Advertisement

Abstract

On the Dangers of Over-Arousal. The existing literature on working efficiency under various conditions confirms that men may be impaired by sensory impoverishment. Some experiences show, however, that added stimulation is beneficial only up to a certain point, and indeed may become harmful. Researches on the application of different stresses simultaneously indicate that they combine or cancel out, and thus seem to be affecting a single common factor of arousal: a new experiment shows that the rate at which signals arrive in a task alters the effects of loud noise.

The mechanism by which over-arousal produces impairment is uncertain, although a theory of facilitation of error responses is popular and partially supported. A new experiment on detrimental effects of noise shows some results consistent with this theory, but some that are hard to explain.

Keywords

Sleep Deprivation Signal Rate Vigilance Task Loud Noise Apply Psychology Unit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Résumé

Les dangers d’un excès de vigilance. Les travaux parus jusqu’ici sur l’efficacité de travail dans les conditions variées confirment que l’homme peut être amoindri par un appauvrissement sensoriel. Quelques expériences montrent cependant qu’une stimulation additionnelle n’est bénéfique que jusqu’à un certain point et peut, en fait, devenir nuisible. Des recherches sur l’application simultanée de stresses différents montrent qu’ils s’associent ou s’annihilent et semblent ainsi affecter un facteur commun de vigilance: line experience nouvelle montre que le rythme auquel des signaux arrivent an cours d’un travail modifie les effets d’un bruit intense.

Le mécanisme par lequel un excès de vigilance cause une déficience est incertain quoiqu’une théorie selon laquelle il facilite les réactions erronnées soit populaire et partiellement várifiée. line experience nouvelle sur les effets préjudiciables du bruit apporte quelques résultats en accord avee cette théorie mais aussi certains autres qui sont difficiles à expliquer.

Аннотации

Об опасности чрезмерного возбуждения. Существующая литература по вопросу работоспособности в различных условиях подтверждает, что человек подвержен расстройствам органов чувств. Однако, некоторые опыты свидетельствуют о том, что добавочное возбуждение благотворно только до некоторого определенного момента, а далее может оказаться даже вредным. Результаты исследований одновременного воздействия различных нагрузок показывают, что они либо сочетаются, либо взаимно погашаются и таким образом, по-видимому, воздействуют на один общий фактор возбуждения: новый эксперимент показал, что темп поступления сигналов изменяет результат воздействия сильного шума.

Механизм возникновения расстройства в результате чрезмерного возбуждения неясен, хотя теория облегчения ошибочных реакций широко распространена и частично подтверждается. Некоторые результаты нового эксперимента по изучению вредного воздействия шума совместимы с этой теорией, однако, другие трудно поддаются объяснению.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, J. A., and L. R. Boulter: Monitoring of Complex Visual Displays: I. Effects of Response Complexity and Intersignal Interval when Visual Load Is Moderate. U.S.A.F. C.C.D. Tech. Note No. 60-63 (1960).Google Scholar
  2. Berkun, M. M.: Performance Decrement under Psychological Stress. Human Factors 6, 21–30 (1964).Google Scholar
  3. Berlyne, D.E.: Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1960.Google Scholar
  4. Bjerner, B.: Alpha Depression and Lowered Pulse Rate During Delayed Reactions in Serial Reaction Tests. Acta Physiol. Scand., Suppl. No. 65, 19 (1949).Google Scholar
  5. Broadbent, D. E.: Noise, Paced Performance and Vigilance Tasks. Brit. J. Psychol. 44, 295–303 (1953).Google Scholar
  6. Broadbent, D. E.: Effects of Noises of High and Low Frequency on Behaviour. Ergonomics 1, 219 (1957).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Broabent, D. E., and M. Gregory: Vigilance Considered as a Statistical Decision. Brit. J. Psychol. 54, 309–23 (1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Broadbent, D. E., and A. J. Little: Effects of Noise Reduction in a Work Situation. Occup. Psychol. 34, 13340 (1960).Google Scholar
  9. Colquhoun, W. P.: The Effect of Unwanted Signals on Performance on a Vigilance Task. Ergonomics 4, 41–51 (1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corcoran, D. W. J.: Noise and Loss of Sleep. Quart. J. Exper. Psychol. 14, 178–82 (1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Corcoran, D. W. J.: Doubling the Rate of Presentation in a Vigilance Task During Sleep Deprivation. J. Appl. Psychol. 47, 412–5 (1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Corcoran, D. W. J.: Changes in Heart-Rate and Performance as a Result of Loss of Sleep. Brit. J. Psychol. 55, 307–14 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glucksberg, S.: The Influence of Strength of Drive on Functional Fixedness and Perceptual Recognition. J. Exper. Psychol. 68, 36–41 (1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grimaldi, J. V.: Sensorimotor Performance under Varying Noise Conditions. Ergonomics 2, 34–43 (1958).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haider, M., P. Spong, and D. B. Lindsley: Attention, Vigilance, and Cortical Evoked-Potentials in Humans. Science 145, 180–2 (1964).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hebb, D.O.: Drives and the CNS. Psychol. Rev. 62, 243–54 (1955).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Helper, M. M.: The Effects of Noise on Work Output and Physiological Activation. U.S.A.M.R.L. Report No. 270 (1957).Google Scholar
  18. Jerison, H. J.: Performance on a Simple Vigilance Task in Noise and Quiet. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 29, 1163–5 (1957).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jerison, H. J.: Effects of Noise on Human Performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 43, 96–101 (1959).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McBain, W. N.: Noise, the “Arousal Hypothesis”, and Monotonous Work. J. Appl. Psychol. 45, 309–17 (1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McGrath, J. J.: In: Vigilance, a symposium. Ed. by D. N. Bitckner, and J.J. McGrath. New York: pp. 3 19. McGraw-Hill. 1963.Google Scholar
  22. Malmo, R. B., and W. W. Surwillo: Sleep Deprivation: Changes in Performance and Physiological Indicants of Activation. Psychol. Monog. 47, No. 15, 1-24.Google Scholar
  23. Oswald, I.: Sleeping and Waking. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sanders, A. F.: The Influence of Noise on Two Discrimination Tasks. Ergonomics 4, 253–8 (1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Spence, K. W.: Behavior Theory and Conditioning. London: Oxford University Press. 1956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Standish, R. R., and R. A. Champion: Task Difficulty and Drive in Verbal Learning. J. Exper. Psychol. 59, 361–5 (1960).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stennett, R. G.: The Relationship of Performance Level to Level of Arousal. J. J. Exper. Psychol. 54, 54–61 (1957).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wilkinson, R. T.: Interaction of Lack of Sleep with Knowledge of Results, Repeated Testing, and Individual Differences. J. Exper. Psychol. 62, 263–71 (1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wilkinson, R. T.: Muscle Tension During Mental Work under Sleep Deprivation. J. Exper. Psychol. 64, 565–71 (1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wilkinson, R. B.: Interaction of Noise with Knowledge of Results and Sleep Deprivation. J. Exper. Psychol. 66, 332–7 (1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Willett, R.A.: In: Experiments in Motivation Ed. by H. J. Eysenck. p. 80–87. London: Pergamon. 1964.Google Scholar
  32. Wyatt, S., and J. N. Langdon: Fatigue and Boredom in Repetitive Work. I.H.R.B. Report No. 77, H. M. Stationery Office, London, 1937.Google Scholar
  33. Zubek, J. P.: Effects of Prolonged Sensory and Perceptual Deprivation. Brit. Med. Bull. 20, 38–42 (1964).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 1967

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. E. Broadbent
    • 1
  1. 1.M.R.C. Applied Psychology UnitCambridgeGreat Britain

Personalised recommendations