Cited by 70Mind wandering and attentionHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetySleep and Work-Related Fatigue

Vigilance impossible: diligence, distraction, and daydreaming all lead to failures in a practical monitoring task

Open access
Casner, Stephen M., Schooler, Jonathan W.·2015·Consciousness and Cognition

Abstract

In laboratory studies of vigilance, participants watch for unusual events in a "sit and stare" fashion as their performance typically declines over time. But watch keepers in practical settings seldom approach monitoring in such simplistic ways and controlled environments. We observed airline pilots performing routine monitoring duties in the cockpit. Unlike laboratory studies, pilots' monitoring did not deteriorate amidst prolonged vigils. Monitoring was frequently interrupted by other pop-up tasks and misses followed. However, when free from these distractions, pilots reported copious mind wandering. Pilots often confined their mind wandering to times in which their monitoring performance would not conspicuously suffer. But when no convenient times were available, pilots mind wandered anyway and misses ensued. Real-world monitors may be caught between a continuous vigilance approach that is doomed to fail, a dynamic environment that cannot be fully controlled, and what may be an irresistible urge to let one's thoughts drift.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.concog.2015.04.019

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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 [13]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Casner, S. M., & Schooler, J. W.
Affiliations
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (US)
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
Corresponding author
Casner, Stephen M.
Venue
Consciousness and Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-09
Volume
35
Pages
33-41
ISSN
1053-8100 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W310492483
Cited by
70
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
4.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Consciousness and Cognition (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Mind wandering and attention
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and Work-Related Fatigue
Keywords
sustained attention, mind wandering, daydreaming, pilot monitoring, vigilance decrement, task interruption, real-world monitoring
MeSH terms
Arousal, Attention, Aviation, Fantasy, Humans, Task Performance and Analysis

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