Sonification supports eyes-free respiratory monitoring and task time-sharing

Human Factors

Volumn 46, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 497-517

  Watson, Marcus ^a,b   Sanderson, Penelope ^a,b,c  

^a SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANESTHESIOLOGY; COMPUTER MONITORS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DISPLAY DEVICES; PATIENT MONITORING;

OXIMETRY; SONIFICATION; VISUAL MONITORING;

RESPIRATORY SYSTEM;

ADULT; ANESTHESIOLOGICAL TECHNIQUES; ARTICLE; AWARENESS; BREATHING; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTENSIVE CARE; MALE; PATIENT MONITORING; PULSE OXIMETRY; SIMULATION; TAPE RECORDER; TASK PERFORMANCE; TIME; ULTRASOUND;

ADULT; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANESTHESIOLOGY; COHORT STUDIES; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MONITORING, INTRAOPERATIVE; OXIMETRY; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROBABILITY; RESPIRATION; RESPIRATORY SOUNDS; RESPIRATORY SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 1542360367     PISSN: 00187208     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1518/hfes.46.3.497.50401     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Barrass, S., & Kramer, G. (1999). Using sonification. Multimedia Systems, 7, 23-31.
2. Cook, R. I., & Woods, D. D. (1996). Adapting to new technologies in the operating room. Human Factors. 38, 593-613.
3. Findlay, G. P., Spittal, M. J., & Radcliffe, J. J. (1998). The recognition of clinical incidents: Quantification of monitor effectiveness. Anaesthesia, 53, 589-603.
4. Fitch, W. T. (1998). U.S. Patent No. US5730140. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
5. Fitch, W. T. & Kramer, G. (1994). Sonifying the body electric: Superiority of an auditory over a visual display in a complex, multivariate system. In G. Kramer (Ed.), Auditory display: Sonification, audification and auditory interfaces (pp. 307-325). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
6. Gaver, W. (1997). Auditory interfaces. In M. Helander, T. K. Landauer, & P. Prabhu (Eds.), Handbook of human-computer interaction (2nd ed., pp. 1003-1043). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
7. Kramer, G. (1994). Some organizing principles for representing data with sound. In G. Kramer (Ed.), Auditory display: Sonification, audification and auditory interfaces (pp. 1-77). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
8. Loeb, R. G., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). A laboratory evaluation of an auditory display designed to enhance intraoperative monitoring. Anesthesia and Analgesia, 94, 362-368.
9. Moray, N. (1986). Monitoring behavior and supervisory control. In K. Boff, L. Kaufman, & J. Thomas (Eds.), Handbook of perception and human performance (pp. 40/1-40/51). New York: Wiley Interscience.
10. Nelson, W. T, Hettinger, L. J., Cunningham, J. A., Brickman, B. J., Hass, M. W., & McKinley, R, L. (1998). Effect of localized auditory information on visual target detection performance using a helmet-mounted display. Human Factors, 40, 452-458.
11. Patterson, E. S., Watts-Perotti, I., & Woods, D.D. (1999). Voice loops as coordination aids in space shuttle mission control. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8, 555-371.
12. Reising, D. C., & Sanderson, P. (2002). Work domain analysis and sensors: 1. Principles and simple example. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 56, 569-596.
13. Sanderson, P., Anderson, J., & Watson, M. (2000). Extending ecological interface design to auditory displays. In Proceedings of the 10th Australasian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (OZCHI 2000, pp. 259-266). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
14. Sanderson, P., Crawford, J., Savill, A., & Watson, M. (2004). Visual and auditory attention in patient monitoring: A formative analysis. Cognition, Technology, and Work, 63, 172-185.
15. Sarter, N. B. (2000). The need for multi-sensory interfaces in support of effective attentional allocation in highly dynamic event-driven domains: The case of cockpit automation. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 10, 231-245.
16. Seagull, J. F., & Sanderson, P. M. (2001). Anesthesia alarms in context: An observational study. Human Factors, 43, 66-78.
17. Seagull, J. F., Wickens, C. D., & Loeb, R. G. (2001). When less is more? Attention and workload in auditory, visual and redundant patient-monitoring conditions. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting (pp. 1395-1399). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
18. Vicente, K. J., & Rasmussen, J. (1990). The ecology of human-machine systems: II. Mediating "direct perception" in complex work domains. Ecological Psychology, 2, 207-249.
19. Watson, M., Russell, W. J., & Sanderson, P. (2000). Anesthesia monitoring, alarm proliferation, and ecological interface design. Australian Journal of Information Systems, 7, 109-114.
20. Watson, M., & Sanderson, P. (1998). Work domain analysis for the evaluation of human interaction with anaesthesia alarm systems. In Proceedings of the Australian/New Zealand Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (OZCH198, pp. 228-235). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
21. Watson, M., & Sanderson. P. (2001). Intelligibility of sonification for respiratory monitoring in anesthesia. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting (pp. 1293-1297). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
22. Watson, M., Sanderson, P., & Anderson, I. (2000). Designing auditory displays for team environments [CD-ROM]. In Proceedings of the 5th Australian Aviation Psychology Symposium (AAvPA) [CD-ROM]. Sydney: Australian Aviation Psychology Association.
23. Watson, M., Sanderson, P., & Russell, W.J. (2000). Alarm noise and end-user tailoring: The case for continuous auditory displays. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Human Interaction With Complex Systems (HICS2000, pp. 75-70). Urbana-Champaign, IL: U.S. Army Research Laboratory.
24. Watson, M., Sanderson, P., & Russell, W. J. (2004). Tailoring reveals information requirements: The case of anesthesia alarms. Interacting with Computers, 16, 271-293.
25. Watson, M., Sanderson, P., Woodall, J., & Russell, W. J. (2003, November). Operating theatre patient monitoring: The effects of self paced distracter tasks and experimental control on sonification evaluations. Presented at the 2003 Annual Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group (CHISIG) of the Ergonomics Society of Australia (OZCHI2003), St. Lucia, Australia.
26. Webb, R. K., van de Walt, J., Runciman, W. B., Williamson, J. A., Cockings, J., Russell, W. J., et al. (1993). Which monitor? An analysis of 2000 incident reports. Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, 21, 529-541
27. Wickens, C. D. (1976). The effects of divided attention on information processing in tracking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2, 1-13.
28. Wickens, C. D. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman & R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63-102). New York: Academic.
29. Wickens, C. D., & Gopher, D. (1977). Control theory measures of tracking as indices of attention allocation strategies. Human Factors, 19, 249-366.
30. Wickens, C. D., Sandry, D. L., & Vidulich, M. (1983). Compatibility and resource competition between modalities of input, central processing, and output. Human Factors, 25, 227-248.
31. Woods, D. D. (1995). The alarm problem and direct attention in dynamic fault management. Ergonomics, 38, 2371-2393.
32. Xiao, Y., Mackenzie, C. F., Seagull, F. J., & Jaberi, M. (2000). Managing the monitors: An analysis of alarm silencing activities during an anesthetic procedure. In Proceedings of the XIVth Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association and 44th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 4.250-4.253). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.