An evaluation of an adaptive automation system using a cognitive vigilance task

The performance of an adaptive automation system was evaluated using a cognitive vigilance task. Participants responded to the presence of a green "K" in an array of two, five, or nine distractor stimuli during a 40-min vigil. The array with the target stimulus was presented once each minute. Participants EEG was recorded and an engagement index (EI = 20 x beta/(alpha + theta)) was derived. In the negative feedback condition, increases in the EI caused the number of stimuli in the array to decrease while decreases in the EI caused the number of stimuli to increase. For the positive feedback condition, increases in the index caused an increase in the array size (AS) while decreases caused a decrease in the array size. Each experimental participant had a yoked control partner who received the same pattern of changes in array irrespective of their engagement index. A vigilance decrement was seen only for the positive feedback, experimental group.

[1]  R. Parasuraman.  Memory load and event rate control sensitivity decrements in sustained attention. , 1979, Science.

[2]  R. Parasuraman,et al.  Sensory and Cognitive Vigilance: Effects of Age on Performance and Subjective Workload , 1993 .

[3]  F. Freeman,et al.  Evaluation of a Psychophysiologically Controlled Adaptive Automation System, Using Performance on a Tracking Task , 2000, Applied psychophysiology and biofeedback.

[4]  F. Freeman,et al.  Evaluation of an adaptive automation system using three EEG indices with a visual tracking task , 1999, Biological Psychology.

[5]  Mark W. Scerbo,et al.  A brain-based system for adaptive automation , 2003 .

[6]  Judi E. See,et al.  Meta-analysis of the sensitivity decrement in vigilance. , 1995 .

[7]  A. Treisman.  Features and Objects: The Fourteenth Bartlett Memorial Lecture , 1988, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[8]  M. Verbaten,et al.  Processing Demands, Effort, and Individual Differences in Four Different Vigilance Tasks , 1989, Human factors.

[9]  D. de Waard,et al.  The use of psychophysiology to assess driver status. , 1993, Ergonomics.

[10]  R. R. Mackie,et al.  Vigilance: Theory, Operational Performance, and Physiological Correlates , 1978 .

[11]  A. Pope,et al.  Biocybernetic system evaluates indices of operator engagement in automated task , 1995, Biological Psychology.

[12]  M. Gazzaniga,et al.  Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology of the Mind , 1998 .

[13]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  J. Warm,et al.  Effects of shifts in the rate of repetitive stimulation on sustained attention , 1975 .

[15]  R. Parasuraman,et al.  A Taxonomic Analysis of Vigilance Performance , 1977 .

[16]  Mark W. Scerbo,et al.  Effects of a Biocybernetic System on Vigilance Performance , 2002, Hum. Factors.

[17]  H. Jasper.  Report of the committee on methods of clinical examination in electroencephalography , 1958 .