Koelega H S, Brinkman J A, Zwep B, Verbaten M N
Psychological Laboratory, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Percept Mot Skills. 1990 Jun;70(3 Pt 1):823-31. doi: 10.2466/pms.1990.70.3.823.
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.
本报告描述了对泰希纳在1974年所做预测的一项测试，该预测为：在视觉警觉任务中，动态刺激比静态刺激会导致更大程度的表现下降。对于正确检测和敏感度，仅存在一个在预测方向上不显著的趋势，但对于反应潜伏期（RT），该预测得到了支持。显示器内的位置不确定性并未影响警觉表现。泰希纳关于视觉需求是动态刺激产生损害效应原因的假设受到质疑。中枢能力的耗尽而非视觉效应可能解释了表现的恶化。正如在视觉疲劳研究中一样，中枢和特定模态损害效应的作用难以区分。
