ReviewFrontiers in cognition2025
The vigilance decrement: its first 75 years.
Review in Frontiers in cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The first major laboratory studies of vigilance by Mackworth in 1948 and later revealed a decline in the probability of detecting brief targets as the time on task increases. Whether referred to as a vigilance decrement or something else (e.g., a failure of sustained attention), because such failures have great applied significance (e.g., in road safety, radiology, air-traffic control, civil defense, etc.), understanding the vigilance decrement and discovering ways to avoid it are important goals for psychological science. The purpose of this historical review is to provide a picture of the extensive scientific literature exploring the nature(s) of the vigilance decrement, with an emphasis, but not exclusionary focus, on the signal detection theory framework. Beginning in the early 1960s, researchers started to interpret this decline in target detections using signal detection theory, wherein a decrease in detections can be attributed to a decrease in sensitivity of the observer to the difference between targets and non-targets, a conservative shift in the observer's response criterion, or, of course, both. Some early investigators suggested that which of these two causes of the decline in detections is operating may depend on the rate at which events (targets and non-targets combined) are presented: When the event rate is slow, criterion shifts dominate detection failures, whereas declines in sensitivity become more pronounced as event rates increase. Nevertheless, the contribution of sensitivity declines has been recently challenged. One source of the challenge is the relatively low false-alarm rate in so many studies on the vigilance decrement. Another is the possibility that for a variety of reasons, the observer in a relatively long vigil may stop attending to the source of the task-relevant signals. Some recommendations are offered based on our reading of the ~75 years of vigilance research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.