Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 293

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Eye Activity Correlates of Workload during a Visuospatial Memory Task

Van Orden, Karl F., Limbert, Wendy, Makeig, Scott, Jung, Tzyy-Ping·2001·Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

Abstract

Changes in six measures of eye activity were assessed as a function of task workload in a target identification memory task. Eleven participants completed four 2hr blocks of a mock anti-air-warfare task, in which they were required to examine and remember target classifications (friend/enemy) for subsequent prosecution (fire upon/allow to pass), while targets moved steadily toward two centrally located ship icons. Target density served as the task workload variable; between one and nine targets were simultaneously present on the display. For each participant, moving estimates of blink frequency and duration, fixation frequency and dwell time, saccadic extent, and mean pupil diameter, integrated over periods of 10 to 20 s, demonstrated systematic changes as a function of target density. Nonlinear regression analyses found blink frequency, fixation frequency, and pupil diameter to be the most predictive variables relating eye activity to target density Participant-specific artificial neural network models, developed through training on two or three sessions and subsequently tested on a different session from the same participant, correlated well with actual target density levels (mean R = 0.66). Results indicate that moving mean estimation and artificial neural network techniques enable information from multiple eye measures to be combined to produce reliable near-real-time indicators of workload in some visuospatial tasks. Potential applications include the monitoring of visual activity of system operators for indications of visual workload and scanning efficiency.

Overview

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 · 10.1518/001872001775992570

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

  • Physiological workload reactions to increasing levels of task difficulty

    VELTMAN, J. A., & GAILLARD, A. W. K. (1998) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/001401398186829 · Cited by 433 · cited 2×

    “Under high target density conditions, blink frequency, fixation frequency, and saccadic extent demonstrated patterns indicative of higher visual processing load (Brookings et al., 1996; Hankins & Wilson, 1998; Veltman & Gaillard, 1998).”
    Background
  • Psychophysiology and adaptive automation

    Byrne, E. A., & Parasuraman, R. (1996) · Biological Psychology · doi:10.1016/0301-0511(95)05161-9 · Cited by 360 · cited 1×

    “Previous research has established that truly adaptive systems will require information on the human operator’s workload levels in real-time, as it is difficult to predict actual workload based on modeled estimates alone (Byrne & Parasuraman, 1996).”
    Background

Show all 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Van Orden, K. F., Limbert, W., Makeig, S., & Jung, T.-P.
Venue
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Published
2001-03
Volume
43
Issue
1
Pages
111-121
ISSN
  • 0018-7208 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-8181
OpenAlex
W1973613120
Cited by
293
References
2
FWCI
7.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.