Effects of Vibrotactile Stimulation for Sustaining Performance in a Vigilance Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supervisory control of uninhabited aerial vehicles requires vigilance, also termed sustained attention. This pilot study investigated the efficacy of short duration vibrotactile signals presented on the waist at intermittent periods as a countermeasure for sustaining performance in auditory and visual vigilance tasks that were equated in discrimination difficulty. Performance with the vibrotactile stimulation countermeasure was compared against performance with a rest break countermeasure. Participants were randomly assigned to one of eight groups. The groups were defined by combinations of sensory modality (auditory or visual), and type of countermeasure (control, rest break, low vibrotactile signals, or high vibrotactile signals). For each sensory modality, participants performed a monitoring task that was comprised four 10-minute vigils. The administration of the rest break and vibrotactile countermeasures occurred following the third vigil for each sensory modality. The results of the pilot study showed greater performance improvement in the auditory modality than the visual modality. In the auditory modality, the two vibrotactile countermeasures appear to have some benefit for sustaining performance but not as much as the rest break, whereas, in the visual modality, the three countermeasures had no benefit for sustaining performance. These preliminary findings encourage further investigation of the efficacy of vibrotactile stimulation as a countermeasure for sustaining performance in a vigilance task for both auditory and visual modalities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".