Detection response tasks: How do different settings compare?

Antonia S. Conti, Carsten Dlugosch, Klaus Bengler

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionpeer-review

4 Scopus citations

Abstract

Detection response tasks (DRTs) have been used in many different laboratory settings and their usage continues to spread. The degree to which the DRT is replicable and produces concurring results is an important characteristic of its validity. The current article presents a comparison of DRT performance across two separate experimental settings. Results are discussed in terms of how the DRTs (specifically: remote or peripheral detection task and tactile detection task) compare with one another, including DRT reaction times in their relative baseline units. Assessments show that DRT results are comparable across different experimental settings, demonstrating the DRT as a valid measurement method.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationAutomotiveUI 2012 - 4th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, In-cooperation with ACM SIGCHI - Proceedings
Pages257-260
Number of pages4
DOIs
StatePublished - 2012
Event4th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, AutomotiveUI 2012 - Portsmouth, NH, United States
Duration: 17 Oct 201219 Oct 2012

Publication series

NameAutomotiveUI 2012 - 4th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, In-cooperation with ACM SIGCHI - Proceedings

Conference

Conference4th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, AutomotiveUI 2012
Country/TerritoryUnited States
CityPortsmouth, NH
Period17/10/1219/10/12

Keywords

  • Detection response task
  • Remote detection response task
  • Tactile detection response task

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Detection response tasks: How do different settings compare?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this