Cited by 69Mind wandering and attentionCognitive Abilities and TestingHuman-Automation Interaction and Safety

Visuospatial and verbal working memory load: effects on visuospatial vigilance

Helton, William S., Russell, Paul N.·2013·Experimental Brain Research

Abstract

In this study, we examined the impact of concurrent verbal and visuospatial working memory demands on performance of a visuospatial successive target detection task. Three hundred and four participants performed a visuospatial vigilance task while simultaneously performing either a spatial or verbal working memory task that either required a memory load during the vigil or did not require a memory load during the vigil. Perceptual sensitivity A' to vigilance target stimuli was reduced by concurrent memory load, both verbal and visuospatial. The decline in perceptual sensitivity to vigilance targets, the vigilance decrement, was steeper for a visuospatial memory task than a verbal memory task, regardless of concurrent memory load. Memory performance after vigilance detection trials was much lower for visuospatial than verbal items, even though memory performance before vigilance detection trials was higher for visuospatial than verbal items. Together, this indicates increased interference when a visuospatial vigilance task is paired with a visuospatial memory task, than when paired with a verbal memory task. Overall, the visuospatial and verbal working memory loads both impacted vigilance target detection, suggesting utilization of common executive resources. There may, however, be domain specific interference, and this may be exacerbated for two visuospatial tasks.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00221-012-3322-2

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Guided search is more vulnerable to vigilance decrements and attentional lapses with increasing time on task, number of simultaneous tasks, and operator's mental and physical fatigue.

    “Guided search is also more vulnerable to vigilance decrements and attentional lapses, which tend to occur with increasing time on task, the number of simultaneous tasks, and the operator's mental and physical fatigue [9 , 13-18] .”

    From Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy (2024) · cites this paper as [15]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Helton, W. S., & Russell, P. N.
Affiliations
University of Canterbury (NZ)
Corresponding author
Helton, William S.
Venue
Experimental Brain Research
Published
2012-11-10
Volume
224
Issue
3
Pages
429-436
ISSN
  • 0014-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1106
OpenAlex
W2078055216
Cited by
69
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 2
FWCI
2.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Experimental Brain Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Mind wandering and attention
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
Keywords
visuospatial working memory, verbal working memory, vigilance decrement, vigilance task, memory load, perceptual sensitivity, executive function, dual-task interference
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Space Perception, Verbal Learning, Visual Perception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review