Abstract
Abstract Many of the published results of laboratory studios of vigilance do not indicate what occurs in practical watchkeeping tasks. Thus, for example, the ‘ fatigue ’ effects which Mack worth studied intensively, are seldom found in the more important military watchkeeping tasks. Again the relationship between rate of stimulation and probability of response appears to be more nebulous in protracted practical tasks than it is in a closely controlled laboratory study such as Dcese's. Furthermore we find that performance in practical tasks is generally very poor compared with what seems to be theoretically possible. This effect can be seen also in some of the well known laboratory results, but there has been little discussion devoted to it. This paper reformulates current ideas of perceptual organization in watchkeeping, and attempts to explain why there are discrepancies of the kind just mentioned. Particular emphasis is placed upon the typo of investigation which needs to be pursued in order to resolve present difficulties.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
