Cognition, Technology & Work

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 153–161 | Cite as

Improving performance of repetitive computer-based tasks through visual stimuli tailored to the individual

  • Hyun-Gyu Lee
  • Sang-Chul Lee
Original Article


When humans conduct simple and repetitive tasks, their task performance can decrease depending on time. At this time, by deciding stimulus timing and delivering stimuli to humans, speed and accuracy of the task can be improved. To clearly investigate the effectiveness of such stimuli, we designed this study as repetitive tasks on a PC that could be conducted simply and were not much affected by other environmental variables. For our experiment, a total of 20 participants were asked to perform mouse pointing and keyboard typing tasks; usual speed and accuracy of each participant on each task were determined after completing the task. Next, the participant’s level of concentration was assessed using several metrics. When concentration was deemed to have declined during the task, a stimulus was delivered to the participant in the form of a screen flash, which resulted in an increased focus on the task. Through the proposed approach, speed was boosted by 11.6% on a pointing task and 3.8% on a typing task. Moreover, these results were found to be statistically significant in analysis of variance and paired t test. Our experiments and studies focus on improvements in reaction time caused by effect of stimulus and our presented approach.


Stimulus effectiveness Visual stimulus Stimulus timing Performance improvement Performance monitoring 



This work was supported by INHA UNIVERSITY Research Grant.


  1. Alder GS (2007) Examining the relationship between feedback and performance in a monitored environment: a clarification and extension of feedback intervention theory. J High Technol Manag Res 17(2):157–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alder GS, Tompkins PK (1997) Electronic performance monitoring an organizational justice and concertive control perspective. Manag Commun Q 10(3):259–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ambrose ML, Alder GS (2000) Designing, implementing, and utilizing computerized performance monitoring: enhancing organizational justice. Res Pers Hum Resour Manag 18:187–220Google Scholar
  4. American Management Association (1998) Workplace testing and monitoring. American Management Association, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Ana Justel DP, Zamar R (1997) A multivariate Kolmogorov–Smirnov test of goodness of fit. Stat Probab Lett 35(3):251–259MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Bajaj JS, Heuman DM, Sterling RK, Sanyal AJ, Siddiqui M, Matherly S, Luketic V, Stravitz RT, Fuchs M, Thacker LR, Gilles H, White MB, Unser A, Hovermale J, Gavis E, Noble NA, Wade JB (2015) Validation of encephalapp, smartphone-based Stroop test, for the diagnosis of covert hepatic encephalopathy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Off Clin Pract J Am Gastroenterol Assoc 13(10):1828–1835Google Scholar
  7. Bolia RS, D’Angelo WR, McKinley RL (1999) Aurally aided visual search in three-dimensional space. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 41(4):664–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brewer N (1995) The effects of monitoring individual and group performance on the distribution of effort across tasks. J Appl Soc Psychol 25(9):760–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Broadbent D (1971) Decisión and stress. Academic Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Davies DR, Parasuraman R (1982) The psychology of vigilance. Academic Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Diederich A, Colonius H (2004) Bimodal and trimodal multisensory enhancement: effects of stimulus onset and intensity on reaction time. Percept Psychophys 66(8):1388–1404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Donald FM, Donald CHM (2015) Task disengagement and implications for vigilance performance in CCTV surveillance. Cognit Technol Work 17(1):121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ergen M, Saban S, Kirmizi-Alsan E, Uslu A, Keskin-Ergen Y, Demiralp T (2014) Time frequency analysis of the event-related potentials associated with the Stroop test. Int J Psychophysiol 94(3):463–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Givens B (1996) Privacy: entitlement or illusion? Pers J 75(7):18–18Google Scholar
  15. Grant R, Higgins C (1989) Monitoring service workers via computer: the effect on employees, productivity, and service. Natl Product Rev 8(2):101–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greenlaw PS, Prundeanu C (1997) The impact of federal legislation to limit electronic monitoring. Public Pers Manag 26(2):227–244Google Scholar
  17. Hancock P, Hart S (2002) What can human factors/ergonomics offer? Ergon Des 10(1):6–16Google Scholar
  18. Haynes W (2013) Tukey’s test. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Helton WS, Russell PN (2011a) The effects of arousing negative and neutral picture stimuli on target detection in a vigilance task. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 53(2):132–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Helton WS, Russell PN (2011b) Working memory load and the vigilance decrement. Exp Brain Res 212(3):429–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hershenson M (1962) Reaction time as a measure of intersensory facilitation. J Exp Psychol 63(3):289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hogg RVL (1987) Engineering statistics. MacMillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  23. Itoh M, Abe G, Yamamura T (2014) Effects of arousing attention on distracted driver’s following behaviour under uncertainty. Cognit Technol Work 16(2):271–280. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kidwell RE, Bennett N (1994) Electronic surveillance as employee control: a procedural justice interpretation. J High Technol Manag Res 5(1):39–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Komaki JL (1986) Toward effective supervision: an operant analysis and comparison of managers at work. J Appl Psychol 71(2):270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kovach KA, Conner SJ, Livneh T, Scallan KM, Schwartz RL (2000) Electronic communication in the workplace—something’s got to give. Bus Horiz 43(4):59–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lewis C (1999) American workers beware: big brother is watching. USA TODAY-NEW YORK- 127:20–23Google Scholar
  28. Manly T, Robertson IH, Galloway M, Hawkins K (1999) The absent mind: further investigations of sustained attention to response. Neuropsychologia 37(6):661–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miller HC, Kubicki S, Caffier D, Kolski C, Naveteur J (2016) The stroop and reverse Stroop effects as measured by an interactive tabletop. Int J Hum Comput Interact 32(5):363–372. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nelson WT, Hettinger LJ, Cunningham JA, Brickman BJ, Haas MW, McKinley RL (1998) Effects of localized auditory information on visual target detection performance using a helmet-mounted display. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 40(3):452–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ossowski U, Malinen S, Helton WS (2011) The effects of emotional stimuli on target detection: indirect and direct resource costs. Conscious Cognit 20(4):1649–1658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reiner AJ, Hollands JG, Jamieson GA (2017) Target detection and identification performance using an automatic target detection system. Hum Factors 59(2):242–258. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Robertson IH, Manly T, Andrade J, Baddeley BT, Yiend J (1997) Oops!’: performance correlates of everyday attentional failures in traumatic brain injured and normal subjects. Neuropsychologia 35(6):747–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stanton JM (2000) Traditional and electronic monitoring from an organizational justice perspective. J Bus Psychol 15(1):129–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stanton NA, Harrison DJ, Taylor-Burge KL, Porter LJ (2000) Sorting the wheat from the chaff: a study of the detection of alarms. Cognit Technol Work 2(3):134–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stefanie XK, Tsang SN, Chan AH, Liu S (2017) Hand- and foot-controlled dual-tracking task performance together with a discrete spatial stimulus-response compatibility task. Int J Hum Comput Interact 33(1):21–34. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stevenson RA, Fister JK, Barnett ZP, Nidiffer AR, Wallace MT (2012) Interactions between the spatial and temporal stimulus factors that influence multisensory integration in human performance. Exp Brain Res 219(1):121–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stroop JR (1935) Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. J Exp Psychol 18(6):643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thomson DR, Besner D, Smilek D (2015) A resource-control account of sustained attention. Perspect Psychol Sci 10(1):82–96. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Warm J (1984) Sustained attention in human performance. Human performance and cognition series. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Warm JS, Parasuraman R, Matthews G (2008) Vigilance requires hard mental work and is stressful. Hum Factors J Hum Factors Ergon Soc 50(3):433–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wickens CD, Hollands JG (1999) Engineering psychology and human performance, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  43. Wilkinson LK, Meredith MA, Stein BE (1996) The role of anterior ectosylvian cortex in cross-modality orientation and approach behavior. Exp Brain Res 112(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringInha UniversityIncheonSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations