Cue Utilization and Cognitive Load in Novel Task Performance

Abstract

This study was designed to examine whether differences in cue utilization were associated with differences in performance during a novel, simulated rail control task, and whether these differences reflected a reduction in cognitive load. Two experiments were conducted, the first of which involved the completion of a 20-min rail control simulation that required participants to re-route trains that periodically required a diversion. Participants with a greater level of cue utilization recorded a consistently greater response latency, consistent with a strategy that maintained accuracy, but reduced the demands on cognitive resources. In the second experiment, participants completed the rail task, during which a concurrent, secondary task was introduced. The results revealed an interaction, whereby participants with lesser levels of cue utilization recorded an increase in response latency that exceeded the response latency recorded for participants with greater levels of cue utilization. The relative consistency of response latencies for participants with greater levels of cue utilization, across all blocks, despite the imposition of a secondary task, suggested that those participants with greater levels of cue utilization had adopted a strategy that was effectively minimizing the impact of additional sources of cognitive load on their performance.

Keywords: cognitive load; cognitive resources; cue utilization; workload.

FIGURE 1

The simulated train-control display as viewed by participants. The four long, horizontal green lines represent railway tracks. The white portions on each track are the intersection lines, which are controlled by an interlocking switch labeled, “Change”. This switch is depicted by a small circle icon, located above each track. If a participant selects the “Change” icon, any train traveling on the track beneath it, will be diverted onto the intersecting line.

FIGURE 2

Rail task response latencies by cue utilization typology and block number for Experiment 1. Error bars represent ±1 SE.

FIGURE 3

Rail task response latencies by cue utilization typology and block number for Experiment 2. Error bars represent ±1 SE.

FIGURE 4

Mental workload across task conditions, by cue utilization typology. Error bars represent ±1 SE.