104 The influence of self-reported distractions on the Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) in laboratory and field environments. (3rd May 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bathurst, Nicholas; Gregory, Kevin; Arsintescu, Lucia; Costedoat, Gregory; Evans, Erin
• Is Part Of: Sleep. Volume 44(2021)Supplement 2
• Page Start: A42
• Page End: A43
• Publication Date: 2021-05-03
• Subjects: Sleep -- Physiological aspects -- Periodicals; Sleep disorders -- Periodicals; Sommeil -- Aspect physiologique -- Périodiques; Sommeil, Troubles du -- Périodiques; Sleep disorders; Sleep -- Physiological aspects; Sleep -- physiological aspects; Sleep Wake Disorders; Psychophysiology; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 616.8498
• DOI: 10.1093/sleep/zsab072.103
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0161-8105

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: The Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) is a measure of vigilant attention that is commonly used in laboratory environments to assess the neurobehavioral impact of sleep loss and circadian misalignment. The PVT has been increasing in popularity for use in field environments; however, the potential for distraction is higher in the field compared to the lab. It is unclear how distractions experienced by individuals taking the PVT in the real world may influence reaction time metrics. We investigated the influence of self-reported distraction on PVT outcomes across laboratory and field environments. Methods: We examined PVT data from five studies including short (n=36 participants, 3799 PVTs) and long-haul (n=75 participants, 3282 PVTs) airline personnel, control center personnel (n=5 participants, 96 PVTs), and healthy individuals who participated in a study involving at-home and laboratory assessments (n=12 participants, 486 and 310 PVTs). Individuals in all of the studies were asked to complete the five-minute NASA PVT at least three times daily. Participants were asked to indicate the number of distractions they experienced immediately after each PVT. Mean PVT reaction time (RT) and number of distractions were computed for each study and overall. Results: Participants reported more distractions in field environments compared to the lab (short-haul=1.29 +/- 1.48, long-haul=0.66 +/- 1.07, control-center=1.20 +/- 1.37, at-home=0.86 +/- 1.36, laboratory=0.46 +/- 1.07) Across all studies, we found that PVT RT slowed as self-reported distractions increased (all studies combined: 0 distractions=PVT RT 275.7ms; 1=285.0ms; 2=304.0ms; 3=322.9ms; >4=408.6ms). These findings were similar for healthy participants completing PVTs at home (0 distractions=286.4ms; 1=309.9ms; 2=328.3ms; 3=369.8ms; >4=385.1ms) but were less consistent during in-lab assessments (0 distractions=278.7ms; 1=316.2ms; 2=396.2ms; 3=370.4ms; >4=354.4ms). These findings were similar for other PVT outcomes. Conclusion: Participants reported more distractions in field environments compared to the laboratory. Our findings suggest that the number of distractions that individuals report experiencing while taking a PVT increases the reaction time registered by the device. Researchers should collect information about distractions during the PVT and should be aware that distractions may influence the recorded PVT reaction time. Support (if any): NASA Airspace Operations and Safety Program, System-Wide Safety Project