See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/267335410

Work exposure and vigilance decrements in closed circuit television

surveillance

Article  in  Applied Ergonomics · March 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2014.10.001

CITATIONS READS

16 644

3 authors:

Fiona Margaret Donald Craig HM Donald

University of the Witwatersrand Edith Cowan University
46 PUBLICATIONS   240 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   58 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Andrew Thatcher
University of the Witwatersrand
139 PUBLICATIONS   2,085 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Health, wellbeing, and effectiveness in green buildings View project

Vigilance and CCTV View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fiona Margaret Donald on 27 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Applied Ergonomics 47 (2015) 220e228

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Ergonomics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apergo

Work exposure and vigilance decrements in closed circuit television

surveillance
Fiona Donald a, *, Craig Donald b, Andrew Thatcher a
a
University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa
b
Edith Cowan University, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The aim of this study was to examine operator effectiveness in terms of detection rates and potential
Received 23 January 2014 vigilance decrements in a proactive or real time CCTV surveillance task. The study was conducted in two
Accepted 2 October 2014 stages. During stage one, 42 operators who were employed full-time in CCTV surveillance observed a 90-
Available online
min video and were required to detect four types of target behaviours. No vigilance decrement was found
for this sample as a whole. Stage two involved collecting additional data from 31 novices and dividing the
Keywords:
existing operators into two sub-samples, consisting of generalists and specialists depending on the type
Closed circuit television
of surveillance they performed at work (total N ¼ 73). Fifty percent of target behaviours were detected
Vigilance decrement
Operator performance
and false alarms were high. Vigilance decrements were found for novices and generalists, but specialists
maintained their performance for the first hour and then increased it. Results are discussed in terms of
surveillance background, work exposure, transfer of learning, selection, training and motivation and the
impact of these on vigilance and CCTV performance.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd and The Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction regarding results (Squires, 2010), although CCTV does assist in

Closed circuit television (CCTV) is used extensively as a tool for
the remote monitoring of public safety and the protection of critical
infrastructure in many countries, such as the United Kingdom,
Europe, United States of America (USA), Australia, and South Africa.
It is used throughout society including town and shopping centres,
industrial and commercial settings, transport systems, and prisons
(Neil et al., 2007). The use of CCTV has increased substantially in the
USA since 9/11 and the threat of terrorism, and has been accom-
panied by subsidisation from the USA government (Cameron et al.,
2008). In the UK, the House of Lords (2009) cite estimates that
during the 1990's approximately 78% of the Home Office crime
prevention budget was spent on installing CCTV, and they indicate
that some £500 million of public money was invested in CCTV in
the decade up to 2006. Yet researchers have obtained mixed find-
ings regarding CCTV effectiveness (Greenberg and Roush, 2009;
Keval and Sasse, 2006; Wells et al., 2006; Welsh and Farrington,
2002). It has been suggested that on balance, evaluations of CCTV
effectiveness indicate that the value added by CCTV may not be
commensurate with the finances invested or expectations
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Fiona.donald@wits.ac.za (F. Donald), craig.donald@
leaderware.com (C. Donald), andrew.thatcher@wits.ac.za (A. Thatcher).
reducing crime and other significant events on a daily basis
(Donald, 2008a,b).
Many of the studies on CCTV effectiveness have focused on as-
pects such as technological system requirements (van Voorthuijsen
et al., 2005), public perceptions (Cameron et al., 2008), and changes
in crime rates after the implementation of CCTV (Wells et al., 2006).
While these aspects are important, less research attention has been
devoted to the monitoring and detection process performed by
CCTV surveillance operators (henceforth referred to as ‘operators’).
Operator performance is crucial in that the operator's ability to
detect significant events has a direct influence on the system's
effectiveness, particularly in proactive, real-time surveillance. If an
operator fails to detect a significant event, appropriate responses
(e.g. alerting emergency services) are not triggered, and people or
property are placed at risk. This indicates the need for a more in-
depth understanding of operator performance. This study aims to
examine operator effectiveness in terms of detection rates and
potential vigilance decrements in a real time CCTV surveillance
task.
The overall purpose of the operator's job is to monitor, detect
and respond to significant events that threaten the safety of people
or property. This requires vigilance and the maintenance of atten-
tion for periods ranging from one to twelve hours (Donald, 2001). In
vigilance intensive tasks, two processes influence performance e

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2014.10.001
0003-6870/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd and The Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved.
 F. Donald et al. / Applied Ergonomics 47 (2015) 220e228
the overall level of vigilance and the vigilance decrement (Davies
and Parasuraman, 1982). The overall level of vigilance is a steady
state that operators bring to the task and is indicated by overall
detection rates. The vigilance decrement refers to a decrease in
performance over time (Parasuraman, 1984) and generally occurs
from 20 to 35 min (Sawin and Scerbo, 1995) after engaging in the
task. If the overall level of vigilance is very low, “vigilance perfor-
mance is likely to be poor throughout the task, irrespective of
whether performance declines with time on task” (Parasuraman,
1984, p. 253). Operators with a steady but low overall level of
vigilance are likely to miss a larger proportion of significant events
than people with high overall vigilance levels. However, the total
number of significant events detected is also influenced by the
vigilance decrement, which may be experienced by people with
either high or low overall levels of vigilance. Anecdotal evidence
suggests that operator attention drifts after 15 min (Security Park,
2001), but this has not been examined in relation to detection
performance and it is not clear whether this applies to all operators.
Although there is the potential for vigilance decrements in work
requiring vigilance, inconsistent results regarding the existence of
vigilance decrements have been found in complex tasks (Adams
et al., 1961) and tasks that are similar to those performed in real
world settings (Hollenbeck et al., 1995; Molloy and Parasuraman,
1996; Moray and Haudegond, 1998; Pigeau et al., 1995). In view
of variations in the information processing requirements of
different vigilance intensive jobs and the numerous factors that
affect vigilance performance, this is not surprising. However, it is
important to understand whether decrements are likely to occur in
specific types of work, as this has implications for system and job
design, selection, and training. In the case of CCTV it has implica-
tions for the provision of effective service delivery in respect of
public and organisational safety and security.
CCTV systems typically consist of numerous cameras, moni-
toring and recording systems, and control room operations. Oper-
ators may observe displays ranging from a couple of spot monitors
to banks of multiplex displays, with each monitor possibly showing
scenes from a number of cameras. Operators generally observe
anything from 2 to 30 camera scenes, yielding multiple sources of
data. The use of multiple sources of data is not unique to CCTV.
However, with CCTV, significant events often cannot be detected at
a glance due to the complexity and dynamic nature of the scenes
being analysed and the visual inconspicuity of many significant
events. The scenes are frequently cluttered, consist of 2-
dimensional representations of 3-dimensional scenes, and
include events and objects that are hidden or partially obscured.
Consequently, detection is not merely a perceptual process but
involves a high degree of interpretation and visual analysis (Donald,
2008a,b). This is particularly relevant to situations where people
deliberately obscure objects and situations from the camera's view
to avoid detection e a feature that is shared by contexts such as
military surveillance. Consequently many significant events in
CCTV are visually inconspicuous and are unlikely to draw attention
unless the operator understands their significance.
Existing research on CCTV surveillance has reported mixed
findings regarding overall detection rates and vigilance decre-
ments. The studies have used different experimental conditions
(e.g. settings, camera configurations, significant events with vary-
ing degrees of visual conspicuity, samples, and time periods during
which monitoring was required) that could account for some of the
inconsistencies in results. In a study with 16 television displays and
footage of prison scenes with very little movement, detection rates
varied from 85% to 97%, depending on experimental conditions
(Tickner et al., 1972). The significant events were conspicuous and
involved two suspicious behaviours (running, and looking exces-
sively at perimeters such as walls). A follow-up study with similar
221
prison scenes but showing a lot of movement found that the range
of detection rates decreased considerably in some instances (32%e
100% across experimental conditions) (Tickner and Poulton, 1973).
Perfect detection rates were achieved only when one display was
observed at a time. The comparatively lower detection rates were
consistent with a study of a traffic scene with lots of movement
(Tickner and Poulton, 1968). Based on these studies, it was
concluded that continuous activity distracts participants.
A comparably high detection rate of 91% was obtained in a study
where simulated city centre incidents had to be identified, such as
the theft of a handbag (van Voorthuijsen et al., 2005). When par-
ticipants were required to detect a person carrying a visually con-
spicuous open umbrella in scenes where no other umbrellas were
present, an 85% detection rate was reported which declined to 54%
as the number of monitors was increased to nine (Wallace et al.,
n.d.). This contrasted with the 25% detection rate obtained by op-
erators who were required to identify transient, dynamic, incon-
spicuous incidents of theft in an industrial setting on a single
display (Andrew et al., 2003). Incidents were made up of a number
of suspicious behaviours, each of which was of short duration (no
more than a few seconds). Lower detection rates were also found in
a study involving the identification of particular individuals in
simulated CCTV footage over 25 min, where correct detections
varied from 15% when identification was based on memory, to 30%
when observers could make comparisons with a still-frame image
(Davies and Thasen, 2000). False alarm rates were high under both
conditions (60% and 65% respectively). In both Andrew et al.'s
(2003) and Davies and Thasen's (2000) studies, focal attention
and detailed visual analysis were required for correct detection.
CCTV research involving more complex and dynamic scenes con-
trasts with the studies by Tickner and Poulton (1968, 1973, 1975),
Tickner and colleagues (1972), van Voorthuijsen et al. (2005), and
Wallace et al. (n.d.) where much higher detection rates were ob-
tained with more visually conspicuous significant events of longer
duration.
Regarding vigilance decrements, Tickner and Poulton (1973)
found significant decrements in the two-hour CCTV task but not
in the one-hour condition. However, no decrements were found in
a three-hour traffic surveillance task (Tickner and Poulton, 1968)
and a four-hour task involving the identification of particular in-
dividuals and actions in a street scene (Tickner and Poulton, 1975).
The condition where vigilance decrements were found used scenes
depicting only occasional movement. Tickner and Poulton (1975)
concluded that vigilance decrements occur when there is little to
observe. Andrew et al. (2003) did not find a statistically significant
decrement in their three-hour study. Andrew et al.'s (2003) finding
regarding the absence of a decrement is somewhat surprising as
the complex information processing requirements of CCTV sur-
veillance are similar to those of tasks where vigilance decrements
typically occur (Donald, 2008a,b; Howard et al., 2009). However, it
has been shown that the effects of practice can compensate for
waning vigilance (Washburn et al., 2004). This suggests that in
Andrew et al.'s (2003) study, the experience and work exposure of
the participants could have prevented a decrement from occurring.
All participants in their study were surveillance operators who
worked in the same processing plant context from which the video
was derived.
The mixed results obtained in studies regarding vigilance dec-
rements in CCTV surveillance suggest that a number of factors
could be influencing performance over time, including for example,
the types of samples, incidents, footage and task characteristics
involved (Donald, 2010). In the current study we propose that the
types of CCTV surveillance which operators are accustomed to
performing could contribute to the vigilance decrement. This is
based on evidence that task characteristics influence vigilance
222 F. Donald et al. / Applied Ergonomics 47 (2015) 220e228
decrements (Parasuraman, 1984). We identified two types of CCTV
surveillance functions through observation of the tasks performed
by operators and discussion with operators and managers. This
resulted in the identification of ‘generalist’ and ‘specialist’ surveil-
lance and we refer to participants as ‘generalists’ and ‘specialists.’
Generalist surveillance took place within a multifunctional role
within a control room. Besides surveillance, it included alarm
monitoring, access control, ongoing communication including call
taking, and responses to parties on the ground such as police offi-
cers or security. Although monitoring was an important part of the
generalists' role, there was fairly heavy reliance on external cues
(e.g., alarms, requests to monitor certain targets) that facilitated
knowing which cameras to monitor and where to look. This assis-
ted them in perceiving and interpreting significant events. Operator
surveillance involves a lot of dichotomous detection where de-
cisions are required regarding the presence or absence of signifi-
cant events. Generalists’ attention was therefore frequently divided
between these multiple tasks and monitoring, and they were not
accustomed to deploying focused attention to the cameras for long
periods of time without interruption by other activities.
Operators performing specialist surveillance were primarily
focused on monitoring and detection, and communication was
usually initiated from their side in response to observed conditions.
They performed extensive dedicated or focused surveillance ac-
tivities where they were responsible for identifying suspects
through associated crime behaviour, made extensive use of
behavioural indicators, observed people for long durations, and
audited procedures and processes. They received few external
stimuli to guide their monitoring of cameras and relied far more on
visual analysis and monitoring to detect significant events. Their
role required focused attention over long periods of time, with few
interruptions by other tasks. These activities occur routinely in high
risk company operations such as casinos and precious goods
handling, but would require police authorisation as dedicated
surveillance in UK town centres in terms of the Regulation of
Investigatory Powers Act. As with generalists, specialists were
required to make decisions regarding the presence or absence of
significant events. However, these events were generally more
inconspicuous, difficult to detect and required more interpretation
in order to make the decision. For example, in generalist surveil-
lance, significant events tended to involve larger movements (e.g., a
person crawling under a fence) that were easier to detect than the
small, inconspicuous and transient movements involved in
specialist surveillance (e.g., quickly flicking a small diamond to
another location while sweeping with a broom). The researchers
speculated that subtle differences in the types of surveillance tasks
conducted by participants could influence vigilance decrements.
The categorisation of operators into specialists and generalists
allowed for the examination of the vigilance decrement in relation
to different samples. We extended the use of different samples to
include novices with no previous exposure to the CCTV surveillance
task.
The current research is most similar to Andrew et al.'s (2003)
study in that both use footage of theft in heavy industry; incon-
spicuous, transient significant events where perpetrators
frequently try to camouflage or make detection more difficult,
require one camera to be monitored at a time, and show continuous
movement in most clips. However, the two studies are different in
terms of the definition of significant events and instructions to
participants. Andrew et al.'s (2003) study required participants to
detect incidents of theft. Incidents typically consisted of a number
of suspicious behaviours that preceded the theft, such as perpe-
trators getting into position. Several minutes or seconds passed
between the suspicious behaviours, during which time people
performed normal work activities. Some incidents involved a
number of people whose actions unfolded over several minutes.
Participants were told to report incidents of theft, but were not
informed as to how theft could occur. This is likely to have influ-
enced participants' attention sets for incidents. As all participants
worked in the types of processing plant that was filmed in the
video, participants probably applied the attention sets and
knowledge of theft in this same context to the research task. The
task required high levels of interpretation and situation awareness
regarding the specific type of processing plant filmed in the video.
In the Andrew et al. (2003) study, participants were given a break
after each thirty-minute period, whereas no breaks were given
during the ninety-minute video of this study. It is possible that
breaks allowed for attention resources to be replenished and pre-
vented the vigilance decrement from occurring.
The research questions for this study were:
 What is the detection rate and level of false alarms for transient,
dynamic, inconspicuous target behaviours associated with theft
in heavy industry, when one camera view with almost contin-
uous movement is observed?
 Is there a vigilance decrement over a ninety-minute period for
the above type of footage?
 Does past experience with the specific task impact on detection
levels and the vigilance decrement?
2. Methods
The study initially focused on experienced CCTV surveillance
operators (Stage 1). Stage 2 included the original operators and 31
novices. Data were then analysed in terms of three strata, with
operators categorised as “generalists” and “specialists” depending
on the type of surveillance task which they were accustomed to
performing at work (as defined in the introduction), and novices
forming a separate sub-sample. The same research design, pro-
cedures, materials and types of analyses were used for the two
stages.
2.1. Participants
2.1.1. Pilot studies
The sample for the pilot study on clips with target behaviours
consisted of six people. Participants were faculty members who
participated voluntarily, aged between 25 and 58. For a second pilot
study on clips without target behaviours, participants were three
people with expertise in CCTV surveillance in a similar processing
industry.
2.1.2. Stage 1 sample
The Stage 1 sample consisted of 42 (32 male) operators
employed full-time in CCTV surveillance. Operators were drawn
from six organisations in the hospitality and gaming, town centre
surveillance, academic, and mining sectors in South Africa. All had
normal or corrected to normal vision. Non-probability purposive
sampling was used and participation in the research was voluntary.
Participants' ages ranged from 21 to 53, with a mean of 36.48 years
and standard deviation of 8.2 years. Almost two-thirds (62%) had
five or fewer years' experience with CCTV surveillance, and only 7%
had more than ten years' experience. Participants were represen-
tative of the cultural variations present within the country. The
setting for the task was a processing plant. As no participants had
worked in such a processing plant previously, none had an
advantage in terms of situation awareness specific to the context of
the video used in the study.
 F. Donald et al. / Applied Ergonomics 47 (2015) 220e228
2.1.3. Stage 2 sample
The Stage 2 sample consisted of 31 student novices who were
new to the task of CCTV surveillance. Combining their data with
those of Stage 1, this resulted in a total sample of 73. This created a
stratified sample consisting of 31 novices, 13 generalist operators,
and 29 specialist operators. The allocation of participants to
specialist or generalist sub-samples was not based on performance
evaluations in their work settings, but on the sort of surveillance
conducted at their employing organisation.
Certain biographical characteristics differed for generalist and
specialist operators. The mean length of experience with CCTV
surveillance for generalists was 2.83 years and for specialists was
5.85 years (t ¼ 2.73, p < 0.05). Specialists had a wider range of
experience levels (SD ¼ 4.62) than generalists (SD ¼ 2.44). Gener-
alists and specialists also differed in terms of their education levels.
While most (66.67%) generalists had less than a grade 12, most
specialists (71.05%) had a grade 12. Generalists and specialists had
similar ages.
The novice sub-sample was obtained through convenience
sampling. Novices' ages ranged from 20 to 28, with a mean of 21.55
years and a standard deviation of 1.48 years. In addition to their lack
of experience with CCTV surveillance, the novice sub-sample was
younger, better educated, and included a greater proportion of fe-
males than the operator sample. No incentives were offered but the
students were given letters stating that they had participated in the
study.
2.2. Procedure
Standardised, video-taped instructions included explanations
and demonstrations of the target behaviours and were followed by
practice sessions of 12 min, during which time participants could
ask questions and replay clips. For ethical and practical reasons,
participants were told how long the video would last. Once the trial
started, the video could not be replayed and no breaks were given.
Participants responded verbally when they detected specific target
behaviours and trained research assistants logged responses and
their time of occurrence, recording hits, misses and false alarms.
Prior approval for the research was obtained from the university's
ethics committee. The same procedure was used for stages 1 and 2.
2.3. Materials
The task consisted of watching a 90-min video of CCTV sur-
veillance footage and verbally reporting the detection of four types
of target behaviours. All clips were situated in a processing plant
and represented realistic work activities such as sweeping and
shovelling spillage, inspecting machines, hosing areas, filling con-
tainers, and employees talking to each other. The scenes showed
from one to three people working with or near heavy machinery.
Most clips contained continuous movement, but five clips showed
no movement for periods up to 2 min. The number of people and
continual movement were seen as being typical of the scenes
depicted by cameras in this type of environment. Some clips were
real and others were simulations acted by professional actors in a
processing plant. However, simulated clips were realistic in all re-
spects and could not be visually distinguished from real clips. Un-
like traditional laboratory vigilance research where simple stimuli
are used and their detection difficulty levels can be assumed to be
similar, significant events on CCTV differ greatly in conspicuity,
duration, and detection difficulty. Therefore it was important to
ensure that time phases in the video were equivalent in terms of
factors such as visual complexity and detection difficulty levels.
The video was developed through two pilot studies aimed at
selecting clips with a suitable range of difficulty levels, removing
223
clips where behaviours were ambiguous or high numbers of false
alarms occurred, and ensuring that the thirty-minute phases were
equivalent in terms of detection difficulty levels. It was decided that
visible, specific target behaviours consisting of a single action and
associated with incidents would be the significant events.
The final set of significant events consisted of four types of
target behaviours: picking up a small object; kicking the object to
another location; flicking the object to another location with a
broom; and swivelling the ankle with the intention of grinding the
object into the underside of a boot in order to walk away with the
object. The target behaviours were all associated with theft that
could occur in a range of CCTV environments. During the first pilot
study, participants rated the clips that contained target behaviours
in terms of their detection difficulty levels (1 ¼ extremely easy,
5 ¼ extremely difficult). This was necessary to ensure an even
spread of clips with different detection difficulty levels in the final
video. The target behaviours were inconspicuous but noticeable,
and of short duration, lasting from one to four seconds. The
outcome of this pilot study was a list of suitable clips with target
behaviours that were categorised by type of target behaviour, dif-
ficulty rating, area of the processing plant, and number of people
included in the scene. The detection difficulty ratings were aver-
aged and were used in the allocation of target behaviour clips to
time phases in the video for pilot study 2.
The aim of pilot study 2 was to identify video clips containing
behaviours that were likely to be incorrectly perceived as target
behaviours and those that yielded high numbers of false alarms.
Where false alarms were noted at the same time by two or more
raters, the clip was eliminated or edited to remove ambiguous
behaviours. Where only one rater reported a false alarm, the other
two raters observed the clip again, and through discussion, reached
consensus on whether the behaviour was likely to create a false
alarm in the final study. Pilot study 2 was also aimed at ensuring
that suitable video clips were used in the video for the main study,
that there would be equivalence across time phases in terms of
detection difficulty in the final video, and that instructions to par-
ticipants were appropriate. Three videos of thirty minutes were
prepared for this pilot study. Clips where all participants detected
the target behaviour were considered too easy and were eliminated
for the final video. Conversely, target behaviour clips with low
detection rates needed to be spread more evenly between the time
phases for the main study. Pilot study 2 was an essential step in
creating an appropriate continuous video with appropriate
numbers of target behaviours for the final study.
The final video consisted of a mixture of clips with target be-
haviours and others without target behaviours. For the purpose of
analysis, the video was divided into thirty-minute phases, with
each phase containing six instances of target behaviours, resulting
in a total of eighteen target behaviours. Each phase included a
mixture of comparable target behaviours that were easy and
difficult to detect. Although the target behaviours were transient,
they were all visible to the researchers and experts in the field who
were involved in developing the video.
2.4. Analysis
In order to analyse the differences across the three thirty-
minute time phases, repeated measures ANOVAs were conducted
at Stage 1 using target behaviours (TB) and false alarms (FA) as the
dependent variables. At Stage 2, repeated measures analysis of
covariance (ANCOVAs) were conducted using CCTV experience, age
and education level as covariates using target behaviours, false
alarms, and groups as the dependent variables. Training could not
be included as a covariate due to the wide range of content in
training courses attended, which meant that the courses were not
224 F. Donald et al. / Applied Ergonomics 47 (2015) 220e228

equivalent. As a measure of the effectiveness of vigilance, re-
searchers often turn to Signal Detection Theory (SDT) as a way of
balancing correct responses against false alarms (Tanner and Swets,
1954). A common measure within SDT is d0 (d-prime, or sensitivity),
which assesses the operator's ability to distinguish target behav-
iours from false alarms. However, it was noted that d0 produces an
infinite result if either the target behaviours or false alarms are zero
(a common occurrence when target behaviours are either very
difficult or very easy for certain operators to detect). Pollack and
Norman (1964) introduced a non-parametric equivalent to
d0 known as A0 (A-prime). A number of authors have noted errors in
the calculation of A0 and its most recent formulation. Zhang and
Mueller's (2005) calculation of A, was used in this study. The pro-
portion of false alarms was calculated by dividing each phase into
thirty second intervals and determining the number of false alarms
across the thirty second time intervals where target behaviours
were not present. The proportion of target behaviours and false
alarms were then used to calculate A. Repeated measures analysis
of variance (ANOVAs) and ANCOVAs were used to calculate differ-
ence across phases and groups.
p < 0.05) phases. However, the mean FAs were similar for the
second and third phases (t ¼ 0.40, n.s.). Examination of the means
indicates that FAs decreased from the first to second phase, after
which they were fairly stable. There were no significant differences
in A between the phases (F(2, 36) ¼ 1.32, p > 0.05) although age was
a significant covariate for A (F(1, 37) ¼ 5.11, p < 0.05).
To identify factors that confounded the results in stage 1, bio-
graphical factors were examined. A significant inverse correlation
was obtained between the total number of TBs detected and age
(r ¼ 0.45, p < 0.05), but not for duration of CCTV experience or
education level. ANOVAs were significant on ethnicity where the
total number of TBs detected was the dependent variable (F(2,
39) ¼ 4.69, p < 0.05), but not for type of surveillance conducted at
work (live, review only, or a combination of these) or type of
training received (technical, surveillance skills, or both). A t-test
indicated that gender was not significant for the total number of
detections. No significant results were obtained for any bio-
graphical factors on FAs or TBs.
3.2. Stage 2

3. Results Using the sub-samples of generalists and specialists, the bio-

3.1. Stage 1
Operators detected a mean of 55% of target behaviours over the
ninety-minute video (Table 1). The large standard deviation (3.23)
indicates high variance in detection rates. Additional scrutiny of the
data revealed that only 12% of operators detected over 75% of target
behaviours, and nobody detected all target behaviours. Fourteen
percent of operators detected a third or fewer target behaviours.
Therefore a substantial proportion of target behaviours was missed.
The mean number of FAs reported for the whole video (15.76)
and the standard deviation (11.92) were high. Combined with low
target behaviour detection rates, the high level of false alarms
further reduced detection accuracy.
Repeated measures ANCOVAs using a mixed model and the
KenwardeRoger (1997) method for thirty-minute periods found
that phase was not significant for TBs (F(2, 68.95) ¼ 1.12, n.s.),
indicating that the means for TBs detected were similar over time.
Age was a significant covariate for TBs (F(1, 37) ¼ 10.95, p < 0.05)
but there were no significant covariates for FAs. Therefore repeated
measures ANOVAs were performed on FAs. These indicated that FAs
were significantly different for different phases (F(2, 76.4) ¼ 7.69,
p < 0.05). The means for FAs for the first phase were significantly
different from the second (t ¼ 3.92, p  0.05) and third (t ¼ 2.70,
graphical variables were analysed again to identify differences
between these sub-samples. As described earlier, a possible
distinction between generalists and specialists based on their past
task experience, could explain some of the variance in target
behaviour detection. Therefore in stage 2, generalists and special-
ists were treated as different strata in the sample, providing an
alternative way of looking at the data.
The stage 2 sample as a whole detected a mean of 50% of TBs
(Table 2). No participants detected all TBs and only five operators
(11.9%) detected 75% or more target behaviours. FAs were high and
had large standard deviations.
Repeated measures ANCOVAs were conducted on TBs between
the thirty-minute periods for different surveillance backgrounds
(novice, generalist or specialist). Age was the only significant co-
variate (F(1, 69.6) ¼ 5.96, p < 0.05).
ANCOVAs found that the type of surveillance background (F(2,
68.9) ¼ 3.58, p < 0.05) was significant in terms of TB detection rates.
Differences in least squares means for TBs detected were signifi-
cantly different for novices and specialists (t(69.4) ¼ 2.38,
p < 0.05) but similar for the other groups.
Surveillance background accounted for differences in FAs (F(2,
65.9) ¼ 16.52, p < 0.05). This applied to novices (t ¼ 4.21, p < 0.05),
generalists (t ¼ 9.27, p < 0.05), and specialists (t ¼ 8.34, p < 0.05).
Comparisons of the mean number of FAs between the surveillance

Table 1 Table 2
Summary statistics on dependent variables for operators (N ¼ 42). Summary statistics for dependent variables by surveillance background (N ¼ 73).

Variable Mean SD Min Max Variable Surveillance background

N (%) N (%) N (%)
Novice Generalist Specialist All participants
TBs Phase 1 3.50 (58.3) 1.38 1 (17) 6 (100) n ¼ 31 n ¼ 13 n ¼ 29 N ¼ 73
TBs Phase 2 2.86 (47.7) 1.18 1 (17) 5 (83)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
TBs Phase 3 3.60 (60) 1.52 1 (17) 6 (100)
Total TBs 9.95 (55) 3.23 4 (22%) 17 (94%) TBs Phase 1 3.10 1.54 3.46 1.27 3.52 1.45 3.33 1.45
TBs Phase 2 2.10 1.45 2.15 0.90 3.17 1.17 2.53 1.34
FAs Phase 1 6.71 5.86 0 26
TBs Phase 3 2.48 1.55 2.38 0.96 4.14 1.41 3.12 1.62
FAs Phase 2 4.43 4.35 0 18
Total TBs 7.68 3.47 8.00 2.52 10.83 3.16 8.99 3.50
FA Phase 3 4.69 3.65 0 16
Total FAs 15.76 11.92 0 46 FAs Phase 1 2.61 3.02 10.00 8.36 5.24 3.62 4.97 5.25
FAs Phase 2 2.13 2.03 5.77 4.32 3.83 4.30 3.45 3.72
A Phase 1 0.81 0.12 0.53 1
FA Phase 3 1.97 2.75 5.08 2.60 4.52 4.07 3.53 3.55
A Phase 2 0.79 0.11 0.45 0.95
Total FAs 6.71 6.33 20.77 13.54 13.52 10.61 11.92 10.86
A Phase 3 0.84 0.1 0.6 1
A Phase 1 0.83 0.11 0.76 0.11 0.82 0.12 0.82 0.12
Note: Percentages are calculated based on the number of target behaviours in the
A Phase 2 0.77 0.14 0.72 0.11 0.82 0.1 0.79 0.12
relevant row.
A Phase 3 0.81 0.12 0.75 0.08 0.87 0.09 0.83 0.11
TB ¼ target behaviour, FA ¼ false alarm.
 F. Donald et al. / Applied Ergonomics 47 (2015) 220e228 225

Table 3
Type 3 Tests of fixed effects for TBs detected.

Effect Model DF Error DF F value Pr > F

Surveillance background 2 68.9 3.58* 0.03

Phase 2 134 11.72** <0.0001
Phase*Surveillance background 4 136 2.79* 0.03
Experience 1 69.6 0.06 0.81

*p < 0.05,**p < 0.01.

backgrounds were all significant (novices and generalists,

t ¼ 5.65, p < 0.05; generalists and specialists, t ¼ 3.28, p < 0.05;
novices and specialists, t ¼ 3.07, p < 0.05). Inspection of the means
indicates that novices reported the smallest number of FAs
(mean ¼ 6.71), specialists an intermediate number (mean ¼ 13.52),
and generalists the most (mean ¼ 20.77).
Taken together, the results demonstrate that specialists per-
formed best, novices performed at an intermediate level, and
generalists performed worst on the task. The findings support the
hypothesis that the level of detection performance varies between Fig. 1. TBs detected over time by surveillance background.
participants with different surveillance backgrounds.
The repeated measures ANCOVAs (Table 3) indicated that there
were significant differences in TB detection over time (F(2, p < 0.05) were significant for A, but not the interaction between
134) ¼ 11.72, p < 0.05) and that this interacted significantly with Phase and surveillance background (F(4, 136) ¼ 1.67, p > 0.05).
surveillance background (F(4, 136) ¼ 2,79, p < 0.05), but not with None of the covariates was significant for A. These were length
length of experience. of experience with CCTV surveillance (F(1, 64) ¼ 0.001, p > 0.05),
These results are presented in more detail in Table 4. The dif- age (F(1, 64) ¼ 2.5, p > 0.05), and education (F(1, 64) ¼ 0.54,
ferences in least squares means indicate that overall, specialists and p > 0.05).
novices detected significantly different numbers of TBs. In addition, Post-hoc tests indicated that there was a significant difference in
detection rates differed significantly between the first and second, A between generalists and specialists (mean difference ¼ 0.08,
and second and third phases for the overall sample. p < 0.05), but not between the other surveillance backgrounds.
Participants from different surveillance backgrounds demon- Paired t-tests on A for the thirty-minute phases found similar
strated different patterns of performance over time (Table 4). trends for novices and generalists, but different results for spe-
Novices and generalists showed significant decreases in detection cialists (Table 5). Both novices (t(29) ¼ 2.53, p < 0.05) and gener-
rates between the first and second thirty-minute periods, after alists (t(12) ¼ 2.25, p < 0.05) showed significant decreases in A after
which their performance stabilised (the slight increase in their the first thirty minutes, while specialists maintained their perfor-
detections between the second and third thirty-minute periods mance for the first hour. During the last thirty minutes, the small
was non-significant). Contrary to this, specialists maintained their increases in A demonstrated by novices and generalists were not
performance for the first hour (the slight decrease was non- significant. Contrasting with this, specialists showed a significant
significant) and then significantly increased their detections be- increase in A during the last thirty-minute phase (t(28) ¼ 2.34,
tween the second and third thirty-minute periods (see Fig. 1). p < 0.05).
The differences in A between time phases and surveillance The trends regarding A between the phases for each sub-sample
backgrounds were examined using ANCOVAs. Phase (F(2, are depicted in Fig. 2. To summarise, specialists performed best
67) ¼ 4.36, p < 0.05) and surveillance background (F(2, 68) ¼ 4.196, overall, maintaining their performance for the first hour and then
increasing to their highest level of performance in the last thirty
minutes. Generalists showed the poorest performance, with a sig-
nificant decrease in A after the first thirty minutes. Similarly to
Table 4 generalists, the novices' A scores decreased after thirty minutes.
Differences in least square means for target behaviours.
The directions and significance of the differences between
Effect Phase Type Phase Type t phases indicate that a linear, uni-directional vigilance decrement
Type Nov Gen 1.42
Type Nov Spec 2.38*
Type Gen Spec 1.6
Phase 1 2 4.61** Table 5
Phase 1 3 1.59 Paired t-tests on A for thirty-minute phases by surveillance background.
Phase 2 3 2.7** Surveillance background Phases t df
Phase*Type 1 Nov 2 Nov 3.83**
Phase*Type 1 Nov 3 Nov 1.95* Novice 1&2 2.53* 29
Phase*Type 2 Nov 3 Nov 1.48 1&3 0.78 29
Phase*Type 1 Gen 2 Gen 2.98** 2&3 1.76 29
Phase*Type 1 Gen 3 Gen 2.14*
Generalist 1&2 2.25* 12
Phase*Type 2 Gen 3 Gen 0.4
1&3 0.74 12
Phase*Type 1 Spec 2 Spec 1.28
2&3 1.02 12
Phase*Type 1 Spec 3 Spec 1.91
Phase*Type 2 Spec 3 Spec 3.58** Specialist 1&2 0.12 28
1&3 2.5* 28
*p < 0.05,**p < 0.01.
2&3 2.34* 28
“Type” refers to surveillance background, “Nov” refers to novices, “Gen” refers to
generalists, “Spec” refers to specialists. *p < 0.05.
226 F. Donald et al. / Applied Ergonomics 47 (2015) 220e228
Fig. 2. ‘A’ over time by surveillance background.
was not obtained in all cases. While novices and generalists showed
a vigilance decrement, this was not evident for specialists. In
addition, a statistically significant performance increment was
evident for specialists.
4. Discussion
Differences were found between the two stages of the research.
In stage 1, where the sample consisted of operators treated as a
single sample, no statistically significant vigilance decrements or
increments were found over the ninety-minute period. This is
consistent with some studies of complex vigilance tasks that are
similar to real world jobs (e.g., Molloy and Parasuraman, 1996;
Moray and Haudegond, 1998; Tickner and Poulton, 1975). Howev-
er, in view of the mixed findings regarding vigilance decrements in
complex tasks, we examined the potential reasons for this and
alternative explanations.
First, we analysed biographical variables that could have
contributed to the result. Age was a significant covariate, but no
other biographical factors contributed to detection. Age seemed
insufficient in accounting for the lack of changes in performance
over time. Although a number of alternative explanations are
possible (see Donald, 2010), we focused on the type of CCTV sur-
veillance that participants were accustomed to performing. Ex-
amination of background information revealed that the
organisations in the sample included two types of CCTV surveil-
lance operations. The generalist context relied heavily on auditory
alarms to indicate significant events, and the specialist context
required far more intensive visual analysis and sustained attention
and monitoring. This led to the proposition that differences in
surveillance background might be masking changes in detection
performance over time. In order to explore this possibility and deal
with the high variance in stage 1, the operator sample was divided
into generalists and specialists, and additional data from novices
were obtained.
In stage 2, different results were obtained for the sub-samples
from different surveillance backgrounds. Taken together, the
detection rates, false alarms and A statistics indicated that spe-
cialists performed best overall, followed by novices and then gen-
eralists. Although novices had lower overall detection rates than
generalists, they reported fewer false alarms and therefore their A
scores were higher than those of generalists. One possible expla-
nation for the differences between the sub-samples resides in their
surveillance backgrounds. Generalists were used to using external
cues, such as alarms, to guide their attention to specific cameras
and areas. In the absence of these cues, they seem to have difficulty
deploying and sustaining their attention appropriately in order to
detect significant events. This contrasted with the superior per-
formance of specialists who were accustomed to sustaining atten-
tion for long periods of time and performing detailed visual
analysis of scenes without the assistance of external cues. Although
the novices had not performed CCTV surveillance before, they were
students and were used to sustaining their attention during lec-
tures, reading and other activities required when studying.
In addition to differences in detection rates, a vigilance decre-
ment was found for novices and generalists after thirty minutes.
This contrasted with specialists whose performance remained
stable for the first hour, after which it increased. This finding can be
tentatively explained by a number of factors. It is possible that the
type of surveillance background that operators perform influences
their transfer of learning and ability to detect significant events in
different contexts. Specialists were more accustomed than gener-
alists and novices to performing visual analysis on CCTV and to
searching for inconspicuous and transient events. As a result, they
are likely to have developed better visual analysis skills than gen-
eralists and novices. These skills were applied to the detection task
used in the study. Therefore transfer of learning from the work to
the research context is likely to have assisted specialists. Because
the task in this research was more similar to the tasks performed at
work by specialists than generalists, it would have used fewer
attentional resources than generalists, whereas attentional re-
sources of generalists and novices were depleted more quickly. By
contrast, the specialists used fewer attentional resources and were
able to harness these and achieve a performance increment in the
last thirty minutes. This is consistent with resource theories of
attention (Wickens, 2002). In addition, specialists were used to
sustaining their attention for long periods of time during visual
analysis.
An alternative explanation is that generalists and specialists had
been appointed as CCTV surveillance operators based on different
selection criteria, resulting in different skill levels in these groups.
In addition, the training received by generalists and specialists
differed (novices had not received previous training). This high-
lights the importance of selection and training which are likely to
have a direct effect on operator performance and CCTV effective-
ness. It is important to select individuals who demonstrate the
underlying ability to detect inconspicuous events, who are able to
sustain their attention for lengthy periods, and transfer learning to
novel significant events that might occur in the future. Training that
focuses on the detection process (what to look for) as well as
operating the CCTV system at a technical level is important. In
addition to selection and training, biographical characteristics
could have confounded the results for generalists and specialists.
These sub-samples differed on their length of experience with
CCTV and education levels. However, these differences were not
significant covariates with the output variables (i.e. TBs detected,
FAs and A).
It is possible that the specialists' increase in performance during
the last thirty minutes reflected the end spurt effect as described by
Bergum and Lehr (1963), whereby participants increase perfor-
mance towards the end of the task. The specialists' capacity to in-
crease performance after 60 min, whether due to sustained
attention or the end spurt effect, demonstrates that in some in-
stances, operators are able to deliberately overcome issues related
to arousal, fatigue and alertness. This implies that the effects of
fatigue and other processes described in vigilance theories are to
some extent reversible. Future research is recommended regarding
the mechanisms involved in creating the end-spurt effect and the
reasons why it occurred in specialists but not other sub-samples to
the same extent.
The similar vigilance dynamics for novices and generalists suggest
that people with little or no exposure to (or training in) particular
 F. Donald et al. / Applied Ergonomics 47 (2015) 220e228
vigilance tasks are likely to be more vulnerable to the vigilance
decrement compared with people with relevant and extensive work
exposure. However, this is contrary to a number of vigilance studies
that found a steady vigilance decrement for both novice personnel
and experienced personnel (Baker, 1962; Mackworth, 1970; Pigeau
et al., 1995; Schmidke, 1976). In these previous studies, both novices
and experts were employed to perform the task used in the relevant
study. This differs from the current research where novices were not
operators and were drawn from a different population from operators
with different expectancies, motivation, and skills. These differences
in motivation could have confounded the results of the current study,
but they do not explain the different trends for generalists and
specialists.
The findings of the current research suggest that the nature of the
sample is a significant and frequently overlooked factor in relation to
the vigilance decrement. Closer examination of the studies with
complex tasks referred to above, indicates that a number used stu-
dent samples despite using tasks or simulations that were similar to
those encountered in the real world (e.g. Hollenbeck et al., 1995;
Molloy and Parasuraman, 1996; Pigeau et al., 1995). The current
research found a distinct difference in the vigilance dynamics be-
tween participants (novices and generalists) with no or less expe-
rience, training, and exposure to the type of surveillance task
performed in the study, and specialists with more experience,
training, and exposure to this type of task. This suggests that pre-
vious work exposure is an important variable to consider when
selecting a sample for some research using real world type tasks.
The notion that the vigilance decrement may not be as prevalent
as implied in much vigilance research, suggests that Parasuraman's
(1987) call for a shift in the focus of research towards the overall
level of vigilance and related attention processes is still relevant.
This is supported by the low overall detection rates achieved in this
study (50%), and the high false alarm rate which further reduced
detection accuracy. The detection rate for the CCTV surveillance
task used in this research was lower than those reported in studies
where the significant events were known and visually salient (e.g.,
Tickner and Poulton, 1968, 1973; Tickner et al., 1972; van
Voorthuijsen et al., 2005; Wallace et al., n.d.), but higher than
Andrew et al.'s (2003) study where the significant events were
inconspicuous and transient, and participants were not told what
constituted a significant event.
As target inconspicuity (Bauer et al., 1996; Itti and Koch, 2000)
and duration (Tickner and Poulton, 1973) increase detection diffi-
culty, the detection task in this study is considered to be more
difficult than in Tickner and Poulton (1968, 1973, 1975), Tickner and
colleagues (1972), van Voorthuijsen et al.'s (2005) and Wallace
et al.'s (n.d.) studies. However, consultation with experts (pilot
study 2) confirmed that the types of scenes and TBs were repre-
sentative of the scenes and significant events encountered inside
industrial processing plants. The low detection rate in this study
suggests that expectations regarding CCTV detection rates require
careful evaluation. A one hundred percent detection rate is unre-
alistic, even for top performers and those with extensive experi-
ence and training in CCTV surveillance. If this is the case, it is
inevitable that significant events are missed in operational con-
texts, although the proportion of missed significant events will vary
according to the type of surveillance performed, the nature of sig-
nificant events, and the skills and experience of operators. This
finding indicates that it may be necessary to re-evaluate what is
feasible in human detection and CCTV environments and the con-
ditions that support and enhance detection. This would include
examining the implications of having to view multiple displays, and
implications of the nature of the viewed environment and detec-
tion tasks on the likely performance success. These are important
findings because they confirm that a greater emphasis should be
227
placed on the operator's role in CCTV effectiveness and in-
terventions aimed at improving detection rates.
5. Conclusion
The changes in the vigilance decrement across the initial sample
group, and subsequent different work exposure groups, show that
the vigilance effect is not consistent across people, or indeed across
time. Variations in group performance, and that of individuals
within groups, mean that one cannot automatically expect a
decrement, or a particular type of decrement, to occur for all those
involved in CCTV surveillance. This is likely to extend to other real
world visual analysis intensive viewing tasks. Further, the capacity
of the specialist group to raise performance in the final 30 min
period compared to the middle 30 min shows that there are some
people who can maintain performance in real life settings for
extended periods that are well beyond the 20e35 min periods
indicated by Sawin and Scerbo (1995). The impact of the viewing
task and environment may also be an important element of vigi-
lance that requires more extensive consideration in vigilance
research.
These results appear to confirm the suggestions made in a
number of studies that operator performance in CCTV is less than
ideal (Donald and Andrew, 2003; Donald et al., 2007; Edkins and
Pollock, 1997; Keval and Sasse, 2006; Wells et al., 2006), although
the standards for ‘satisfactory’ detection have not been defined.
Previous research has found mixed results for CCTV effectiveness
(Greenberg and Roush, 2009; Keval and Sasse, 2006; Wells et al.,
2006; Welsh and Farrington, 2002). However, none of these
studies examined actual detection rates. Where the effectiveness of
the overall CCTV system has been unsatisfactory, researchers have
attributed this to a number of factors, many of which relate to the
broader context in which the CCTV system operates, and not
necessarily to operator performance (e.g., Cameron et al., 2008). By
contrast, the current research focuses specifically on operator
performance and demonstrates that operator detection perfor-
mance is likely to be a significant contributor in situations where
CCTV effectiveness is unsatisfactory.
Differences between generalist and specialist CCTV contexts
suggest that CCTV surveillance is not a unitary function and that the
nature of the work and related demands on operators vary across
contexts. This is an important distinction as it represents the first
step in developing a typology of CCTV surveillance jobs and the
cognitive processes involved. Previous research has assumed that
all CCTV surveillance contexts are similar in terms of demands on
operators. Differences between contexts have implications for
theory and practice. The identification of CCTV contexts allows for
future research to be specific in terms of the contexts to which the
research is intended to apply. It also has implications for the se-
lection, training and development of operators. Existing typologies
of vigilance tasks (e.g., Parasuraman and Davies, 1977; Donald,
2008a,b) could be used as a starting point for a typology for CCTV
surveillance tasks.
References
Adams, J.A., Stenson, H.H., Humes, J.M., 1961. Monitoring of complex visual displays
II: effects of visual load and response complexity on human vigilance. Hum.
Factors 3, 213e221.
Andrew, C., Landgrebe, T., Donald, C., 2003. Enhanced Surveillance Platform Vali-
dation Testing: Methodology Report. Technical Report, de Beers, Johannesburg.
Baker, C.H., 1962. Man and Radar Displays. MacMillan, New York.
Bauer, B., Jolicoeur, P., Cowan, W.B., 1996. Visual search for colour targets that are or
are not linearly separable from distracters. Vis. Res. 36 (10), 1439e1466.
Bergum, B.O., Lehr, D.J., 1963. End spurt in vigilance. J. Exp. Psychol. 66, 383e385.
Cameron, A., Kolodinski, E., May, H., Williams, N., . Measuring the Effects of Video
Surveillance on Crime in Los Angeles. Technical Report Number CRB-08-00,
228 F. Donald et al. / Applied Ergonomics 47 (2015) 220e228
prepared for the California Research Bureau by the USC School of Policy,
Planning and Development, Los Angeles. Retrieved from: http://www.library.ca.
gov/crb/08/08-007.pdf.
Davies, D.R., Parasuraman, R., 1982. The Psychology of Vigilance. Academic Press,
New York.
Davies, G., Thasen, S., 2000. Closed-circuit television: how effective an identification
aid? Br. J. Psychol. 91, 411e426.
Donald, C., 2001. Vigilance. In: Noyes, J., Bransby, M. (Eds.), People in Control:
Human Factors in Control Room Design. The Institution of Electrical Engineers,
London, pp. 35e50.
Donald, C., 2008a. A Strategic Approach to Security Technology Implementation e
the Case for CCTV and Implications for Public Protection. Key Note Address in
Proceedings of the First Security Australia (SECAU) Conference, 1 December,
Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia.
Donald, F., 2008b. The classification of vigilance tasks in the real world. Ergonomics
51 (11), 1643e1655.
Donald, F., 2010. A model of CCTV surveillance operator performance. Ergon. SA 22
(2), 2e13.
Donald, C., Andrew, C., 2003. Technology Enhancement of CCTV Operator Effec-
tiveness. Paper presented at the CCTV User Group Conference, 9 April, Bolton,
UK.
Donald, C., Andrew, C., Landgrebe, T., 2007. The Impact of CCTV TIP Implementation.
Paper presented at the Human Factors in Transport Security Academic Forum,
24e25 September, Trinity College, Oxford.
Edkins, G.D., Pollock, C.M., 1997. The influence of sustained attention on railway
accidents. Accident Anal. Prev. 29 (4), 533e539.
Greenberg, D.F., Roush, J.B., 2009. The effectiveness of an electronic security man-
agement system in a privately owned apartment complex. Eval. Rev. 33, 3e26.
Hollenbeck, J.R., Ilgen, D.R., Tuttle, D.B., Sego, D.J., 1995. Team performance on
monitoring tasks: an examination of decision errors in contexts requiring
sustained attention. J. Appl. Psychol. 80 (6), 685e696.
House of Lords, 2009. Constitution Committee e Second Report. Surveillance: Cit-
izens and the State. Constitution Committee Publications.
Howard, C.J., Troscianko, T., Gilchrist, I.D., Behera, A., Hogg, D.C., 2009. Searching for
threat: factors determining performance during CCTV monitoring. In: De
Waard, Godthelp, J., Kooi, F.L., Brookhuis, K.A. (Eds.), Human Factors, Security
and Safety. Shaker Publishing, Maastricht, pp. 333e339.
Itti, L., Koch, C., 2000. A saliency-based search mechanism for overt and covert
shifts of visual attention. Vis. Res. 40 (10e12), 1489e1506.
Kenward, M.G., Roger, J.H., 1997. Small sample inference for fixed effects from
restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics 53 (3), 983e987.
Keval, H., Sasse, M.A., 2006. Man or gorilla? Performance Issues with CCTV Tech-
nology in Security Control Rooms. In: Proceedings of the 16th World Congress
on Ergonomics Conference, Maastricht, Netherlands, International Ergonomics
Association, 10e14 July.
Mackworth, J.F., 1970. Vigilance and Attention. Penguin, Baltimore.
Molloy, R., Parasuraman, R., 1996. Monitoring an automated system for a single
failure: vigilance and task complexity effects. Hum. Factors 38 (2), 311e322.
Moray, N., Haudegond, S., 1998. An absence of vigilance decrement in a complex
dynamic task. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Annual Meeting, Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, pp. 234e238.
Neil, D., Thomas, N., Baker, B., 2007. Threat Image Projection in CCTV. In: Pro-
ceedings of the 41st Annual International IEEE Carnahan Conference on Secu-
rity Technology, Ottawa, ON, Canada, pp. 272e280.
View publication stats
Parasuraman, R., 1984. Sustained attention in detection and discrimination. In:
Parasuraman, R., Davies, D.R. (Eds.), Varieties of Attention. Academic Press,
Orlando, pp. 243e272.
Parasuraman, R., 1987. Human-computer monitoring. Hum. Factors 29 (6),
695e706.
Parasuraman, R., Davies, D.R., 1977. A taxonomic analysis of vigilance performance.
In: Mackie, R.R. (Ed.), Vigilance: Theory, Operational Performance, and Physi-
ological Correlates. Plenum, New York, pp. 559e574.
Security Park, 2001. Space-age surveillance comes to Newham. Retrieved from:
www.securitypark.co.uk/pfv.asp?articleid¼1832.
Pigeau, R.A., Angus, R.G., O'Neill, P., Mack, I., 1995. Vigilance latencies to aircraft
detection among NORAD surveillance operators. Hum. Factors 37 (3), 622e634.
Pollack, L., Norman, D.A., 1964. Non-parametric analysis of recognition experiments.
Psychon. Sci. 1, 125e126.
Sawin, D.A., Scerbo, M.W., 1995. Effects of instruction type and boredom proneness in
vigilance: implications for boredom and workload. Hum. Factors 37 (4), 752e765.
Schmidke, I.I., 1976. Vigilance. In: Simonson, E., Weiser, P.C. (Eds.), Psychological and
Physiological Correlates of Work and Fatigue. Thomas, Springfield, MA,
pp. 126e138.
Squires, P., . Evaluating CCTV: Lessons from a Surveillance Culture. Paper presented
at the Final Conference of the European Forum for Urban Safety: Citizens, Cities
and Video-Surveillance Programme and for the EFUS CCTV Charter launched in
Rotterdam, May 2010. Retrieved from: http://www.fesu.org/.
Tanner, W.P., Swets, J.A., 1954. A decision-making theory of visual detection. Psy-
chol. Rev. 61 (6), 401e409.
Tickner, A.H., Poulton, E.C., 1968. Remote monitoring of motorways using closed-
circuit television. Ergonomics 11, 455e466.
Tickner, A.H., Poulton, E.C., 1973. Monitoring up to 16 synthetic television pictures
showing a great deal of movement. Ergonomics 16 (4), 381e401.
Tickner, A.H., Poulton, E.C., 1975. Watching for people and actions. Ergonomics 18,
35e51.
Tickner, A.H., Poulton, E.C., Copeman, A.K., Simmonds, D.C.V., 1972. Monitoring 16
television screens showing little movement. Ergonomics 16 (3), 279e291.
van Voorthuijsen, G., van Hoof, H., Klima, M., Roubik, K., Bernas, M., Pata, P., 2005.
CCTV effectiveness study. In: Proceedings of the 39th IEEE Annual 2005 Inter-
national Carnahan Conference on Security Technology, Piscataway,
pp. 105e108.
Wallace, E., Diffley, C., Baines, E., Aldridge, J., n.d. Ergonomic design considerations
for public area CCTV safety and security applications. Home Office, Police Sci-
entific Development Branch (PSDB), UK.
Washburn, D.A., Taglialatela, L.A., Rice, P.R., Smith, J.D., 2004. Individual differences
in sustained attention and threat detection. Int. J. Cognit. Technol. 9 (2), 30e33.
Wells, H., Allard, T., Wilson, P., 2006. Crime and CCTV in Australia: Understanding
the Relationship. Centre of Applied Psychology and Criminology, Faculty of
Humanities and Social Sciences, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia.
Welsh, B.C., Farrington, D.P., 2002. Crime Prevention Effects of CCTV: a Systematic
Review. Technical Research Report No. 252, Home Office Research, Develop-
ment and Statistics Directorate, UK.
Wickens, C.D., 2002. Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theor. Issues
Ergon. Sci. 3 (2), 159e177.
Zhang, J., Mueller, S.T., 2005. A note on ROC analysis and non-parametric estimate of
sensitivity. Psychometrika 70 (1), 203e212.