PEBL TECHNICAL REPORT 2012-02 http://sites.google.com/site/pebltechnicalreports/home/pebl-technical-report-2012-02

The effects of time of day and practice on cognitive abilities: The PEBL Pursuit rotor, compensatory tracking, match-to-sample, and TOAV tasks Brynn Ahonen, Amanda Carlson, Charles Dunham, Emma Getty, & Kaylee J. Russell Michigan Technological University [email protected],[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], May, 2012

The effects of time of day and practice on cognitive abilities: Pursuit rotor, Compensatory tracking, Match-to-sample, and TOAV tasks

Brynn Ahonen- [email protected] Amanda Carlson- [email protected] Charles Dunham- [email protected] Emma Getty- [email protected] Kaylee Kosmowski- [email protected] Michigan Technological University

ABSTRACT This study investigates the effects of time-of-day and practice on psychomotor and visual attention tasks, incorporating the PEBL pursuit rotor, compensatory tracking, match-to-sample, and TOAV tasks. In order to determine a relationship between student’s cognitive abilities, tiredness due to time of day, and practice performing each task, participants were tested in up to twelve consecutive sessions. There were no reliable time-of-day or practice effects for pursuit rotor or match-to-sample tasks. However, there was a reliable practice effect for the compensatory tracking task across both the mean time on the outer ring, and mean offset, but no reliable time-of-day effect. The TOAV task showed a reliable effect of time-of-day, but no reliable practice effects.

PEBL Technical Reports

The effects of time of day and practice on cognitive abilities

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects that tiredness (due to time of day) and practice have on a set of cognitive tasks. One application of this study would be to identify tests that are sensitive to tiredness but resilient to practice, which could be useful in many industrial and workplace settings. This study focused on four tasks; two related to perceptual-motor tracking, and two related to shortterm visual attention. Methods Participants Participants for this experiment consisted of ten students enrolled in a research methods course in Michigan Technological University of the Psychology Department. Students performed the tests voluntarily. Design The experiment consisted of up to twelve sessions, each lasting about 20-30 minutes. Sessions were scheduled during four different time periods throughout the day to test different levels of alertness: morning, afternoon, evening, and night. Participants participated in up to 12 sessions of running these tests throughout the experimental period. The order of sessions was counterbalanced across participants. L testing system, available from http://pebl.sf.net (Mueller, 2010; Mueller, 2011). Each task opened with simple instructions on how to run each experiment. Eleven total tests were studied within this experiment, but the results of only four are covered here. Procedures The four tasks reported here include the TOAV/Vigilance test, Compensatory Tracking task, Match-to-sample task, and Pursuit Rotor (Screenshots are shown in Figure 1).

Figure 1. Screenshots of the pursuit rotor (upper left), compensatory tracking (upper right), match-to-sample (lower left), and TOAV (lower right). Pursuit Rotor Task. During the Pursuit Rotor Task, participants were instructed to follow a red dot with their computer cursor on a circular path for two minutes. The longer a participant could keep the cursor on the red dot as it follows

a circular path, the higher the cognitive score. The Compensatory Tracking Task. The Compensatory Tracking task requires participants to continuously move their mouse to adjust a randomly moving target cursor. The Compensatory Tracking Task has been used in many ways. Such studies include testing the effects of sleep medicine on the cognitive functioning of the elderly (Hindmarch, Legangneux, Stanley, Emegbo & Dawson, 2006). Research has establihed found that that little learning takes place on such tasks, other than the initial acquisition of the skill (Battig, Nagel, Voss & Brogden, 1957). Match-to-sample task. Short-term memory for learned associations has been studied using the Match-toSample Task. This test has been hypothesized to be a measure of alertness that is resilient to practice. During this task, a participant sees a 4X4 matrix pattern filled with yellow and hat stimulus (a visual pattern within the matrix), and later make a forced-choice response among options where one corresponds to that stimulus. The correct response option corresponds directly to the stimulus (i.e., its color is the same). Each trial takes about 5-10 seconds and the entirety of the tasks typically takes under 5 minutes. This test is run on a computer in PEBL. The Matchto-Sample task is designed to elicit the impact that the time of day has on the alertness of participants. This test contains thirty trials, each trial taking around five to ten seconds. The total task takes about five minutes for a participant to complete. The test starts with a participant seeing a 4X4 matrix pattern filled with yellow and red squares. They are allowed to study it for a short period of time (typically about 0.5 seconds). Shortly after that, it disappears and is replaced by a pair of matrices after a 3500ms delay. One comparison matrix is identical to the previously seen stimulus, and one matrix differs from the stimulus by one or more cells of the matrix. The participant must then indicate which of the two shown options was the presented stimulus. The participant chooses his or her option by using the left or right shift keys on a keyboard. This repeats thirty times in order to complete the match-to-sample task. Test of Attentional Vigilance (TOAV). The PEBL TOAV, an implementation of the Test of Variables of Attention (T.O.V.A.), is a simple attention task designed to assess the ability to attend to a stimulus for an extended period of time. We hypothesize that performance on the TOAV will be impacted by the normal fluctuations in alertness across the day. Also, repeating the test various times may impact performance. Therefore, the practice effects may cause participants to become either more or less alert, even during the specific time of day that each participant is at their peak performance. Results Compensatory Tracking Task. The impact of time of day and practice were assessed by comparing the data from the results of all of these tasks. The analysis of the Compensatory Tracking Task showed a grand mean of m=

PEBL Technical Reports http://sites.google.com/site/pebltechnicalreports/

Page 3 of 5

PEBL Technical Reports

The effects of time of day and practice on cognitive abilities

97.31 seconds on the outer ring of the target for the 180second test. The mean time on the outer ring were 94.15, 96.32, 96.41, and 101.4 across the four times of day. With practice, the mean increased slightly (91.75s on the first three blocks, 101.8 s on the second three, and 104.1 on the third three). A Type II ANOVA revealed there was a reliable effect of practice block (F(2,72)=5.1833, p<.001), but no reliable effect of time-of-day (F(3,72)=1.0672,p=0.369078). Mean values and standard deviations of time-on-outer-ring are shown in Table 1. Table 1. Mean time on outer-ring target (in seconds, with s.d. in parentheses), across rounds and time of day. Round 1-4 Round 5-8 Round 9-12 Morning Noon Afternoon

86.6 (19.5) 87.5 (18.5) 92.8 (21.8)

96.8 (13.1) 100.7 (13.2) 104.8 (10.5)

103.1 (6.7) 105.1 (8.4) 99.3 (14.2)

Evening

97.2 (13.7)

105.3 (9.5)

102.6 (1.1)

TOAV Test. A factorial ANOVA on adjusted response time for the TOAV test (dividing RT by accuracy), treating subject as a randomized factor of the TOAV, revealed that there was a reliable effect of time-of-day, (F(3,13) = 3.8, p=0.037) but no reliable effect of practice block, (F(2,9) = 0.94, p=0.42). The mean response times for the different times of day were 374, 349, 335, 354 ms milliseconds (see Table 4). Table 4. Mean adjusted response time (RT/accuracy) for the TOAV test, asacross rounds and time of day. Block 1

Block 2

Block 3

Morning

374 (59)

386 (53)

394 (51)

Noon

349 (32)

355 (53)

389 (53)

Afternoon

335 (18)

362 (43)

329 (na)

Evening

354 (43)

362 (47)

405 (106)

A second measure of performance on the compensatory tracking task is mean offset of the target, in pixels. Similarly, results showed no reliable result of time of day (F(3,66)=1.4, p=.24), but a reliable impact of session block (F(2,66)=5.7,p=.005). Mean values and standard deviations are shown in Table 2.

Match-to-sample task. A factorial ANOVA treating participant as a randomized factor found that there was no reliable affect of time of day (F(3,21)=1.7,p=.2) or session block (F(3,6)=.31, p=.82). The mean and standard deviation of response times are found in Table 5.

Table 2. Compensatory Tracking Task: Mean offset (pixels)

Table 5. Match- to-sample task, mean response time (in ms, with s.d. in parentheses) by time of day and session block,

Time of day Block 1

Block 2

Block 3

Morning

16.3 (3.7)

14.4 (3.5) 12.6 (1.4)

Noon

16.3 (4.2)

13.1 (2.8) 12.2 (1.7)

Afternoon

14.5 (4.2)

12.5 (2.3) 13.1 (2.7)

Evening

14.1 (3.2)

12.1 (2.1) 12.6 (0.4)

Block 1

Pursuit Rotor Task. Results showed that the Pursuit rotor task was relatively stable with practice, and unaffected by time of day. A Type II ANOVA of the Pursuit Rotor Task mean offset (a measure of pixel deviation from the target) revealed that there was no reliable effect of time-of-day (F(3,68)=0.4712, p=0.7034), nor of session block (F(2,68)=.05, p=.94), on mean offset. Table 2 shows the mean values across round and time-of-day. Table 3. Mean time on target (s) for Pursuit Rotor Task, across rounds and time of day. Round 1-4

Round 5-8

Round 9-12

Morning

18.63 (3.3)

24.79 (12.9)

15.25 (1.7)

Noon

19.13 (8.8)

16.02 (3.8)

19.23 (5.8)

Afternoon

17.40 (5.7)

15.44 (2.3)

18.96 (8.1)

Evening

19.15 (5.9)

16.36 (5.9)

24.00 (4.8)

Page 4 of 5 Ahonen et al. PEBL Technical Report 2012-02.

Block 2

Block 3

Morning

1798 (788)

1340 (186)

1243 (147)

Noon

1760 (556)

1501 (304)

1396 (281)

Afternoon

1394 (261)

1483 (337)

1302 (158)

Evening

1464 (513)

1479 (434)

1770 (614)

Discussion The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of time-of-day and practice effects on attention during a battery of psychological tests. Results revealed that time-ofday only had a reliable impact on TOAV response time, but not the match-to-sample task or the two psycho-motor tasks. As hypothesized, participants’ performance was best on the TOAV during the time-of-day they subjectively reported as being most alert—they afternoon. The response times were also slower in the late evening and early morning, when they reported the greatest tiredness. In contrast, both the Compensatory Tracking Task and the pursuit rotor task improved across blocks, but no timeof-day effect. This indicates that there are no negative cognitive effects on motor skills of this nature. This result suggests that such tasks are fairly resilient to tiredness, but also improve with practice.

PEBL Technical Reports

The effects of time of day and practice on cognitive abilities

Notes The authors are listed in alphabetical order. References Hindmarch, I., Legangneux, E., Stanley, N., Emegbo, S., & Dawson, J. (2006). A double-blind, placebo-controlled investigation of the residual psychomotor and cognitive effects of zolpidem-mr in healthy elderly volunteers. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 62(5), 538-545. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2006.02705.x Battig, W. F., Nagel, E. H., Voss, J. F., & Brogden, W. J. (1957). Transfer and retention of bidirectional compensatory tracking after extended practice. The American Journal of Psychology, 70(1), 75-80. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1419232 Lenne, M. (1998) Time of Day Variations in Driving Performance. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 431-37. Mueller, S. T. (2010). A partial implementation of the BICA cognitive decathlon using the Psychology Experiment Building Language (PEBL). International Journal of Machine Consciousness, 2, 273-288. Mueller, S. T. (2011). The Psychology Experiment Building Language, Version 0.12. Retrieved January 2012 from http://pebl.sourceforge.net.

Appendix - Tiredness Scale The Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS; Johns, 1991) is a Likert scale questionnaire designed to be a simple, selfadministered survey that provides a measure of a subject's general level of daytime sleepiness. The questionnaire is commonly employed to detect sleep disorders such as sleep apnea, narcolepsy, idiopathic hypersomnia and other conditions. It is primarily used by sleep specialists and doctors as a way to determine if there is a high possibility of a sleep disorder that needs to be addressed. The scale also has a very high specificity and sensitivity to sleep disorders; the scale has shown to distinguish patients who simply snore from those with even mild sleep apnea. Another of its benefits is that it is simple, easy to understand and easy to administer. We adapted the ESS for the present study by asking about the current level of tiredness, rather than general levels. One each of seven situations, participants provided an answer to the question “How likely would you be to fall asleep right now if you were:”; 1. Sitting and reading; 2. Watching TV; 3. Sitting, inactive in a public place (e.g., a theater or a meeting); 4. As a passenger in a car; 5. Lying in bed; 6. Sitting and talking to someone; 7. In a car, while stopped for a few minutes in traffic. Ratings were made on vertical 21-point scales, with the anchor “Never” on the bottom and “Almost certain” on the top. A screenshot of the scale collection screen is shown in Figure A1. Figure A1. Screenshot of the tiredness scale used in the present study.

PEBL Technical Reports http://sites.google.com/site/pebltechnicalreports/

Page 5 of 5