Performance Operating Characteristics for Spatial and Temporal Discriminations: Common or Separate Capacities? J. E. Thropp, J. L. Szalma, and P. A. Hancock

Performance Operating Characteristics for Spatial and Temporal Discriminations:

Common or Separate Capacities?

J. E. Thropp, J. L. Szalma, and P. A. Hancock

University of Central Florida

Contact J. E. Thropp: [email protected]

Tasks as Stressors

• Performance tasks are the proximal sources of stress (Hancock & Warm, 1989)

• Two task dimensions: – Information structure– Information rate

Maximal

Minimal

Hypostress

PS

YC

HO

LOG

ICA

L A

DA

PT

AB

ILIT

Y

NO

RM

AT

IVE

ZO

NE

Dynamic Instability

Hyperstress

(AT

TE

NT

ION

AL

RE

SO

UR

CE

CA

PA

CIT

Y)

Physiological Zone of Maximal Adaptability

Psychological Zone of Maximal Adaptability

Maximal

Minimal

Dynamic Instability

PH

YS

IOL

OG

ICA

L A

DA

PT

AB

ILIT

Y

COMFORT ZONE

STRESS LEVEL

Tasks as Stressors

Spatial and Temporal Processing:Spatial and Temporal Processing:

Common Resource Capacity? Common Resource Capacity?

Attentional narrowing may occur as a result of decreasing resources

Testing Resource Sharing

• Constructing Performance Operating Characteristics (POCs: Navon & Gopher, 1979)

• Dual-task methodology

Performance Operating Characteristics (POCs)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Spatial Task

Tem

pora

l Tas

k

Perfect Tradeoff

Perfect Timesharing

90% Temporal 10% Spatial



90% Spatial 10% Temporal

100% Spatial 0% Temporal

Experimental Participants

• Six participants (3 males, 3 females)

• Age range 18-24; mean age = 20

• Each participant completed 480 trials for each of 10 conditions

ATTENTIONAL ALLOCATION

0%

TemporalSpatial

100%

90%

50% 50%

10% 90%

0%

10%

0%

100%

10%

50%

90%

100%

10%

50%

90%

100%0%

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Baseline

Dual-Task

Dual-Task

Critical

Critical360 ms

Spatial

35 mm32 mmNeutral Critical

450 ms300 msNeutral

Temporal

33.5 mm32 mmNeutral Critical Neutral

300 ms

Spatial Temporal

STIMULI

Dif.

Easy

Day 1

Practice (two-alternative forced choice)

Spatial Baseline (Easy)

Temporal Baseline (Easy)

Spatial Baseline (Difficult)

Temporal Baseline (Difficult)

Days 2, 3, and 4

90% Spatial – 10% Temporal (Easy)

90% Spatial – 10% Temporal (Difficult)





Dual-Task Spatial-Temporal Task

Demonstration

READY

What was the time of the line you just saw?

1 – Definitely short2 – Possibly short3 – Possibly long4 – Definitely long

What was the height of the line you just saw?

1 – Definitely short2 – Possibly short3 – Possibly long4 – Definitely long

Results

• Sensitivity scores computed for each participant from POC curves

• Derived from ratings data

• Maximum likelihood procedures (MacMillan & Creelman, 1991)

Average Perceptual Sensitivity

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

easy

hard

50 50

90 temp

90 spat

100 temp

100 spat

50 50

90 spat

90 temp100 temp

100 spatTe

mp

ora

l dis

crim

ina

tion

(d’

)

Spatial discrimination (d’)

Average Perceptual Sensitivity

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

easy

hard

50 50

90 temp

90 spat

100 temp

100 spat

50 50

90 spat

90 temp100 temp

100 spatTe

mp

ora

l dis

crim

ina

tion

(d’

)


Performance Operating Characteristics

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

easy

hard

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

easy

hard

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

easy

hard

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

easyhard

Participant 1 - FEMALE

Participant 6 - MALEParticipant 5 - FEMALE

Participant 4 - FEMALE


Tem

pora

l dis

crim

inat

ion

(d’)

Tem

pora

l dis

crim

inat

ion

(d’)

Tem

pora

l dis

crim

inat

ion

(d’)

Tem

pora

l dis

crim

inat

ion

(d’)




Attentional Allocation Failures?

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

easy

hard

Participant 3 - MALE

Tem

pora

l dis

crim

inat

ion

(d’)


50-50E90sE

90tE

100sH

100tH

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6

easy

hard

Participant 2 - MALE

Tem

pora

l dis

crim

inat

ion

(d’)


90sE100sE

90tD

100sD90sE

90sD

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

easy

hard

Averages Across Females

Tem

pora

l dis

crim

inat

ion

(d’)


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

easy

hard

Averages Across Males

Tem

pora

l dis

crim

inat

ion

(d’)


Average POCs by Gender

Task-specific individual differences

• Likely that task-specific individual differences determine differences among participants

- Spatial vs. temporal- Easy vs. difficult- Time-sharing

• Limited evidence for general time-sharing ability (Wickens, Mountford, & Scheriner, 1981)

Relevant ID Variables

• Time sharing ability

• Ability to consciously control one’s allocation of attention (c.f., Derryberry & Reed, 2001)

• Ability to do spatial discrimination

• Ability to do temporal discrimination

• Extraversion

Tasks as Stressors

Future research

• Identify individual differences relevant to spatial and visual information

• Results indicate need for individual differences approach to POC studies to understand effects of manipulation of attention allocation and task difficulty

• Stress effects

ReferencesBraida, L. D. & Durlach, N. I. (1972). Intensity Perception II. Resolution in one-interval paradigms.

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 51, 483-502.Derryberry, D., & Reed, M.A. (2001). A multidisciplinary perspective on attentional control. In C.L. Folk

and B.S. Gibson (Eds.), Attraction, distraction, and action. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect of motion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior.

Psychological Review, 66, 183-201.Green, D. & Swets, J. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.Grondin, S. & Macar, F. (1992). Dividing attention between temporal and nontemporal tasks: A

performance operating characteristic POC analysis. In F. Macar, V. Pouthas, and W. Friedman (Eds.) Time, Action, and Cognition: Towards bridging the gap. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Hancock. P. A. & Warm, J. S. (1989). A dynamic model of stress and sustained attention. Human Factors, 31(5), 519-537.

Hancock, P. A. & Weaver, J. L. (in press). On distortion under time stress. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science.

MacMillan, N.A., & Creelman, C.D. (1991). Detection Theory: A User's Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Navon, D. & Gopher, D. (1979). On the economy of the human-processing system. Psychological Review, 86, 214-255.

Wickens, C. D., Mountford, S. J., & Schreiner, W. (1981). Multiple resources, task-hemispheric integrity, and individual differences in time-sharing. Human Factors, 23(2), 211-229.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThis work was supported in part by the Department of Defense Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (MURI) program administered by the Army Research Office under Grant DAAD19-01-1-0621. P.A. Hancock, Principal Investigator. The views expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect official Army policy. The authors wish to thank Dr. Sherry Tove, Dr. Elmar Schmeisser, and Dr. Mike Drillings for providing administrative and technical direction for the Grant.

Contact J. E. Thropp: [email protected]

100se 100te p=.1564 100sh 100th p=.5797

90se 10te p=.0000*** 90sh 10th p=.1114

50se 50te p=.5055 50sh 50th p=.7490

10se 90te p=.0000*** 10sh 90th p=.0005**

100se 90se p=.0109** 100sh 90sh p=.2297

90se 50se p=.0141** 90sh 50sh p=.9370

50se 10se p=.0000*** 50sh 10sh p=.0143**

10se 100te p=.0000*** 10sh 100th p=.0000***

100te 90te p=.1596 100th 90th p=.2498

90te 50te p=.4036 90th 50th p=.2638

50te 10te p=.0001** 50th 10th p=.1619

10te 100se p=.2223 10th 100sh p=.0012**

Participant 1Easy Hard


100se 100te p=.0000*** 100sh 100th p=.0000***

90se 10te p=.0557 90sh 10th p=.1377

50se 50te p=.0000*** 50sh 50th p=.0193*

10se 90te p=.0023** 10sh 90th p=.1637

100se 90se p=.5364 100sh 90sh p=.5892

90se 50se p=.1836 90sh 50sh p=.0925

50se 10se p=.7835 50sh 10sh p=.3385

10se 100te p=.0000*** 10sh 100th p=.0000***

100te 90te p=.3496 100th 90th p=.0872

90te 50te p=.0003** 90th 50th p=.7115

50te 10te p=.6682 50th 10th p=.7195

10te 100se p=.0195** 10th 100sh p=.0299**


100se 100te p=.2009 100sh 100th p=.0743

90se 10te p=.0311* 90sh 10th p=.1888

50se 50te p=.5873 50sh 50th p=.9923

10se 90te p=.5769 10sh 90th p=.8603

100se 90se p=.0000*** 100sh 90sh p=.3610

90se 50se p=.0839 90sh 50sh p=.2310

50se 10se p=.7133 50sh 10sh p=.6557

10se 100te p=.0001** 10sh 100th p=.7173

100te 90te p=.0021** 100th 90th p=.0021**

90te 50te p=.1860 90th 50th p=.3038

50te 10te p=.8273 50th 10th p=.9687

10te 100se p=.0000*** 10th 100sh p=.1006


100se 100te p=.0033** 100sh 100th p=.0114**

90se 10te p=.0000*** 90sh 10th p=.0171*

50se 50te p=.0303* 50sh 50th p=.1193

10se 90te p=.0000*** 10sh 90th p=.0000***

100se 90se p=.0000*** 100sh 90sh p=.4602

90se 50se p=.2017 90sh 50sh p=.0571

50se 10se p=.0000*** 50sh 10sh p=.0000***

10se 100te p=.0000*** 10sh 100th p=

100te 90te p=.1023 100th 90th p=.0001**

90te 50te p=.9875 90th 50th p=.3936

50te 10te p=.0000*** 50th 10th p=.0741

10te 100se p= 10th 100sh p=


100se 100te p=.0000*** 100sh 100th p=.7564

90se 10te p=.0000*** 90sh 10th p=.0005**

50se 50te p=.0000*** 50sh 50th p=.2017

10se 90te p=.0767 10sh 90th p=.0591

100se 90se p=.0681 100sh 90sh p=.7210

90se 50se p=.2047 90sh 50sh p=.1971

50se 10se p=.0050** 50sh 10sh p=.1830

10se 100te 10sh 100th p=

100te 90te p=.0000*** 100th 90th p=.2127

90te 50te p=.0004** 90th 50th p=.1422

50te 10te p=.0001** 50th 10th p=.0001**

10te 100se p= 10th 100sh p=


100se 100te p=.0072** 100sh 100th p=.8869

90se 10te p=.0000*** 90sh 10th p=.0320*

50se 50te p=.0000*** 50sh 50th p=.7369

10se 90te p=.0071** 10sh 90th p=.2990

100se 90se p=.0326* 100sh 90sh p=.9388

90se 50se p=.2024 90sh 50sh p=.2442

50se 10se p=.0259* 50sh 10sh p=.9818

10se 100te 10sh 100th p=

100te 90te p=.5677 100th 90th p=.1299

90te 50te p=.2784 90th 50th p=.1440

50te 10te p=.7658 50th 10th p=.8193

10te 100se p= 10th 100sh p=


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

easy

hard

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

easy

hard

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

easy

hard

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

easyhard

Participant 1

Participant 6Participant 5

Participant 4

Spatial d’

Spatial d’ Spatial d’

Spatial d’

Tem

pora

l d’

Tem

pora

l d’

Tem

pora

l d’

Tem

pora

l d’

Attentional Allocation Failures?

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6

easy

hard

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

easy

hard

Participant 2 Participant 3

Tem

pora

l d’

Tem

pora

l d’


AcknowledgementThis work was supported in part by the Department of This work was supported in part by the Department of Defense Multidisciplinary University Research Defense Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (MURI) program, P. A. Hancock, Initiative (MURI) program, P. A. Hancock, Principal Principal InvestigatorInvestigator, administered by the Army Research , administered by the Army Research Office under grant DAAD19-01-1-0621. The views Office under grant DAAD19-01-1-0621. The views expressed in this work are those of the authors and do expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect official Army policy. The not necessarily reflect official Army policy. The authors wish to thank Dr. Sherry Tove, Dr. Elmar authors wish to thank Dr. Sherry Tove, Dr. Elmar Schmeisser, and Dr. Mike Drillings for providing Schmeisser, and Dr. Mike Drillings for providing administrative and technical direction for the grant.administrative and technical direction for the grant.

Experimental Participants

• Six participants (3 males, 3 females)

• Age range 18-24; mean age = 20

• 480 trials for each of 10 conditions) to achieve stable SDT estimates (Green & Swets, 1966)

Discussion

• POC curve averaged across participants indicates partial tradeoff

• Spatial task more vulnerable to attention allocation manipulation

• Sacrificing attention to spatial task does not improve temporal task above 50-50 condition

• Shape of easy condition POC curve indicates– spatial task may draw on resources shared with

temporal task– temporal task draws on separate resource pool


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

easy

hard

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

easy

hard

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

easy

hard

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

easyhard

Participant 1

Participant 6Participant 5

Participant 4

Spatial d’


Spatial d’

Tem

pora

l d’

Tem

pora

l d’

Tem

pora

l d’

Tem

pora

l d’

Possible evidence for resource- sharing

• Spatial and temporal processing may share resources

• Spatial-temporal tradeoff in averaged POC

• Tradeoff observed only in participants 1 and 4

• Resource-sharing may be an individual difference and task-dependent

Hancock and Warm (1989)

• Rate and structure may be oblique

• Angles may vary among individuals

• Individual differences could be another dimension

Documents

Performance Operating Characteristics for Spatial and Temporal Discriminations: Common or Separate Capacities? J. E. Thropp, J. L. Szalma, and P. A. Hancock