Evaluation of audio and visual alerts during a divided attention task in noise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Halifax class frigate operations room is a demanding environment in which operators are required to monitor multiple visual displays and auditory communication channels.The current alerting system is ineffective, as the visual alerts tend to be ignored or dismissed without being read, and the auditory alerts are turned off completely.Visual alerting strategies have already been investigated.The current study compared the response times (RT) to visual, auditory and combined (audiovisual) alerts as subjects performed a visual divided attention task using three displays (secondary task).Another objective was to investigate the effects of alert type on the performance of the secondary task.The experiment was performed in quiet and in recorded frigate control room noise (69 dBA).There were no significant differences in RT between the visual and audiovisual alerts in quiet or noise.The RT for the auditory alert was significantly higher than the audiovisual alert in quiet, and than both the visual and audiovisual alerts in noise.There was no main effect of alert type on the performance of the secondary task.The audiovisual alert could be beneficial for detection in the operations room because 1) the RT was not significantly different from the visual alert, indicating that the auditory component was not distracting, and 2) it is more likely to be detected over the visual alert when the operators are looking away from the displays.Future studies should investigate the psychoacoustic properties of the auditory component of the alert for perceived urgency, in the interest of prioritizing the alerts. RÉSUMÉLa salle des opérations d 'une frégate de classe Halifax est un environnement exigeant dans lequel les opérateurs doivent surveiller de nombreux affichages visuels et canaux de communication sonore.Le système d 'alerte actuel n 'est pas efficace, car les alertes visuelles sont souvent ignorées ou rejetées sans être lues, et les alertes sonores sont coupées complètement.Les stratégies d 'alerte visuelle ont déjà été étudiées.La présente étude visait à comparer le temps de réaction (TR) aux alertes visuelles, sonores et combinées (audiovisuelles) de sujets qui effectuaient une tâche visuelle en situation d 'attention partagée au moyen de trois afficheurs (tâche secondaire).Un autre objectif consistait à étudier les effets du type d 'alerte sur le rendement pour la tâche secondaire.L 'expérience a été réalisée dans un milieu silencieux et un milieu bruyant où jouait le bruit enregistré d 'une salle de contrôle de frégate (69 dBA).On n 'a remarqué aucune différence significative dans le TR entre les alertes visuelles et audiovisuelles dans un milieu silencieux ou bruyant.Le TR pour l 'alerte sonore était beaucoup plus élevé que celui pour l'alerte audiovisuelle dans un milieu silencieux et ceux pour les alertes visuelles et audiovisuelles dans un milieu bruyant.Le type d 'alerte n 'a eu aucun effet principal sur le rendement de la tâche secondaire.L 'alerte audiovisuelle aiderait à la détection dans la salle des opérations pour les raisons suivantes : 1) le TR était peu différent de celui pour l 'alerte visuelle, ce qui indique que les éléments sonores ne détournaient pas l 'attention; 2) l'alerte audiovisuelle a plus de chances d 'être détectée que l 'alerte visuelle lorsque les opérateurs ne regardent pas les afficheurs.De nouvelles études devraient porter sur les propriétés psychoacoustiques de l 'élément sonore de l'alerte pour les urgences perçues, de façon à établir l'ordre de priorité des alertes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".