06, Vol.53 (3p1), p.218-223
Main Authors: Attwood, Dennis A, Wiener, Earl L
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Attention
Computers
Education
Human
Humans
Male
Practice
Programmed Instruction as Topic
Space life sciences
Vigilance
Visual Perception
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Compared the performance of 34 male undergraduates trained in a visual monitoring task with an autoinstructional device with that of Ss trained by practice alone. The experimental group had 3 50-min training sessions on a device which included the standard monitoring task, but allowed S to select his signal schedule and call for immediate knowledge of results, or signal cueing (prompting), or both, and to test himself with no training aids available. Subsequent testing on the standard task revealed that Ss trained with autoinstruction showed a much higher detection rate (p < .01) than control Ss with no increase in commissive errors. Reasons for the success of autoinstruction in vigilance training are discussed. (15 ref.)
ISSN:0021-9010
1939-1854
DOI:10.1037/h0027241