performance operating characteristics for spatial and temporal discriminations: common or separate...
TRANSCRIPT
Performance Operating Characteristics for Spatial and Temporal Discriminations:
Common or Separate Capacities?
J. E. Thropp, J. L. Szalma, and P. A. Hancock
University of Central Florida
Contact J. E. Thropp: [email protected]
Tasks as Stressors
• Performance tasks are the proximal sources of stress (Hancock & Warm, 1989)
• Two task dimensions: – Information structure– Information rate
Maximal
Minimal
Hypostress
PS
YC
HO
LOG
ICA
L A
DA
PT
AB
ILIT
Y
NO
RM
AT
IVE
ZO
NE
Dynamic Instability
Hyperstress
(AT
TE
NT
ION
AL
RE
SO
UR
CE
CA
PA
CIT
Y)
Physiological Zone of Maximal Adaptability
Psychological Zone of Maximal Adaptability
Maximal
Minimal
Dynamic Instability
PH
YS
IOL
OG
ICA
L A
DA
PT
AB
ILIT
Y
COMFORT ZONE
STRESS LEVEL
Tasks as Stressors
Spatial and Temporal Processing:Spatial and Temporal Processing:
Common Resource Capacity? Common Resource Capacity?
Attentional narrowing may occur as a result of decreasing resources
Testing Resource Sharing
• Constructing Performance Operating Characteristics (POCs: Navon & Gopher, 1979)
• Dual-task methodology
Performance Operating Characteristics (POCs)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Spatial Task
Tem
pora
l Tas
k
Perfect Tradeoff
Perfect Timesharing
90% Temporal 10% Spatial
100% Temporal 0% Spatial
50% Temporal 50% Spatial
90% Spatial 10% Temporal
100% Spatial 0% Temporal
Experimental Participants
• Six participants (3 males, 3 females)
• Age range 18-24; mean age = 20
• Each participant completed 480 trials for each of 10 conditions
ATTENTIONAL ALLOCATION
0%
TemporalSpatial
100%
90%
50% 50%
10% 90%
0%
10%
0%
100%
10%
50%
90%
100%
10%
50%
90%
100%0%
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Baseline
Dual-Task
Dual-Task
Critical
Critical360 ms
Spatial
35 mm32 mmNeutral Critical
450 ms300 msNeutral
Temporal
33.5 mm32 mmNeutral Critical Neutral
300 ms
Spatial Temporal
STIMULI
Dif.
Easy
Day 1
Practice (two-alternative forced choice)
Spatial Baseline (Easy)
Temporal Baseline (Easy)
Spatial Baseline (Difficult)
Temporal Baseline (Difficult)
Days 2, 3, and 4
90% Spatial – 10% Temporal (Easy)
90% Spatial – 10% Temporal (Difficult)
50% Spatial – 50% Temporal (Easy)
90% Spatial – 10% Temporal (Difficult)
10% Spatial – 90% Temporal (Easy)
10% Spatial – 90% Temporal (Difficult)
Dual-Task Spatial-Temporal Task
Demonstration
READY
What was the time of the line you just saw?
1 – Definitely short2 – Possibly short3 – Possibly long4 – Definitely long
What was the height of the line you just saw?
1 – Definitely short2 – Possibly short3 – Possibly long4 – Definitely long
Results
• Sensitivity scores computed for each participant from POC curves
• Derived from ratings data
• Maximum likelihood procedures (MacMillan & Creelman, 1991)
Average Perceptual Sensitivity
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
easy
hard
50 50
90 temp
90 spat
100 temp
100 spat
50 50
90 spat
90 temp100 temp
100 spatTe
mp
ora
l dis
crim
ina
tion
(d’
)
Spatial discrimination (d’)
Average Perceptual Sensitivity
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
easy
hard
50 50
90 temp
90 spat
100 temp
100 spat
50 50
90 spat
90 temp100 temp
100 spatTe
mp
ora
l dis
crim
ina
tion
(d’
)
Spatial discrimination (d’)
Performance Operating Characteristics
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
easy
hard
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
easy
hard
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
easy
hard
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
easyhard
Participant 1 - FEMALE
Participant 6 - MALEParticipant 5 - FEMALE
Participant 4 - FEMALE
Spatial discrimination (d’)
Tem
pora
l dis
crim
inat
ion
(d’)
Tem
pora
l dis
crim
inat
ion
(d’)
Tem
pora
l dis
crim
inat
ion
(d’)
Tem
pora
l dis
crim
inat
ion
(d’)
Spatial discrimination (d’)
Spatial discrimination (d’)
Spatial discrimination (d’)
Attentional Allocation Failures?
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
easy
hard
Participant 3 - MALE
Tem
pora
l dis
crim
inat
ion
(d’)
Spatial discrimination (d’)
50-50E90sE
90tE
100sH
100tH
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
easy
hard
Participant 2 - MALE
Tem
pora
l dis
crim
inat
ion
(d’)
Spatial discrimination (d’)
90sE100sE
90tD
100sD90sE
90sD
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
easy
hard
Averages Across Females
Tem
pora
l dis
crim
inat
ion
(d’)
Spatial discrimination (d’)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
easy
hard
Averages Across Males
Tem
pora
l dis
crim
inat
ion
(d’)
Spatial discrimination (d’)
Average POCs by Gender
Task-specific individual differences
• Likely that task-specific individual differences determine differences among participants
- Spatial vs. temporal- Easy vs. difficult- Time-sharing
• Limited evidence for general time-sharing ability (Wickens, Mountford, & Scheriner, 1981)
Relevant ID Variables
• Time sharing ability
• Ability to consciously control one’s allocation of attention (c.f., Derryberry & Reed, 2001)
• Ability to do spatial discrimination
• Ability to do temporal discrimination
• Extraversion
Tasks as Stressors
Future research
• Identify individual differences relevant to spatial and visual information
• Results indicate need for individual differences approach to POC studies to understand effects of manipulation of attention allocation and task difficulty
• Stress effects
ReferencesBraida, L. D. & Durlach, N. I. (1972). Intensity Perception II. Resolution in one-interval paradigms.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 51, 483-502.Derryberry, D., & Reed, M.A. (2001). A multidisciplinary perspective on attentional control. In C.L. Folk
and B.S. Gibson (Eds.), Attraction, distraction, and action. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect of motion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior.
Psychological Review, 66, 183-201.Green, D. & Swets, J. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.Grondin, S. & Macar, F. (1992). Dividing attention between temporal and nontemporal tasks: A
performance operating characteristic POC analysis. In F. Macar, V. Pouthas, and W. Friedman (Eds.) Time, Action, and Cognition: Towards bridging the gap. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Hancock. P. A. & Warm, J. S. (1989). A dynamic model of stress and sustained attention. Human Factors, 31(5), 519-537.
Hancock, P. A. & Weaver, J. L. (in press). On distortion under time stress. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science.
MacMillan, N.A., & Creelman, C.D. (1991). Detection Theory: A User's Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Navon, D. & Gopher, D. (1979). On the economy of the human-processing system. Psychological Review, 86, 214-255.
Wickens, C. D., Mountford, S. J., & Schreiner, W. (1981). Multiple resources, task-hemispheric integrity, and individual differences in time-sharing. Human Factors, 23(2), 211-229.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThis work was supported in part by the Department of Defense Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (MURI) program administered by the Army Research Office under Grant DAAD19-01-1-0621. P.A. Hancock, Principal Investigator. The views expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect official Army policy. The authors wish to thank Dr. Sherry Tove, Dr. Elmar Schmeisser, and Dr. Mike Drillings for providing administrative and technical direction for the Grant.
Contact J. E. Thropp: [email protected]
100se 100te p=.1564 100sh 100th p=.5797
90se 10te p=.0000*** 90sh 10th p=.1114
50se 50te p=.5055 50sh 50th p=.7490
10se 90te p=.0000*** 10sh 90th p=.0005**
100se 90se p=.0109** 100sh 90sh p=.2297
90se 50se p=.0141** 90sh 50sh p=.9370
50se 10se p=.0000*** 50sh 10sh p=.0143**
10se 100te p=.0000*** 10sh 100th p=.0000***
100te 90te p=.1596 100th 90th p=.2498
90te 50te p=.4036 90th 50th p=.2638
50te 10te p=.0001** 50th 10th p=.1619
10te 100se p=.2223 10th 100sh p=.0012**
Participant 1Easy Hard
Participant 2Easy Hard
100se 100te p=.0000*** 100sh 100th p=.0000***
90se 10te p=.0557 90sh 10th p=.1377
50se 50te p=.0000*** 50sh 50th p=.0193*
10se 90te p=.0023** 10sh 90th p=.1637
100se 90se p=.5364 100sh 90sh p=.5892
90se 50se p=.1836 90sh 50sh p=.0925
50se 10se p=.7835 50sh 10sh p=.3385
10se 100te p=.0000*** 10sh 100th p=.0000***
100te 90te p=.3496 100th 90th p=.0872
90te 50te p=.0003** 90th 50th p=.7115
50te 10te p=.6682 50th 10th p=.7195
10te 100se p=.0195** 10th 100sh p=.0299**
Participant 3Easy Hard
100se 100te p=.2009 100sh 100th p=.0743
90se 10te p=.0311* 90sh 10th p=.1888
50se 50te p=.5873 50sh 50th p=.9923
10se 90te p=.5769 10sh 90th p=.8603
100se 90se p=.0000*** 100sh 90sh p=.3610
90se 50se p=.0839 90sh 50sh p=.2310
50se 10se p=.7133 50sh 10sh p=.6557
10se 100te p=.0001** 10sh 100th p=.7173
100te 90te p=.0021** 100th 90th p=.0021**
90te 50te p=.1860 90th 50th p=.3038
50te 10te p=.8273 50th 10th p=.9687
10te 100se p=.0000*** 10th 100sh p=.1006
Participant 4Easy Hard
100se 100te p=.0033** 100sh 100th p=.0114**
90se 10te p=.0000*** 90sh 10th p=.0171*
50se 50te p=.0303* 50sh 50th p=.1193
10se 90te p=.0000*** 10sh 90th p=.0000***
100se 90se p=.0000*** 100sh 90sh p=.4602
90se 50se p=.2017 90sh 50sh p=.0571
50se 10se p=.0000*** 50sh 10sh p=.0000***
10se 100te p=.0000*** 10sh 100th p=
100te 90te p=.1023 100th 90th p=.0001**
90te 50te p=.9875 90th 50th p=.3936
50te 10te p=.0000*** 50th 10th p=.0741
10te 100se p= 10th 100sh p=
Participant 5Easy Hard
100se 100te p=.0000*** 100sh 100th p=.7564
90se 10te p=.0000*** 90sh 10th p=.0005**
50se 50te p=.0000*** 50sh 50th p=.2017
10se 90te p=.0767 10sh 90th p=.0591
100se 90se p=.0681 100sh 90sh p=.7210
90se 50se p=.2047 90sh 50sh p=.1971
50se 10se p=.0050** 50sh 10sh p=.1830
10se 100te 10sh 100th p=
100te 90te p=.0000*** 100th 90th p=.2127
90te 50te p=.0004** 90th 50th p=.1422
50te 10te p=.0001** 50th 10th p=.0001**
10te 100se p= 10th 100sh p=
Participant 6Easy Hard
100se 100te p=.0072** 100sh 100th p=.8869
90se 10te p=.0000*** 90sh 10th p=.0320*
50se 50te p=.0000*** 50sh 50th p=.7369
10se 90te p=.0071** 10sh 90th p=.2990
100se 90se p=.0326* 100sh 90sh p=.9388
90se 50se p=.2024 90sh 50sh p=.2442
50se 10se p=.0259* 50sh 10sh p=.9818
10se 100te 10sh 100th p=
100te 90te p=.5677 100th 90th p=.1299
90te 50te p=.2784 90th 50th p=.1440
50te 10te p=.7658 50th 10th p=.8193
10te 100se p= 10th 100sh p=
Performance Operating Characteristics
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
easy
hard
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
easy
hard
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
easy
hard
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
easyhard
Participant 1
Participant 6Participant 5
Participant 4
Spatial d’
Spatial d’ Spatial d’
Spatial d’
Tem
pora
l d’
Tem
pora
l d’
Tem
pora
l d’
Tem
pora
l d’
Attentional Allocation Failures?
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
easy
hard
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
easy
hard
Participant 2 Participant 3
Tem
pora
l d’
Tem
pora
l d’
Spatial d’ Spatial d’
AcknowledgementThis work was supported in part by the Department of This work was supported in part by the Department of Defense Multidisciplinary University Research Defense Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (MURI) program, P. A. Hancock, Initiative (MURI) program, P. A. Hancock, Principal Principal InvestigatorInvestigator, administered by the Army Research , administered by the Army Research Office under grant DAAD19-01-1-0621. The views Office under grant DAAD19-01-1-0621. The views expressed in this work are those of the authors and do expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect official Army policy. The not necessarily reflect official Army policy. The authors wish to thank Dr. Sherry Tove, Dr. Elmar authors wish to thank Dr. Sherry Tove, Dr. Elmar Schmeisser, and Dr. Mike Drillings for providing Schmeisser, and Dr. Mike Drillings for providing administrative and technical direction for the grant.administrative and technical direction for the grant.
Experimental Participants
• Six participants (3 males, 3 females)
• Age range 18-24; mean age = 20
• 480 trials for each of 10 conditions) to achieve stable SDT estimates (Green & Swets, 1966)
Discussion
• POC curve averaged across participants indicates partial tradeoff
• Spatial task more vulnerable to attention allocation manipulation
• Sacrificing attention to spatial task does not improve temporal task above 50-50 condition
• Shape of easy condition POC curve indicates– spatial task may draw on resources shared with
temporal task– temporal task draws on separate resource pool
Performance Operating Characteristics
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
easy
hard
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
easy
hard
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
easy
hard
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
easyhard
Participant 1
Participant 6Participant 5
Participant 4
Spatial d’
Spatial d’ Spatial d’
Spatial d’
Tem
pora
l d’
Tem
pora
l d’
Tem
pora
l d’
Tem
pora
l d’
Possible evidence for resource- sharing
• Spatial and temporal processing may share resources
• Spatial-temporal tradeoff in averaged POC
• Tradeoff observed only in participants 1 and 4
• Resource-sharing may be an individual difference and task-dependent
Hancock and Warm (1989)
• Rate and structure may be oblique
• Angles may vary among individuals
• Individual differences could be another dimension