On the nature of vigilance
Open accessAbstract
Objective: I explore the origins, theoretical underpinnings, applications, and importance of vigilance in a world ever more dominated by semiautomated, automated, and autonomous machines. Background: The empirical genesis of vigilance is taken as a case study in the etiology of the application of the behavioral sciences to the human culture of technology. The subsequent taxonomic ordering and theoretical clarification of its causal antecedents are set in the overall context of contemporary human–machine systems research. Method: The methods exercised in this work are historical analysis and informational synthesis in combination with projected theoretical implications and impact. Results: The profile of evolution of the concept of vigilance is clarified and cast in the light of critical events, such as the promulgation of the vigilance taxonomy, its linkage to attentional resource theory, and the recognition that the attendant performance decrement is as indicative of iatrogenic sources as it is a shortfall or limitation of the observer’s processing capacity. Conclusion: Vigilance is alive and growing in importance. Understanding sustained attention will become ever more critical in the humanization of automation-dominated systems. Application: The application of vigilance is widespread and potentially ubiquitous for semiautomated, automated, and autonomous system interaction.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 [14]
Cites
The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception: Classic Edition
Gibson, J. J. (2014) · doi:10.4324/9781315740218 · Cited by 12,132 · see citing works
Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance
Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392 · Cited by 6,605 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…workload (Hancock & Meshkati, 1988; Moray, 1979), situation awareness (Endsley, 1995, 2015; Smith & Hancock, 1995), and now most recently, trust (Lee & See, 2004; Hancock et al., 2011), resilience (Hollnagel, Woods, & Leve-son, 2006), and transparency (Ososky, Sanders, Jentsch, Hancock, & Chen,…”
Multiple resources and performance prediction
Wickens, C. D. (2002) · Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science · doi:10.1080/14639220210123806 · Cited by 2,621 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Mackworth’s separate procedures are a tour de force in acute observation, but in order to derive, and then successfully apply, theory, we have to have a broad view to identify widespread consistencies (and see Wickens, 2002).”
BackgroundA Meta-Analysis of Factors Affecting Trust in Human-Robot Interaction
Hancock, P. A., Billings, D. R., Schaefer, K. E., Chen, J. Y. C., de Visser, E. J., & Parasuraman, R. (2011) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720811417254 · Cited by 2,051 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…(Hancock & Meshkati, 1988; Moray, 1979), situation awareness (Endsley, 1995, 2015; Smith & Hancock, 1995), and now most recently, trust (Lee & See, 2004; Hancock et al., 2011), resilience (Hollnagel, Woods, & Leve-son, 2006), and transparency (Ososky, Sanders, Jentsch, Hancock, & Chen, 2014).”
Self-citationImposing limits on autonomous systems
Hancock, P. A. (2017) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140139.2016.1190035 · Cited by 162 · see citing works
Self-citationAttention, biological motion, and action recognition.
Thompson, J., & Parasuraman, R. (2012) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.05.044 · Cited by 155 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy
Introzzi, L., Zonca, J., Cabitza, F., Cherubini, P., & Reverberi, C. (2024) · Digestive and Liver Disease · doi:10.1016/j.dld.2023.10.018 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hancock, P. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Central Florida (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hancock, Peter A.
- ORCID
- Hancock, Peter A.
- Venue
- Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2017-02
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 35-43
- ISSN
- 0018-7208 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-8181
- OpenAlex
- W2585841720
- Cited by
- 82
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 4
- FWCI
- 1.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Mind wandering and attention
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and Work-Related Fatigue
- Keywords
- sustained attention, vigilance decrement, human-machine systems, automated systems, autonomous systems
- MeSH terms
- Arousal, Humans, Man-Machine Systems
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