Brain and Cognition 82 (2013) 265–273

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Brain and Cognition

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/b&c

Event-related cerebral hemodynamics reveal target-specific resource

allocation for both ‘‘go’’ and ‘‘no-go’’ response-based vigilance tasks
Tyler H. Shaw a,⇑, Matthew E. Funke e, Michael Dillard c, Gregory J. Funke b, Joel S. Warm b,d,
Raja Parasuraman a
a
Center of Excellence in Neuroergonomics, Technology, and Cognition (CENTEC), George Mason University, Department of Psychology, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA, United States
b
Air Force Research Laboratory WPAFB, 711th Human Performance Wing, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH, United States
c
National Research Council, Washington, DC, United States
d
University of Dayton Research Institute, Dayton, OH, United States
e
Naval Medical Research Unit – Dayton, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, OH, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Transcranial Doppler sonography was used to measure cerebral blood flow velocity (CBFV) in the right
Accepted 5 May 2013 and left cerebral hemispheres during the performance of a 50-min visual vigilance session. Observers
Available online 31 May 2013 monitored a simulated flight of unmanned aerial vehicles for cases in which one of the vehicles was flying
in an inappropriate direction relative to its cohorts. Two types of vigilance tasks were employed: a tra-
Keywords: ditional task in which observers made button press (‘‘go’’) responses to critical signals, and a modification
Vigilance of the traditional task called the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) in which ‘‘go’’ responses
Sustained attention
acknowledged nonsignal events and response withholding (‘‘no-go’’) signified signal detection. Signal
Event-related
Cerebral blood flow velocity
detections and global CBFV scores declined over time. In addition, fine-grained event-related analyses
Attentional resource theory revealed that the detection of signals was accompanied by an elevation of CBFV that was not present with
missed signals. As was the case with the global scores, the magnitude of the transient CBFV increments
associated with signal detection also declined over time, and these findings were independent of task
type. The results support the view of CBFV as an index of the cognitive evaluation of stimulus significance,
and a resource model of vigilance in which the need for continuous attention produces a depletion of
information-processing assets that are not replenished as the task progresses. Further, temporal declines
in the magnitude of event-related CBFV in response to critical signals only is evidence that the decrement
function in vigilance is due to attentional processing and not specific task elements such as the required
response format.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The capacity to sustain attention at an efficient level deterio-
rates over time in detection and discrimination tasks (Davies &
Parasuraman, 1982; Warm, 1984). One explanation for this decline
– the vigilance decrement – is that the need for continuous atten-
tion results in a depletion of information-processing resources
(Norman & Bobrow, 1975) that are not replenished as task perfor-
mance progresses (Johnson & Proctor, 2004; Langner, Eickhoff, &
Steinborn, 2011; MacLean et al., 2009; Parasuraman, 1979; Para-
suraman, Warm, & Dember, 1987; Proctor & Vu, 2010; Smit, Eling,
Hopman, & Coenen, 2005; Warm & Dember, 1998; Warm, Parasur-
aman, & Matthews, 2008; Wiggins, 2011). Often, the resource
interpretation is coupled with a self-regulation approach which
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: 4400 University Drive, MS3F5, Fairfax, VA
22030-4444, United States. Fax: +1 703 993 1359.
E-mail address: tshaw4@gmu.edu (T.H. Shaw).
suggests that task performance is a function of not only the re-
sources available for target detection, but also the effort that is
allocated to the task (Humphries & Revelle, 1984; Kahneman,
1973; Matthews & Desmond, 2002). Evidence for the attentional
resource model of vigilance has been mainly derived from findings
pointing to the adverse impact on vigilance performance of work-
ing memory load (Caggiano & Parasuraman, 2004; Helton & Rus-
sell, 2012; Parasuraman, 1979), additional processing demands
(Smit et al., 2005), and dual-task performance requirements (Para-
suraman, 1985), as well as by subjective ratings revealing high
mental effort and stress in such tasks (Warm, Dember, & Hancock,
1996; Warm, Matthews, & Finomore, 2008).
Resource theories have been criticized for their circularity, gi-
ven that resources are typically both inferred from and used to ex-
plain changes in behavioral performance, as in dual-task studies
(Navon, 1984). A performance-independent resource measure can
provide one way of bypassing this criticism. Accordingly, several
researchers have turned to neurophysiological measures in seeking

0278-2626/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2013.05.003
266 T.H. Shaw et al. / Brain and Cognition 82 (2013) 265–273
evidence for the resource model. A considerable amount of neuro-
imaging research using positron emission tomography (PET) and
functional magnetic imaging (fMRI) techniques has pointed to a
close tie between cerebral hemodynamics and neural activity in
the performance of vigilance tasks (Moore & Cao, 2007; Raichle,
1998; Risberg, 1986). These studies have shown that sustained
attention is mediated by multiple neural networks involving the
anterior cingulate cortex, the right middle and inferior prefrontal
cortex, the right inferior parietal regions, the basal ganglia, the
right intralaminar region of the thalamus, and the reticular for-
mation (Kinomura, Larsson, Gulyas, & Roland, 1996; Langner
et al., 2012; Langner & Eickhoff, 2012 [review]; Ogg et al., 2008;
Parasuraman, Warm, & See, 1998 [review]; Sturm et al., 1999).
For example, using fMRI, Lim et al. (2010) demonstrated that a
frontoparietal region, including the anterior cingulate cortex, right
middle frontal gyrus, and right inferior parietal lobe, is less active
following a vigilance task than prior to its start and that the tem-
poral decline in task performance is associated with a decrease in
cerebral blood flow. Studies by Coull, Frackowiak, and Frith
(1998) and Paus et al. (1997) have also reported changes in cere-
bral activity that parallel the decrement function over long-dura-
tion vigilance tasks. Therefore, the results stemming from
neuroimaging studies using PET and fMRI techniques are broadly
consistent with a model of vigilance performance based upon the
availability and utilization of information-processing resources.
However, as Parasuraman et al. (1998) and Warm and Parasur-
aman (2007) have noted, PET and fMRI have some limitations for
examining time-related changes in vigilance due to their high cost
and restrictive nature.
With these limitations in mind, a number of studies have em-
ployed a lower cost technique that is less restrictive than PET or
fMRI – Transcranial Doppler Sonography (TCD) – to assess cere-
bral hemodynamics during the performance of vigilance tasks
(Shaw, Finomore, Warm, & Matthews, 2012; Shaw et al., 2009;
Warm, Matthews, & Parasuraman, 2009; Warm & Parasuraman,
2007; Warm et al., 2008). TCD uses ultrasound signals to moni-
tor cerebral blood flow velocity (CBFV) in the middle (MCA),
anterior (ACA), and posterior (PCA) arteries. Most previous vigi-
lance studies have focused exclusively on measures derived from
the MCA as it carries approximately 80% of the blood flow with-
in each cerebral hemisphere (Netter, 1989; Toole, 1984). The
perfusion territory of the MCA is largely to lateral regions of
the cortex, with the smaller arteries perfusing medial frontal
(ACA) and posterior regions (PCA) of the cortex (Stroobant &
Vingerhoets, 2000). The results of studies measuring the MCA
during vigilance have pointed to four primary findings. First,
the absolute level of CBFV varies directly with the information-
processing demands of the vigilance task. Second, the vigilance
decrement in target detection rate is paralleled by a similar time
on task decline in CBFV in both the visual and auditory modali-
ties. Third, the link between cerebral hemodynamics and vigi-
lance performance is particularly strong in the right
hemisphere. Fourth, the temporal decline in CBFV only occurs
when observers actively engage in processing task-related infor-
mation. Cerebral blood flow velocity remains stable over time in
control observers who are exposed to the same stimulus events
in the vigilance task, but without a work imperative. Taken to-
gether, these findings have been interpreted within a resource
model in which CBFV is proposed as a measure of the informa-
tion-processing resources allocated to maintain vigilance (Shaw
et al., 2009; Shaw et al., 2012; Warm & Parasuraman, 2007;
Warm et al., 2008; Warm et al., 2009).
Previous studies using TCD have only reported CBFV values
averaged over relatively long blocks of time (e.g., every
10 min), and not with respect to moment-to-moment changes
in cerebral hemodynamics associated with signal detection in
and of itself. An assessment of specific CBFV responses before,
during, and just after a critical signal is presented, i.e., in an
event-related manner, would provide strong evidence for the
resource model. More specifically, if there is a shift in the way
resources are allocated to target detection with time on task,
then it would be expected that the amplitude of the transient
event-related CBFV response to critical signals would be elevated
during a signal presentation compared to the time phases imme-
diately before and after detection, and this phase-related eleva-
tion in amplitude would not be present in the context of
missed signals. It would also be expected that the magnitude
of the event-related response to critical signals would decrease
over time. Consistent with previous findings regarding a right
hemispheric system in the control of vigilance, it would be antic-
ipated that the CBFV effects would be most noticeable in the
right cerebral hemisphere.
Findings of this sort with regard to event-related analyses
would provide stronger evidence for the resource theory than
those based only on non-specific changes in CBFV. They would
also support the view of CBFV as an index of the cognitive eval-
uation of stimulus significance that coincides with electrophysi-
ological and pupillometry measures. For example, the P300
component of the event-related potential (ERP), which has been
found to be sensitive to resource allocation in dual-task studies
(Israel, Chesney, Wickens, & Donchin, 1980; Sergeant, Geuze, &
Van Winsum, 1987) has been shown to be associated with de-
tected signals in a vigilance task but to be absent for undetected
signals (Ritter & Vaughan, 1969) and to decline in amplitude
over time on task (Davies & Parasuraman, 1977). In addition,
the magnitude of pupil dilation to stimulus presentation, a mea-
sure considered to be generally reflective of information process-
ing resources (Beatty, 1982b; Laeng, Sirois, & Gredeback, 2012;
Murphy et al., 2011), has been shown to decline over time on
task in a manner that parallels the temporal decline in perfor-
mance efficiency (Beatty, 1982a).
Compared to electrophysiological measures like the ERP, cere-
bral hemodynamic measures such as fMRI and TCD are relatively
sluggish, rising and falling over a period of about 10–15 s (Para-
suraman & Rizzo, 2007). Accordingly, the use of TCD to record
the transient cerebral hemodynamic response after a critical sig-
nal is presented can be potentially confounded by the motor re-
sponse made when the signal is detected. Thus, it may be
difficult to disentangle the brain response associated with pro-
cessing the critical signal from that linked to motor processing
and execution. Indeed, previous work has indicated that there
are movement artifacts in the CBFV measure for simple motor
tasks when assessed over small time scales (Orlandi & Murri,
1996; Silvestrini, Troisi, Matteis, Cupini, & Caltagirone, 1995).
Fortunately, a recently developed alternative to the conventional
vigilance task, the sustained attention to response task (SART;
Manly, Robertson, Galloway, & Hawkins, 1999; Robertson, Manly,
Andrade, Baddeley, & Yiend, 1997), offers the possibility of
accounting for such a potential confound. In most vigilance
tasks, participants withhold responses (‘‘no-go’’) to non-signal
events and execute a motor response (‘‘go’’) to critical signals.
The SART inverts this stimulus–response mapping: participants
are required to respond to non-signal events and withhold re-
sponse to critical signals. Thus, whereas a conventional vigilance
task is ‘‘go’’-based, the SART is ‘‘no-go’’ based. Accordingly, we
examined changes in event-related cerebral hemodynamics for
both ‘‘go-based’’ and ‘‘no-go-based’’ responding to critical signals.
If the predicted event-related CBFV responses to critical signals
reflect cognitive processing, they should appear with both the
traditional vigilance and SART tasks. However, if motor process-
ing was a major contributor to the CBFV measure, these effects
would be absent for ‘‘no-go’’ based responses to critical signals.
 T.H. Shaw et al. / Brain and Cognition 82 (2013) 265–273
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Thirty participants (15 women and 15 men), ranging in age be-
tween 18 and 29 years, served as observers for a single payment of
$30. All observers had normal or corrected-to-normal vision (via
surgery or contact lenses) and normal hearing, and were right
handed as measured by the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (Old-
field, 1971). Observers were asked to abstain from caffeine, nico-
tine, or medication for 12 h prior to participating in the study
(Stroobant & Vingerhoets, 2000). Those that were unable to abstain
were not considered as participants. The study was reviewed and
approved by the Air Force Research Laboratory Institutional Re-
view Board.
2.2. Design
Ten observers (5 women and 5 men) were assigned at random
to each of two active vigilance conditions, defined by the method
with which they responded to critical and neutral events through-
out the task. An additional ten participants (5 women and 5 men)
served as passive controls to assure that changes in cerebral blood
flow velocity were task determined. Observers in the active vigi-
lance conditions participated in a 50-min session divided into 5
continuous 10-min periods.
2.3. Vigilance tasks
Active observers assumed the role of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
(UAV) controllers monitoring the flight pattern of a squadron of
four UAVs projected on a 17-in. visual display terminal (VDT).
The display consisted of a single circular viewing field (9.53 cm
in diameter) banded by a black border that was presented on a
gray background (transluminance = 42 cd/m2). The viewing field
consisted of three concentric circles. The diameters of the small
and middle circles were 2.54 cm and 6.35 cm, respectively. The
largest circle formed the exterior black border. Each field was di-
vided into four equal 90° quadrants defined by black lines. In all
cases, the lines defining the viewing field were 0.32 cm thick, their
transluminance was 37 cd/m2, and their contrast with the gray
background based on the Michaelson Contrast ratio (maximum
luminance – minimum luminance/maximum luminance + mini-
mum luminance; Coren, Ward, & Enns, 1999) was 6.32%. Normally,
the quadrants of the viewing field were blank. When activated,
each quadrant of the display contained a black triangular icon
(base = 1.35 cm, altitude = 0.95 cm, transluminance 27 cd/m2, con-
trast with the gray background = 6.22%) which represented a UAV.
In all conditions, the squadron of UAVs flew in either a clockwise or
a counterclockwise direction (defined by the ‘‘noses’’ of the UAVs),
but not both, throughout the vigil. The UAVs flew in the clockwise
direction for half of the observers in each active condition and flew
in counterclockwise direction for the other half. The flight direc-
tions were determined at random for each observer with the
restriction that they occurred equally often across the 10 observers
in each active condition and that the observers in each direction
condition were equated for sex. Critical signals for detection were
cases in which one of the UAVs was flying in an inappropriate
direction relative to the others so that a collision could occur. Neu-
tral events and critical signals in the clockwise and counterclock-
wise flight paths are illustrated in Fig. 1.
In the traditional response format, observers were instructed to
indicate the detection of a critical signal by pressing the spacebar
on a computer keyboard and to withhold responses for the more
frequent neutral event presentations. In the SART response format,
267
observers were given the opposite instructions and tasked with
pressing the spacebar for each neutral event and to withhold re-
sponses from the infrequent critical signal presentations. Observ-
ers in both conditions were instructed to respond with their
right hand.
In all conditions, the display was updated 30 times per min (one
stimulus event every 2000 ms) with a dwell time of 1000 ms.
Observers were allowed 2000 ms from the onset of critical signals
in the traditional task and the onset of neutral events in the SART
task to produce the appropriate ‘‘go’’ response. Twelve critical sig-
nals occurred during each period of watch (three in each display
quadrant, overall signal probability per period = 4%).
During the first 10 min of the task, a computerized female voice
provided feedback regarding correct detections, misses, and false
alarms. Observers were required to detect at least 7 of the 12 crit-
ical signals (58%) and make no more than 10 false alarms (3.5%) in
this phase of the study to be considered for inclusion in the final
analysis. All active observers met this dual criterion. Beginning
with minute 11, audio feedback was removed and observers com-
pleted the vigil in silence.
Observers in the passive control group viewed the flight display
without an information-processing imperative. These observers
were not provided with a definition of critical and neutral events
nor were they given any information about pressing keys on the
keyboard. They were instructed to simply gaze at the display until
the session ended. Since they did not need to actively interact with
the display, they did not require task instruction or initial perfor-
mance feedback. Therefore, they served in a 40-min. session di-
vided into four continuous 10-min. periods.
Active and passive control observers were tested individually in
a 1.78  2.41  2.67 m3 windowless laboratory room. The VDT was
mounted on a table 99.10 cm directly in front of the seated obser-
ver (visual angle = 23.54°). Ambient illumination in the testing
room was 5 cd/m2. It was provided by a single 50-watt incandes-
cent bulb, dimmed to half power, positioned above and behind
the seated observer in order to minimize glare on the VDT. To cur-
tail distraction, observers were separated from the TCD instrumen-
tation by a cubicle wall dividing the width of the room in half.
2.4. Hemovelocity measurement
Within the two active conditions and the passive control condi-
tion, bilateral hemovelocity measurements were taken from the
left and right medial cerebral arteries of all observers using a Nico-
let Companion III TCD unit equipped with two 2 MHz ultrasound
transducers. The transducers were embedded in a plastic bracket
and secured to the observer’s head by an adjustable plastic head-
band. They were located dorsal and immediately proximal to the
zygomatic arch along the temporal bone on either side of the skull.
A small amount of Aquasonic-100 brand ultrasonic transmission
gel was placed on the transducers to ensure transmission of the
ultrasound signal. The distance between the transducer on the skin
and the sample volume could be adjusted in 2 mm increments in
order to isonate the MCA. In the present study, the MCA was gen-
erally monitored at depths of 50–55 mm. Blood flow velocity mea-
sures were averaged and recorded automatically by the TCD unit at
approximately 1 Hz.
3. Results
3.1. Performance efficiency
3.1.1. Detection probability
Mean percentages of correct detections over time were deter-
mined for the traditional vigilance and SART tasks. The percentages
268 T.H. Shaw et al. / Brain and Cognition 82 (2013) 265–273
Fig. 1. Examples of neutral events and critical signals in the display.
of correct detections for all conditions were converted to arcsines
(Kirk, 1995) and tested for significance by means of a 2 (task
type)  5 (periods of watch) mixed-model analysis of variance
(ANOVA). The analysis revealed that the detection scores for
observers in the traditional task (M = 77%, SE = 5.20) were signifi-
cantly greater than for those in the SART task (M = 61.5%,
SE = 3.62), F(1, 18) = 13.88, p = .002, g2p ¼ :44, and that there was
a significant effect for periods of watch, F(2.57, 46.24) = 4.47,
p = .011, g2p ¼ :20. The task type  periods interaction was not sig-
nificant, F(2.57, 46.24) = 1.42, p = .25. The effect for periods of
watch can be seen in Fig. 2. It is evident in the figure that the fre-
quency of signal detections declined from a high of 75% in period 1
to lower values in the remaining periods. In this and all subsequent
ANOVAs, Box’s epsilon was used when needed to correct for viola-
tions of the sphericity assumption (Field, 2009).
3.1.2. False alarms
A preliminary examination of the false alarm scores revealed
that errors of commission were rare. The mean false alarm rate
in each of the vigilance tasks was less than 1% throughout the vigil.
Consequently, false alarms were not analyzed further.
3.2. Cerebral blood flow velocity
3.2.1. Control issues
Cerebral hemovelocity scores can range extensively across indi-
viduals based on such characteristics as sex and/or age (Adams,
Nichols, & Hess, 1992). To control for that variability, the global
CBFV values for all observers in this analysis were expressed as a
deviation in cm/s from the last 60 s of their 5-min resting baseline.
This baseline index was recommended by Aaslid (1986) and Tripp
and Warm (2007), and has been utilized in previous studies of
Fig. 2. Mean percentages of correct detections as a function of periods of watch.
Error bars are standard errors.
cerebral hemovelocity and vigilance (e.g. Shaw et al., 2009; Shaw
et al., 2012 ; Warm & Parasuraman, 2007; Warm et al., 2008;
Warm et al., 2009). Inspection of the baseline data indicated that
CBFV values for observers in the active response formats and for
passive control observers were similar in both the left and right
cerebral hemispheres. Thus, subsequent CBFV effects in the two
cerebral hemispheres associated with active and passive observing
cannot be attributed to sampling artifacts in the original resting
baselines. In addition, an ANOVA of the CBFV data involving hemi-
spheres and time on task for the passive control observers revealed
no significant main effects for hemisphere, F(1, 9) = .63, p = .45, or
period, F(2.59, 23.27) = .78, p = .50, and no significant hemi-
sphere  periods interaction, F(2.55, 22.97) = .27, p = .82, indicat-
ing that the changes in CBFV values associated with hemispheric
and temporal factors among the active observers to be described
below were task-related.
3.2.2. Global CBFV effects
Mean blood flow velocity deviation scores of observers in the
traditional and SART tasks are plotted as a function of periods of
watch in Fig. 3. Data from the left and right hemispheres are pre-
sented separately in each panel.
A 2 (task type)  2 (hemisphere)  5 (periods of watch) mixed-
model ANOVA revealed that the overall level of CBFV was signifi-
cantly higher in the right (M = +.02; SE = .52) than in the left
hemisphere (M = 1.68; SE = .43), F(1, 18) = 7.88, p = .012,
g2p ¼ :31, and that the overall level of CBFV declined significantly
over periods of watch, F(2.32, 41.71) = 43.64, p = .012, g2p ¼ :71.
The main effect for task, F(1, 18) = .06, p = .81, and the interactions
between hemisphere and task, F(1, 18) = .07, p = .80, periods of
watch and task, F(2.32, 41.71) = 1.56, p = .22, hemisphere and peri-
ods of watch, F(1.74, 31.35) = .67, p = .50, and hemisphere, periods
of watch and task, F(1.74, 31.35) = .28, p = .73, all lacked signifi-
cance in each case.
3.2.3. Event-related CBFV effects
In order to examine moment-to-moment event-related changes
in CBFV associated with signal detection, a 20-s envelope was cre-
ated about each of the 12 critical signal presentations occurring
within each of the five periods of watch for both vigilance tasks.
Each envelope was segmented into five 4-s phases (or seconds to
signal presentation intervals). The phases were based on the fact
that the temporal resolution for Transcranial Doppler sonography
is approximately 2 s (Parasuraman & Rizzo, 2007). Accordingly,
we assumed that the 4 s duration would provide a reasonable
‘‘window’’ through which to view CBFV during a given phase. Each
envelope included two phases prior to signal presentation, 8 to
4 s, and 4 to 0 s; a 0 to +4 s signal phase; and two post-signal
 T.H. Shaw et al. / Brain and Cognition 82 (2013) 265–273
Fig. 3. Blood flow scores in the left and right hemispheres for the traditional and SART response formats as a function of periods of watch. Error bars are standard errors.
phases,+4 to +8 s and +8 to +12 s. Within each critical signal enve-
lope, an observer’s mean CBFV value in cm/s during the 8 to 4 s
phase prior to signal presentation was used as a transient baseline
and the individual’s mean hemovelocity values in cm/s within all
of the remaining phases were expressed as deviations from this
baseline. Thus, for each signal response outcome (correct detec-
tions or hits and misses), comparisons could be made of CBFV
scores during the 0–4 s interval in which a signal occurred, a 4 s
interval immediately preceding signal appearance, and two succes-
sive 4 s intervals immediately following signal presentation. It is
important to note that as a consequence of the fast event rate em-
ployed in the study (one event every 2 s), two non-signal events
occurred in each of the three 4-s phases surrounding the signal
phase and one non-signal event occurred in the signal phase. Thus,
the temporal changes in CBFV when signals were correctly de-
tected and missed were evaluated in the presence of non-signal
events.
Given that temporal changes in CBFV to signal events were
evaluated in the presence of non-signal events, it was necessary
to assess the stability of CBFV during non-signal event phases. To-
ward this end, a similar approach to that taken with signal detec-
tions and misses was adopted to examine moment-to-moment
event-related changes in CBFV associated with the detection of
non-signal events. For each observer in both vigilance tasks, 12
correctly rejected non-signal events were selected at random in
each of the five periods of watch with the restriction that the
non-signal events that were selected could not overlap with a crit-
ical signal presentation. For each of the selected correctly rejected
non-signal events, a 20 s envelope was created that included two
phases prior to the selected non-signal event, 8 to 4 s, and 4
to 0 s; a 0 to +4 s selected event presentation phase; and two post-
event phases,+4 to +8 s and +8 to +12 s. Within each event enve-
lope, an observer’s mean CBFV value in cm/s during the 8 to
4 s phase prior to the selected event presentation was used as a
transient baseline and the individual’s hemovelocity values in
cm/s within all of the remaining phases were expressed as devia-
tions from this baseline. As was the case for correct signal detec-
tions and misses, the observer’s mean CBFV scores for the
selected non-signal event were determined for the event presenta-
tion phase as well as for the phase immediately preceding it and
the two phases immediately succeeding. This approach permitted
a comparison of a sequence of phases each containing two cor-
rectly rejected non-signal events with each other and also equated
the CBFV measurement conditions for correct non-signal rejections
to those for CBFV changes associated with correctly detected and
missed signals.
269
The strategy employed to evaluate the moment-to-moment
event-related changes in CBFV associated with signal detection in-
volved two steps. The first was to determine if a change profile
involving time phase and response outcome existed for each task
type. The second step was to determine if the effects obtained in
the initial step were dependent upon time on task and hemispheric
localization.
To carry out the first step, CBFV scores for all combinations of
hits, misses, selected correct rejections, and phase within each sig-
nal/selected non- event presentation envelope were averaged across
periods of watch and hemisphere for each observer in the two vig-
ilance tasks. A 2 (task type)  3 (response outcome)  4 (time
phase) mixed-model ANOVA of these data revealed a main effect
for phase, F(1.77, 31.86) = 3.86, p = .036, g2p ¼ :18, and a significant
phase  response outcome interaction, F(3.09, 55.54) = 3.99,
p = .011, g2p ¼ :18. The main effects for task type, F(1,
18) = .00001, p = .99, response outcome, F(1.91, 34.37) = 2.43,
p = .18, and the interactions between response outcome and task
type, F(1.91, 34.40) = 1.80, p = .18, time phase and task type,
F(1.77, 31.86) = .35, p = .68, and response outcome, phase, and task
type, F(3.09, 55.54) = 2.11, p = .11, all lacked significance.
The phase  response outcome interaction is presented in Fig. 4.
It is evident in the figure that there was a spike in hemovelocity
during the signal phase when correct detections occurred relative
to the surrounding phases and that the hemovelocity change
scores for misses hovered about zero in the signal phase and in
Fig. 4. Blood flow velocity changes for correct detections, misses, and selected
correct rejections as a function of phase. Error bars are standard errors.
270 T.H. Shaw et al. / Brain and Cognition 82 (2013) 265–273
all the time phases surrounding the signal phase in which a missed
signal occurred. It is also apparent that the CBFV change scores for
correct rejections centered around zero for all measurement phases
indicating a stable level of cerebral hemovelocity in the presence of
the frequent non-signal events. These impressions were confirmed
by individual ANOVAs of the hemovelocity scores for the four phases
with each response outcome. There was a significant phase effect for
correct detections, F(1.64, 29.52) = 13.73, p = .012, g2p ¼ :43, but not
for misses, F(1.93, 36.75) = .48, p = .61, or correct rejections, F(2.59,
49.28) = 2.38, p = .09. Supplementary t-tests using the Bonferroni
correction and an alpha level of .05 indicated that in the 0 to +4 s sig-
nal/selected event phase, the CBFV values for correct detections were
significantly greater than those for missed signals, t19 = 3.69,
p = 002, d = 1.69, and correct rejections, t19 = 4.54, p = .001,
d = 2.08, which in turn, did not differ significantly from each other,
t19 = 1.20, p = .24, i.e., CBFV responses to missed signals were no
greater than to correctly rejected neutral events.
3.2.4. Transient magnitude changes over time
In sum, step one in our effort to examine moment-to-moment
event-related changes in CBFV associated with signal detection re-
vealed a task-independent change profile in which cerebral
hemovelocity increased when critical signals were detected but
not when they were missed and the CBFV scores for detected sig-
nals were higher than for correctly rejected non-signals. To deter-
mine if the level of hemovelocity observed when critical signals
were detected was dependent upon time on task and cerebral
hemisphere, each observer’s average hemovelocity score in the 0
to +4 s. signal phases in which hits occurred within each period
of watch was subjected to a 2 (hemisphere)  5 (periods of watch)
within-subjects ANOVA. This analysis revealed that the level of
CBFV associated with hits was significantly higher in the right
(M = +2.09, SE = .35) than in the left (M = 1.10, SE = .45) hemi-
sphere, F(1, 19) = 21.09, p = .001, g2p ¼ :53, and that there was a sig-
nificant main effect for periods, F(2.37, 45.06) = 3.05, p = .049,
g2p ¼ :14. The interaction between these factors was not significant,
F(3.08, 58.42) = 1.66, p = .18. The period effect is presented in Fig. 5.
It is evident in the figure that the CBFV scores generally declined
after the second period of watch. On average, the combined score
for periods 3, 4, and 5, as compared to the preceding period 2, rep-
resent a loss in magnitude of 56%.
4. Discussion
The results of the present study expand the profile of cerebral
hemovelocity as a neurophysiological measure of resource utiliza-
Fig. 5. Blood flow velocity changes during critical signal detection as a function of
periods of watch. Error bars are standard errors.
tion in vigilance performance. As in earlier studies (Shaw et al.,
2009; Shaw et al., 2012; Warm & Parasuraman, 2007; Warm
et al., 2008; Warm et al., 2009), the vigilance decrement in this
study was accompanied by an overall decline in global CBFV scores
that was clearly task-determined since the global scores remained
temporally stable among control observers who viewed the vigi-
lance display without any processing demands or requirement to
respond. In addition, our results indicate that the CBFV measure
encompasses more than just a generalized effect of task difficulty.
By examining moment-to-moment changes in hemovelocity asso-
ciated with signal detection, we have shown that the amplitude of
the event-related CBFV response to critical signals becomes ele-
vated during the time phase in which signals are correctly detected
but not in the time phases immediately before and after detection
and not in the context of missed signals, and that the CBFV scores
for correct detections during the phase when signals appear is
greater than that to correctly-rejected non-signal events. More-
over, like the more global measure, we have shown that the mag-
nitude of the CBFV elevation to critical signals also drops off over
time indicating that the temporal decline in CBFV is specific to
the information-processing demands associated with the detection
of critical signals. Of crucial importance to the interpretation of the
results is the finding that the CBFV effects occurred in a similar
manner with the ‘‘go’’ responding to critical signals of the tradi-
tional vigilance format and the ‘‘no-go’’ responding to such signals
in the SART format. Therefore, the transient CBFV response to cor-
rect signal detections observed herein was not confounded by mo-
tor processing.
The event-related changes in CBFV responses are consistent
with similar vigilance findings with the P300 component of the
event related potential (Davies & Parasuraman, 1977; Ritter &
Vaughan, 1969) and with the magnitude of pupil dilation (Beatty,
1982b; Murphy, Robertson, Balsters, & O’Connell, 2011) supporting
the idea that, like these other measures, CBFV can be viewed as an
indication of the additional processing requirements of critical sig-
nal detection. As such, the present results with the CBFV measure
are consistent with a resource model of vigilance. They indicate
that this measure can be successfully employed as a perfor-
mance-independent resource index to counter the circularity argu-
ment (Navon, 1984) that resources are both inferred from and used
to explain performance changes. They also corroborate expecta-
tions derived from the model, that were detailed earlier in this re-
port, in regard to both the global measure of hemovelocity and the
transient elevation and decline in CBFV responses to correctly de-
tected critical signals.
Consistent with the earlier studies showing that the link be-
tween cerebral hemodynamics and vigilance performance is par-
ticularly strong in the right hemisphere (Shaw et al., 2009; Shaw
et al., 2012; Warm & Parasuraman, 2007; Warm et al., 2008; Warm
et al., 2009), the present results indicated that both the global and
the transient levels of CBFV were significantly greater in the right
than in the left hemisphere. However, while there were hemi-
spheric differences in the overall levels of CBFV, the transient ele-
vation of CBFV associated with correct signal detection and the
temporal decline in both the global and transient CBFV scores oc-
curred in the left as well as in the right hemisphere. Previous CBFV
studies (Funke et al., 2011; Hitchcock et al., 2003; Schultz, Mat-
thews, Warm, & Washburn, 2009; Shaw et al., 2012) have also
found that the left hemisphere is involved in vigilance perfor-
mance. Evidently, as Langner and Eickhoff (2012) have pointed
out, cortical control of vigilance is not completely lateralized, and
as noted by several investigators (Allen, 1983; Hoptman & David-
son, 1994; Shaw et al., 2012), a cooperative interaction model
may best describe the role of central functioning in regard to vigi-
lance performance. An account along that line would be consistent
with Hellige’s (1993) point that even relatively simple tasks
 T.H. Shaw et al. / Brain and Cognition 82 (2013) 265–273
require the coordination of several information-processing sub-
systems.
In the present study, the frequency of signal detections was sig-
nificantly higher in the traditional vigilance task than in the SART
task. Studies by Helton and his associates (Helton, 2009; Helton
et al., 2005) have reported similar results. As described by Robert-
son and his colleagues (Manly et al., 1999; Robertson et al., 1997),
the SART was designed to promote a model of vigilance that in-
volves a ‘‘mindless’’ lack of attentional focus. More specifically,
by having observers make ‘‘go’’ reponses to frequent nonsignal
events and ‘‘no-go’’ responses to infrequently appearing critical
signals, a thoughtless withdrawal of attentional effort from the
task at hand may explain the poorer performance with the SART.
However, observers performing the SART are responsive to subtle
patterns in the temporal and spatial structure of critical signal
appearances, to differences in the salience of critical signals, and
to the reliability of warning signals (Helton, Head, & Russell,
2011; Helton, Weil, Middlemiss, & Sawers, 2010; Helton et al.,
2005). Additionally, they rate the task as inducing the same high
level of perceived mental workload as the traditional vigilance
task, and scan a visual vigilance display as actively as observers
performing a traditional task (Dillard et al., 2011; Grier et al.,
2003). These results seem inconsistent with the mindlessness
perspective.
The results of the present study warrant further exploration
into the theoretical underpinnings of vigilance performance. If
the SART induces mindlessness, then the global CBFV scores may
not have remained stable over time as they did in the case of pas-
sive controls who viewed the vigilance display in the absence of a
work imperative rather than decline over time as they did in the
case of observers actively performing the traditional vigilance task.
Moreover, if the SART induces lack of attentional focus, changes in
event related CBFV responses to correct critical signal detection
might be anticipated to be smaller in magnitude than those noted
with the traditional vigil. Rather than the induction of mindless-
ness, the poorer performance with the SART in terms of signal
detection may stem from a loss of motor control resulting from
the automaticity of frequently responding (Reason, 1984). How-
ever, the mindlessness account cannot be ruled out completely,
as there is considerable evidence to suggest that the mindlessness
account should be integrated into models of the executive control
of attention (e.g. Smallwood & Schooler, 2006; Smallwood et al.,
2004). There is even some suggestion that the two theoretical posi-
tions can be reconciled by considering a wandering mind as evi-
dence of a loss of attentional resources (Langner & Eickhoff,
2012; Langner, Willmes, Chatterjee, Eickhoff, & Sturm, 2010; Risko,
Anderson, Sarwal, Engelhardt, & Kingstone, 2012). For example,
Langner et al., 2010 cite a fairly recent proposal that top-down,
self-regulatory control draws from a general resource reservoir
that can be depleted with continuous task performance (cf. Murav-
en & Baumeister, 2000). If vigilant behavior is viewed as a failure of
this self-regulatory mechanism, then performance decrements
attributed to either loss of attentional capacity (resource theory)
or unconscious routinization (mindlessness theory) can be unified
under a more general theory of self-regulatory strength (Baumei-
ster, Vohs, & Tice, 2007). Also, it is noteworthy that the task used
here may well have required more difficult discriminations than
those used in the Robertson et al. (1999) study. Clearly, more work
needs to be done to develop an all-encompassing theory of
vigilance.
Finally, an important consideration is the causal relation be-
tween the CBFV measure and vigilance performance. The data pre-
sented here show a performance decline over the course of the
vigil, especially from the first period to the second, which was
271
accompanied by a global CBFV response that also showed a decline
across the course of the vigil. The results of the event-related CBFV
data show what appears to be a slight increase from the first to the
second period, followed by a subsequent decrease. A possible
explanation for this data is that the CBFV measure is not only
reflecting attentional resource utilization, but also resource alloca-
tion. Support for this view comes from Matthews et al. (2010), who
have shown that the CBFV response to a short battery of tasks can
predict subsequent vigilance performance. Using a two-phase de-
sign, participants in that study first performed a challenging set
of short baseline tasks (i.e. compensatory tracking, verbal working
memory, and a line discrimination task) in which the CBFV re-
sponse to each task was measured, followed by a 36-min vigilance
task. In that study, the CBFV response to the short battery was pre-
dictive of subsequent vigilance performance. Specifically, higher
levels of CBFV response to the short battery were both (1) posi-
tively related to overall level of vigilance and (2) related to an
attenuated vigilance decrement. This study points to a general,
task-induced energization process, since the increase in CBFV re-
sponses to all of the short tasks were related to superior vigilance
performance. The results are consistent with a unitary resource
model that emphasize a central process in which there is a mobi-
lization of resources in response to task demands (Young & Stan-
ton, 2002). Hence, a decline in the magnitude of event-related
CBFV response could be reflective of the waning efficiency of this
process.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported in part by Air Force Office of Scien-
tific Research Grant FA9550-10-1-0385 (Raja Parasuraman, PI).
References
Aaslid, R. (1986). Transcranial Doppler examination techniques. In R. Aaslid (Ed.),
Transcranial Doppler sonography (pp. 39–59). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Adams, R. J., Nichols, R. T., & Hess, D. C. (1992). Normal values and physiological
variables. In D. W. Newell & R. Aaslid (Eds.), Transcranial Doppler sonography
(pp. 41–46). New York: Raven Press.
Allen, M. (1983). Models of hemispheric specialization. Psychological Bulletin, 93,
73–104.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength model of self-
control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 351–355.
Beatty, J. (1982a). Phasic not tonic papillary responses vary with auditory vigilance
performance. Psychophysiology, 19, 167–172.
Beatty, J. (1982b). Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the
structure of processing resources. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 276–292.
Caggiano, D. M., & Parasuraman, R. (2004). The role of memory representation in the
vigilance decrement. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 932–937.
Coren, S., Ward, L. M., & Enns, J. T. (1999). Sensation and perception (5th ed.). Fort
Worth, TX: Harcourt-Brace.
Coull, J. T., Frackowiak, R. S. J., & Frith, C. D. (1998). Activation of right frontal and
parietal cortices with increasing time on task. Neuropsychologia, 36, 1325–1334.
Davies, D. R., & Parasuraman, R. (1982). The psychology of vigilance. London:
Academic Press.
Davies, D. R., & Parasuraman, R. (1977). Cortical evoked potentials and vigilance: A
decision theory analysis. In R. R. Mackie (Ed.), Vigilance: Theory operational
performance and physiological correlates (pp. 285–306). New York: Plenum.
Dillard, M., Boles, D. B., Funke, M., Funke, G., Finomore, V., Dukes, A., et al., (2011).
The SART task does not promote mindlessness in vigilance performance. In
Proceedings of the 16th international symposium on aviation psychology, Wright
State University, May 2–5, pp. 309–314.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Funke, M. E., Warm, J. S., Matthews, G., Finomore, V., Vidulich, M. A., Knott, B. A.,
et al. (2011). Static and dynamic discriminations in vigilance: Effects on
cerebral hemodynamics and workload. In T. Marek, W. Karwowski, & V. Rice
(Eds.), Advances in understanding human performance: Neuroergonomics, human
factors design, and special populations (pp. 80–90). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Grier, R. A., Warm, J. S., Dember, W. N., Matthews, G., Galinsky, T. L., Szalma, J. L.,
et al. (2003). The vigilance decrement reflects limitations in effortful attention,
not mindlessness. Human Factors, 45, 349–359.
Hellige, J. B. (1993). Hemispheric asymmetry: What’s right and what’s left. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
272 T.H. Shaw et al. / Brain and Cognition 82 (2013) 265–273
Helton, W. S. (2009). Impulsive responding and the sustained attention to response
task. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 31, 39–47.
Helton, W. S., Head, J., & Russell, P. N. (2011). Reliable and unreliable warning cues
in the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART). Experimental Brain Research,
209, 401–407.
Helton, W. S., Hollander, T. D., Warm, J. S., Matthews, G., Dember, W. N., Wallaart,
M., et al. (2005). Signal regularity and the mindlessness model of vigilance.
British Journal of Psychology, 96, 249–261.
Helton, W. W., & Russell, P. N. (2012). Visuospatial and verbal working memory
load: Effects on visuospatial vigilance. Experimental Brain Research. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3322-2.
Helton, W. S., Weil, L., Middlemiss, A., & Sawers, A. (2010). Global interference and
spatial uncertainty in the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART).
Consciousness and Cognition, 19, 77–85.
Hitchcock, E. M., Warm, J. S., Matthews, G., Dember, W. N., Shear, P. K., Tripp, L. D.,
et al. (2003). Automation cueing modulates cerebral blood flow and vigilance in
a simulated air traffic control task. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science, 4,
89–112.
Hoptman, M. J., & Davidson, R. J. (1994). How do the two cerebral hemispheres
interact? Psychological Bulletin, 116, 195–219.
Humphries, M. S., & Revelle, W. (1984). Personality, motivation, and performance: A
theory of the relationship between individual differences and information
processing. Psychological Review, 91, 153–184.
Israel, J. B., Chesney, G. L., Wickens, C. D., & Donchin, E. (1980). Multiple resources in
dual-task performance. Psychophysiology, 17, 259–273.
Johnson, A., & Proctor, R. W. (2004). Attention: Theory and practice: Thousand Oaks.
CA: Sage.
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kinomura, S., Larsson, J., Gulyas, B., & Roland, P. E. (1996). Activation by attention of
the human reticular formation and thalamic intralaminar nuclei. Science, 271,
512–515.
Kirk, R. E. (1995). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.).
Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Laeng, B., Sirois, S., & Gredeback, G. (2012). Pupillometry: A window to the
preconscious? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 18–27.
Langner, R., Eickhoff, S. B. (2012). Sustaining attention to simple tasks: A meta-
analytic review of the neural mechanisms of vigilant attention. Psychological
Bulletin. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0030694.
Langner, R., Eickhoff, S. B., & Steinborn, M. B. (2011). Mental fatigue modulates
dynamic adaptation to perceptual demand in speeded detection. PLos ONE, 6,
1–10.
Langner, R., Kellermann, T., Eickhoff, S. B., Boers, F., Chatterjee, A., Wilmes, K., et al.
(2012). Staying responsive to the world: Modality-specific and nonspecific
contributions to speeded auditory, tactile, and visual stimulus detection. Human
Brain Mapping, 33, 398–418.
Langner, R., Willmes, K., Chatterjee, A., Eickhoff, S. B., & Sturm, W. (2010). Energetic
effects of stimulus intensity on prolonged simple reaction-time performance.
Psychological Research, 74, 99–512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00426-010-0275-6.
Lim, J., Wu, W., Wang, J., Detre, J. A., Dinges, D. F., & Rau, H. (2010). Imaging brain
fatigue from sustained mental workload: An ASL perfusion study of the time-
on-task effect. NeuroImage, 49, 3426–3435.
MacLean, K. A., Aichele, S. R., Bridwell, D. A., Mangun, G. R., Wojciulik, E., & Saron, C.
D. (2009). Interactions between endogenous and exogenous attention during
vigilance. Attention, Perception, & Psychophyics, 71, 1042–1058.
Manly, T., Robertson, I. H., Galloway, M., & Hawkins, K. (1999). The absent mind:
Further investigations of sustained attention to response. Neuropsychologica, 37,
661–670.
Matthews, G., & Desmond, P. A. (2002). Task-induced fatigue states and simulated
driving performance. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55A,
659–686.
Matthews, G., Warm, J. S., Reinerman-Jones, L. E., Langheim, L. K., Washburn, D. A., &
Tripp, L. (2010). Task engagement, cerebral blood flow velocity, and diagnostic
monitoring for sustained attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,
16, 187–203.
Moore, C. L., & Cao, R. (2007). The hemo-neural hypothesis: On the role of blood
flow in information processing. Journal of Neurophysiology, 99, 2035–2047.
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. (2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited
resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126,
247–259.
Murphy, P. R., Robertson, I. H., Balsters, J. H., & O’Connell, R. G. (2011). Pupillometry
and P3 index the locus-coeruleus–noradrenergic arousal function in humans.
Psychophysiology, 48, 1532–1543.
Navon, D. (1984). Resources – A theoretical soup stone? Psychological Review, 91,
216–234.
Netter, F. H. (1989). Atlas of human anatomy. Summit, NJ: Ciba-Geigy Corp..
Norman, D. A., & Bobrow, D. G. (1975). On data-limited and resource limited
processes. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 44–64.
Ogg, R. J., Zou, P., Allen, D. N., Hutchins, S. B., Dutkiewicz, R. M., & Mulhern, R. K.
(2008). Neural correlates of a clinical continuous performance test. Magnetic
Resonance Imaging, 26, 504–512.
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness.
Neuropsychologica, 9, 97–113.
Orlandi, G., & Murri, L. (1996). Transcranial Doppler assessment of cerebral flow
velocity at rest and during voluntary movements in young and elderly healthy
subjects. International Journal of Neuroscience, 84, 45–53.
Parasuraman, R. (1979). Memory load and event rate control sensitivity decrements
in vigilance. Science, 205, 924–927.
Parasuraman, R. (1985). Sustained attention: A multifactorial approach. In M. I.
Posner & O. S. M. Marin (Eds.), Attention and performance XI (pp. 493–511).
Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Parasuraman, R., & Rizzo, M. (2007). Introduction to neuroergonomics. In R.
Parasuraman & M. Rizzo (Eds.), Neuroergonomics: The brain at work (pp. 3–12).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Parasuraman, R., Warm, J. S., & Dember, W. N. (1987). Vigilance: Taxonomy and
utility. In L. S. Mark, J. S. Warm, & R. L. Houston (Eds.), Ergonomics and human
factors: Recent research (pp. 11–31). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Parasuraman, R., Warm, J. S., & See, J. E. (1998). Brain systems of vigilance. In R.
Parasuraman (Ed.), The attentive brain (pp. 221–256). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Paus, T., Zatorre, R. J., Hofle, N., Caramanos, Z., Gotman, J., Petrides, M., et al. (1997).
Time-related changes in neural systems underlying attention and arousal
during the performance of an auditory vigilance task. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience, 9, 392–408.
Proctor, R. W., & Vu, K. P. L. (2010). Cumulative knowledge and progress in human
factors. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 623–651.
Raichle, M. E. (1998). Behind the scenes of functional brain imaging: A historical and
physiological perspective. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 95,
765–772.
Reason, J. (1984). Lapses in attention in everyday life. In R. Parasuraman & D. R.
Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 515–549). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Risberg, J. (1986). Regional cerebral blood flow in neuropsychology.
Neuropsychologia, 24, 135–140.
Risko, E. F., Anderson, N., Sarwal, A., Engelhardt, M., & Kingstone, A. (2012).
Everyday attention: Variation in mind wandering and memory in lecture.
Applied Cognitive psychology, 26, 234–242.
Ritter, W., & Vaughan, H. G. Jr., (1969). Averaged evoked responses in vigilance and
discrimination: A reassessment. Science, 164, 326–328.
Robertson, I. H., Manly, T., Andrade, I., Baddeley, B. T., & Yiend, J. (1997). ‘‘Oops’’:
Performance correlates of everyday attentional failures in traumatic brain
injured and normal subjects. Neuropsychologica, 35, 747–748.
Schultz, N. B., Matthews, G., Warm, J. S., & Washburn, D. A. (2009). A transcranial
sonography study of shoot/don’t-shoot responding. Behavior Research Methods,
41, 593–5597.
Sergeant, J., Geuze, R., & Van Winsum, W. (1987). Event-related desynchronization
and P300. Psychophysiology, 24, 272–277.
Shaw, T. H., Finomore, V. S., Warm, J. S., & Matthews, G. (2012). Effects of regular or
irregular event schedules on Cerebral Hemovelocity during a sustained
attention task. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 34, 57–66.
Shaw, T. H., Warm, J. S., Finomore, V., Tripp, L., Matthews, G., Weiler, E., et al. (2009).
Effects of sensory modality on cerebral blood flow velocity during vigilance.
Neuroscience Letters, 461, 207–211.
Silvestrini, M., Troisi, E., Matteis, M., Cupini, L. M., & Caltagirone, C. (1995).
Involvement of healthy hemisphere in recovery from aphasia and motor deficit
in patients with cortical ischemic infarction: A transcranial Doppler study.
Neurology, 45, 1815–1820.
Smallwood, J., Davies, J. B., Heim, D., Finnigan, F., Sudberry, M., O’Coner, R. O., et al.
(2004). Subjective experience and the attentional lapse: Task engagement and
disengagement during sustained attention. Consciousness and Cognition, 13,
657–690.
Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2006). The restless mind. Psychological Bulletin, 132,
946–958.
Smit, A. S., Eling, P. A. T. M., Hopman, M. T., & Coenen, A. M. L. (2005). Mental and
physical effort affect vigilance differently. International Journal of
Psychophysiology, 57, 211–217.
Stroobant, N., & Vingerhoets, G. (2000). Transcranial Doppler ultrasonography
monitoring of cerebral hemodynamics during performance of cognitive tasks: A
review. Neuropsychology Review, 10, 213–231.
Sturm, W., de Simone, A., Kraus, B. J., Specht, K., Hesselmann, V., Radermacher, I.,
et al. (1999). Functional anatomy of intrinsic alertness: Evidence for a fronto-
parietal-thalamic-brainstem network in the right hemisphere.
Neuropsychologia, 31, 797–805.
Toole, J. F. (1984). Cerebral vascular disorders (3rd ed.). New York: Raven Press.
Tripp, L. D., & Warm, J. S. (2007). Transcranial Doppler sonography. In R.
Parasuraman & M. Rizzo (Eds.), Neuroergonomics: The brain at work
(pp. 82–94). New York: Oxford University Press.
Warm, J. S. (1984). An introduction to vigilance. In J. S. Warm (Ed.), Sustained
attention in human performance (pp. 1–14). Chichester, UK.
Warm, J. S., & Dember, W. N. (1998). Tests of a vigilance taxonomy. In R. R. Hoffman,
M. F. Sherrick, & J. S. Warm (Eds.), Viewing psychology as a whole: The integrative
science of William N. Dember (pp. 87–112). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Warm, J. S., Dember, W. N., & Hancock, P. A. (1996). Vigilance and workload in
automated systems. In R. Parasuraman & M. Mouloua (Eds.), Automation and
human performance: Theory and applications (pp. 183–200). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Warm, J. S., Matthews, G., & Finomore, V. S. Jr., (2008). Vigilance, workload, and
stress. In P. A. Hancock & J. L. Szalma (Eds.), Performance under stress. Burlington,
VT: Ashgate.
Warm, J. S., Matthews, G., & Parasuraman, R. (2009). Cerebral hemodynamics and
vigilance performance. Military Psychology, 21, S75–S100.
 T.H. Shaw et al. / Brain and Cognition 82 (2013) 265–273 273

Warm, J. S., Parasuraman, R., & Matthews, G. (2008). Vigilance requires hard mental
work and is stressful. Human Factors, 50, 433–441.
Warm, J. S., & Parasuraman, R. (2007). Cerebral hemodynamics and vigilance. In R.
Parasuraman & M. Rizzo (Eds.), Neuroergonomics: The brain at work
(pp. 146–158). New York: Oxford University Press.
Wiggins, M. W. (2011). Vigilance decrement during a simulated general aviation
flight. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 229–235.
Young, M. S., & Stanton, A. (2002). Malleable attentional resources theory: A new
explanation for the effects of mental underload on performance. Human Factors,
44, 365–375.