Cited by 40Cognitive Functions and MemoryHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyPersonal Information Management and User Behavior

Prospective memory in an air traffic control simulation: External aids that signal when to act.

Open access
Loft, Shayne, Smith, Rebekah E., Bhaskara, Adella·2011·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied

Abstract

At work and in our personal life we often need to remember to perform intended actions at some point in the future, referred to as Prospective Memory. Individuals sometimes forget to perform intentions in safety-critical work contexts. Holding intentions can also interfere with ongoing tasks. We applied theories and methods from the experimental literature to test the effectiveness of external aids in reducing prospective memory error and costs to ongoing tasks in an air traffic control simulation. Participants were trained to accept and hand-off aircraft and to detect aircraft conflicts. For the prospective memory task, participants were required to substitute alternative actions for routine actions when accepting target aircraft. Across two experiments, external display aids were provided that presented the details of target aircraft and associated intended actions. We predicted that aids would only be effective if they provided information that was diagnostic of target occurrence, and in this study, we examined the utility of aids that directly cued participants when to allocate attention to the prospective memory task. When aids were set to flash when the prospective memory target aircraft needed to be accepted, prospective memory error and costs to ongoing tasks of aircraft acceptance and conflict detection were reduced. In contrast, aids that did not alert participants specifically when the target aircraft were present provided no advantage compared to when no aids were used. These findings have practical implications for the potential relative utility of automated external aids for occupations where individuals monitor multi-item dynamic displays.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0022845

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The literature on delayed intentions has rarely examined the ways that people manipulate the environment themselves to create perceptual triggers.

    “While some studies have investigated the efficacy of experimenter-provided reminders (Guynn, McDaniel, & Einstein, 1998; Henry, Rendell, Phillips, Dunlop, & Kliegel, 2012; Loft, Smith, & Bhaskara, 2011; Vortac, Edwards, & Manning, 1995), the literature on delayed intentions has rarely examined the ways that we manipulate the environment ourselves to create perceptual triggers.”

    From Strategic offloading of delayed intentions into the external environment (2015) · cites this paper as Loft, Smith, & Bhaskara, 2011

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Bartram L Ware C Calvert T 2003 Moticons: Detection, distraction, and task International Journal of Computer-Human Studies. Special issue: Notification user interfaces 58 515 545
  2. Klein GA Rouse WB 1989 Recognition-primed decisions Advances in Man-Machines Systems Research 5 47 92 Greenwich, CT JAI Press
  3. Loft S Finnerty D Remington RW (under review) Can the use of context reduce prospective memory error and costs to ongoing tasks in an air traffic control simulation?
  4. Reason J 1990 Human Error Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Loft, S., Smith, R. E., & Bhaskara, A.
Affiliations
  • The University of Western Australia (AU)
  • The University of Texas at San Antonio (US)
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied
Published
2011
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
60-70
ISSN
  • 1076-898X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2192
OpenAlex
W2065518561
Cited by
40
References
50
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
5.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology Applied (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Australian Research Council (DP0986942)
  • National Institute on Aging (AG034965)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
Keywords
prospective memory, air traffic control, external support, safety-critical work, switch costs, aircraft conflict detection, attention allocation, automated decision support
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Attention, Aviation, Computer Simulation, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Surveys and Questionnaires, Task Performance and Analysis, Young Adult

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