International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 43 (2013) 129e136

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ergon

The effects of “finger pointing and calling” on cognitive control processes

in the task-switching paradigm
Kazumitsu Shinohara a, *, Hiroshi Naito a, Yuko Matsui b, Masaru Hikono b
a
Graduate School of Human Sciences, Osaka University, 1-2, Yamadaoka, Suita, Osaka 5650871, Japan
b
Institute of Nuclear Safety System, Incorporated, 64 Sata, Mihama, Mikata-gun, Fukui 9191205, Japan

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

Article history: “Finger pointing and calling (FPC),” also known simply as “pointing and calling,” is an operational
Received 29 July 2011 procedure to prevent human error and has been used extensively in Japanese industry. Although the
Received in revised form effectiveness of FPC has been widely recognized, cognitive processes underlying FPC have not been
28 July 2012
thoroughly investigated. The current study focused on the effect of FPC on cognitive control processes
Accepted 8 August 2012
Available online 24 August 2012
responsible for the supervisory attentional system including the retrieval and activation of working
memory. In the experiment, a task-switching paradigm was adopted. Twenty participants had to make
a binary decision about two presented digits according to one of three task rules. Task rules to be applied
Keywords:
Finger pointing and calling
were presented by a cue immediately before presenting the digits. Participants took part in a mixed rule
Human error prevention session in which they had to switch the task rule from one trial to the next, and a single rule session in
Task switching which a specific rule was applied throughout the session. FPC to the cue was incorporated. Results
Attention showed that in the mixed rule condition, the reaction was significantly faster when FPC was performed
Working memory compared to when FPC was not performed. Even though the reaction became faster in the mixed rule
condition with FPC, the accuracy of response was not affected. However, the preparation time, which was
required for retrieving and activating the rule used for the current trial, was affected by performing FPC.
In addition, the level of subjective mental workload did not change by applying FPC, which suggests that
FPC was nonintrusive to the main task. These findings suggest that FPC facilitates the cognitive control
processes of the supervisory attentional system, and that FPC was especially useful for the signal that
requested operators to select something from memorized alternatives according to the content of the
signal.
Relevance to industry: The findings of this study provide evidence of the effectiveness of FPC and
contribute to encouraging the introduction of FPC to real working situations as a tool to prevent oper-
ational errors. The findings can also serve to evaluate the effectiveness of FPC by evaluating to what
extent cognitive control processes are included when an operator has to check or respond to signals. If
a check and response to a signal demands cognitive control processes, it seems to be effective to
incorporate FPC into the checking and response behavior. Furthermore, the findings of this study may
contribute to updating policies regarding the application of FPC and to improving safety training
programs in which FPC is incorporated in the training process.
Ó 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and sometimes executing simple physical responses such as

In modern working situations, most working processes are
computerized and automated by implementing information and
communication technologies (ICT), and most tasks executed by
human operators mainly involve monitoring the status of processes
* Corresponding author. Tel./fax: þ81 6 6879 8034.
E-mail addresses: sinohara@hus.osaka-u.ac.jp (K. Shinohara), naito@hus.osaka-
u.ac.jp (H. Naito), matsui@inss.co.jp (Y. Matsui), hikono.masaru@inss.co.jp
(M. Hikono).
pressing a button or touching a screen. While the physical load for
operators has been minimized, operators still have to manage an
enormous amount of information compiled by the information
systems. An improved humanecomputer interface contributes to
reducing the operator’s information-processing load by mediating
between a human operator and a computer system, but the human
operator is still usually responsible for making and carrying out
critical decisions and controls. If a human operator makes erro-
neous decisions and/or makes mistakes in control operations, and if
the system does not deal with this human error, it is impossible to

0169-8141/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2012.08.004
130 K. Shinohara et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 43 (2013) 129e136
avoid problems and accidents. Therefore, efforts are continuing to
be made to reduce the risk of human operator error. These efforts
include improving the user-interface design and implementing fail-
safe and fool-proof concepts to the system. In addition to these
measures, it is important to train and encourage operators to
incorporate a procedure that reduces the possibility of making
mistakes.
Even in the modern industry that has been highly computerized
and automated, the performance of human operators remains an
important factor for accident prevention and efficiency improve-
ment. For example, human error in maintenance tasks is an
important problem for ensuring safety and reliability in many
industries, such as in aviation, nuclear power plants, chemical
plants, medical services, mining, etc (Dhillon and Liu, 2006). In the
airline industry, human error in the maintenance activities causes
accidents and other troubles such as delays in aircraft availability.
Latorella and Prabhu (2000) stated that human error in aviation
maintenance tasks includes defective components, missing
components, wrong components, incorrect configurations, incor-
rect assembly sequences, functional defects, tactile defects, and
procedural defects. Latorella and Prabhu (2000) proposed several
approaches to reduce human error: (1) training, (2) job design and
organizational considerations, (3) workspace and ambient envi-
ronment design, (4) task equipment and information design, and
(5) automation. Training for improving performance while pre-
venting human error has been extensively studied (e.g., Brunstein
and Gonzalez, 2011; Chan and Chiu, 2009; Czaja and Drury, 1981;
Gramopadhye et al., 1998; Liang et al., 2010; Nalanagula et al.,
2006). In the present study, we are focusing on a procedure to
check the actions necessary to perform tasks required in a working
situation. It can be introduced into industry through the training for
human operators.
1.1. Finger-pointing and calling
In Japanese industry, finger pointing and calling (FPC), which is
called “shisa-kosho” or “shisa-kanko” in Japanese, have been
traditionally practiced as a tool for preventing human error. FPC is
an operational procedure to ensure accurate information acquisi-
tion and recognition and/or to perform motor responses accurately.
In the typical FPC, an operator first makes visual contact with the
target (e.g. meters, lamps, buttons, etc.) to be checked or to be
controlled manually, stretches the arm out in the direction of the
target, points at the target with the index finger, and calls the name
and/or the status of the target aloud. When an operator needs to
manipulate the target, an operator actually manipulates it after
completing the procedure mentioned above. There are many vari-
ants of FPC among industrial fields in Japan. FPC developed spon-
taneously from on-site work practices of the Japanese rail industry
and was later regulated as an official procedure to confirm that
conditions were safe. Nowadays, FPC is accepted as an effective
procedural tool for preventing human error and is widely used in
many industries in Japan. Moreover, FPC is systematically incor-
porated in many occupational safety training systems. For example,
the Japan Industrial Safety and Health Association offers a safety
training program to predict underlying hazards in a work situation,
and FPC is incorporated in this program.
Although FPC is accepted as an effective procedure for pre-
venting human error and is widely used in industry, the effective-
ness of FPC has not been sufficiently studied, aside from a few
published reports (Haga et al., 1996; Kiyomiya et al., 1965). In the
research by Kiyomiya et al. (1965), which was the earliest experi-
mental study of FPC according to Haga et al. (1996), participants
were required to respond to one of five visual stimuli presented in
random order. In addition, participants were asked either to carry
out FPC, to point to the stimulus, to call out the status of the
stimulus indicated, or to do nothing before making a response to
the visual stimulus. The results showed that carrying out FPC
significantly reduced errors. Haga et al. (1996) conducted
a psychological experiment which was based on Kiyomiya et al.
(1965) and found that FPC did actually reduce the occurrence of
human error (Experiment 1). Moreover, they conducted another
experiment (Experiment 2) to examine how FPC affected the
prevention of human error when the reaction was activated by an
improper visual signal, and the results indicated that FPC signifi-
cantly reduced this type of human error. Haga et al. (1996)
explained that the effectiveness of FPC was associated with (1)
a confirmed visual contact with the target, (2) a continuous
orientation of attention to the target, as well as facilitated memo-
rization by recall and vocalization of the target, (3) an enhanced
cognitive process by using multiple sensory modalities, and (4) an
increased activation by using muscular movement. The findings
obtained in these previous studies have served as the evidence to
justify the implementation of FPC in work situations as a measure
to prevent human error.
One of the important potencies of FPC is to intentionally make
a worker control each step of an action sequence. As a result, the
behavior of FPC slows down and its accuracy is thus promoted. FPC
is useful when emphasizing accuracy over speed. FPC is particularly
useful for some habitual behaviors such as confirming that the
doors and windows are locked before going outside. By checking
the locks on each door and window using FPC, the risk to forget to
lock any doors and windows can be reduced. In other words,
human error such as action slips (Norman, 1981) is likely to be
averted when using FPC. However, FPC is not useful when
emphasizing speed over accuracy. For example, when we play
sports or video games, we have to take prompt and immediate
actions. In this case FPC is not useful or even harmful because FPC
blocks the smooth execution of the action sequence. Perhaps FPC is
useful in most situations in real life because in many ways we have
to do something accurately at the cost of speed.
Recently, there has been an increased need to study the cogni-
tive process underlying FPC because some negative effects of
traditional FPC have been revealed in Japanese industry. For
example, in situations where there are a lot of signals to be checked
and an operator is asked to perform FPC with all of them, the
frequency of carrying out FPC is increased, and more time is needed
for it. In this situation, an operator will be very busy, and an
unacceptably high load may be induced by performing FPC,
resulting in an increase in operator fatigue and/or human errors
induced by time pressure. Because FPC essentially emphasizes
accuracy over speed, workers inevitably feel conflicted about using
FPC when both speed and accuracy are required to do work.
One solution for such a situation is to modify the FPC procedure.
By modifying the procedure, FPC is feasible in a high intensity load
situation while still being able to maintain its effectiveness at
a similar level as when FPC is performed in the traditional way. To
achieve this goal, it is necessary to clarify the cognitive processes
underlying FPC and to identify a component cognitive process that
can be modified without negatively affecting the overall effective-
ness of FPC. It may be possible to make FPC more effective by
modifying it in order to facilitate one of the component cognitive
processes included in it. For example, Watanabe et al. (2005) sug-
gested the modification of FPC based on the findings of psycho-
logical studies on action events. In their experiment, when
participants carried out FPC along with operation instructions
presented sequentially, they were asked to perform the actual
action each instruction referred to. This modification was devised
based on the studies of “subject-performed tasks (SPTs)”
(Englekamp, 1998; Nilsson, 2000). In the SPTs studies, participants
 K. Shinohara et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 43 (2013) 129e136
were required to memorize verbal commands and to perform the
action that each verbal command indicated, with the result that the
performance of an action facilitated the recall of verbal commands.
It was predicted that this action rehearsal with FPC would facilitate
encoding the sequence of instructed actions. The results showed
that the implementation of rehearsed actions with FPC had a posi-
tive effect on memory performance.
Furthermore, by identifying why FPC is effective for preventing
human error in terms of cognitive science, the implementation of
FPC in work situations is taken as an evidence-based safety
measure. It also makes safety training programs that include FPC
more persuasive.
1.2. Hypothetical effect of FPC on cognitive control processes
Fig. 1 depicts the hypothetical effect of FPC on cognitive control
processes, which is based on the supervisory attentional system
(SAS) model proposed by Norman and Shallice (1986). In this
model, human behavior was controlled by two systems: contention
scheduling and supervisory attentional system (SAS). Finger
pointing has an effect on the perceptual stage of information. By
pointing a finger, visual attention is oriented and focused at the
target position with more certainty where the information is dis-
played. The effect of FPC on the orientation of visual attention was
examined in previous studies (Shinohara et al., 2009; Ariga and
Watanabe, 2009). Shinohara et al. (2009) examined the effect of
FPC by using a spatial cueing paradigm (Posner, 1980). FPC was
performed to the cue indicating the position of an incoming visual
stimulus. The results showed that FPC, particularly pointing, facil-
itated the detection of the visual target. Ariga and Watanabe (2009)
examined various pointing gestures as a cue to trigger an automatic
attentional shift and found that gesture cues caused a reflexive
attentional shift to the pointed position and that indexical pointing
gestures had a relatively persistent cueing effect. In addition,
Watanabe et al. (2005) argued that visual contact with the target to
be operated contributed to a positive effect of FPC with an action by
facilitating the planning of an action sequence. It is thought that
encoding of visual information and related cognitive processes is
facilitated by focusing visual attention on the target by finger
pointing.
According to the SAS model, perceived information is thought to
trigger several schemas, with the result that some behaviors which
are associated with the activated schema are evoked. Coordination
of activated schemas is responsible for the contention scheduling.
These processes are relatively automatic and are underlying in
familiar situations. On the contrary, when the perceived informa-
tion is novel or unfamiliar, the supervisory attentional system
Fig. 1. Hypothetical effect of finger pointing and calling on cognitive control processes.
131
intervenes in the activation process of schemas. The supervisory
attentional system, which is equivalent to the central executive of
the working memory system (Baddeley and Hitch, 1974; Baddeley
and Logie, 1999), has many cognitive functions such as coordina-
tion of the memory system, control of encoding and retrieval
strategies, switching of attention, and mental manipulation of
material in slave systems (Baddeley and Logie, 1999).
Task switching is known to be closely related to the central
executive function (Gopher et al., 2000; Kramer et al., 1999;
Monsell, 2003; Rogers and Monsell, 1995) and has been extensively
studied. In the typical task switching paradigm, several tasks are
prepared and participants are asked to perform one of them. When
participants have to change the task from one trial to the next, they
have to retrieve and reactivate the task set that is necessary to
perform a specific task. Several studies (Baddeley et al., 2001; Bryck
and Mayr, 2005; Emerson and Miyake, 2003; Miyake et al., 2004;
Saeki and Saito, 2004) involved experiments in which task
switching was combined with articulatory suppression. Articula-
tory suppression involves saying an irrelevant word repeatedly and
is a commonly used technique to impose a load on the phonological
information processing of the working memory system. Task
switching performance has been shown to interfere with articula-
tory suppression, suggesting that task switching is based on
phonological representation of a task set or rule which is necessary
to perform the task. This task set or rule has to be retrieved and
activated every time participants prepare the incoming task using
a rule that is different from the one used for the previous task.
Even though no studies have yet been done that examine the
effect of FPC on supervisory attentional control or the central
executive, these preceding findings obtained in the study of
working memory suggest that vocalizing the target information
aloud (i.e. doing the “calling” in FPC) are related to the selective
activation process of memorized information which is essential for
performing the task. Thus, FPC is presumed to facilitate the activity
of the supervisory attentional system and as a result, intentional
monitoring of the activation of schemas is expected to be more
efficient. Even when the operator is familiar with the situation and
the operator’s behavior can be automatically executed, the chance
to intervene in an intentional control of the supervisory attentional
system may be enhanced by vocalizing the target information
aloud. It may contribute to preventing slip-type human errors
(Reason, 1990).
The purpose of this study was to examine the cognitive
processes in FPC by focusing on the facilitating effect of FPC on the
supervisory attentional system or the central executive of the
working memory system. A task-switching paradigm was used and
FPC was incorporated. FPC was performed to the task cue indicating
the task rule which was used in the current trial, and the perfor-
mance with and without FPC was compared. It was hypothesized
that the performance would be better when FPC was performed,
particularly in the condition when the task rule was randomly
switched from one trial to the next because FPC would support the
function of the supervisory attentional system and facilitate the
process of retrieval and activation of task rules.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
Twenty people (10 females and 10 males), ranging in age from
20 to 39 (M ¼ 24.55), were recruited to take part in this study.
Institutional ethical approval was obtained before the start of the
study and this experiment was conducted in accordance with
ethical guidelines. Informed consent was obtained from all
participants.
132 K. Shinohara et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 43 (2013) 129e136
2.2. Apparatus
A Core 2 Duo personal computer with Microsoft Windows XP
and Cedrus SuperLab 4.0 software, which is used for authoring
psychological experiments, were used to control the stimulus
presentation and response data correction. All visual stimuli were
presented on a display monitor (IODATA LCD-AD193GS) set in front
of the participant. The viewing distance was approximately 50 cm.
Participants responded to the stimuli by pressing one of four
buttons on a USB key box (Techno wave KB-IOPAD4).
2.3. Task
The basic task participants were required to perform was to
compare two digits based on the task rule and to select one of them.
The task rule was provided at the beginning of each trial, and two
digits were visually presented after the task rule was presented.
The event sequence in one trial is presented in Fig. 2. At the
beginning of each trial, a task cue indicating the rule of the current
trial and four place holders were presented after a 1-s “Ready”
message. A task cue appeared at the center of the screen, and the
four place holders were also presented on each side of the task cue.
The task cue was either “digit,” “size,” or “position” Actually, the
Japanese words “Suji,” “Saizu,” or “Ichi,” which correspond
respectively to “digit,” “size,” and “position,” were presented by
kanji or katakana. “Digit” indicated that participants had to select
the larger of the presented digits. “Size” indicated that participants
had to select the digit that was displayed in a larger size. “Position”
indicated that participants had to select the digit that was displayed
at a vertically higher position than the other digit. Participants were
allowed to see this task cue until they recalled the rule to be applied
in the current trial, and they were asked to press one of the
response keys with the index finger of their right hand when they
wanted to proceed to the stimulus presentation (Response 1 in
Fig. 2). The time from the onset of the task cue presentation to the
participants’ response to proceed was recorded because it was
thought to reflect the time required to prepare the rule internally
for the subsequent response.
After the presentation of the task cue and the following 300-
ms blank interval after the participants’ response, two digits
were presented in two of four place holders. Participants were
commonly required to respond to the stimulus by pressing either
the “left side” button or the “right side” button allocated on the
USB response key box with the index or middle finger of their left
hand (Response 2 in Fig. 2). The key was to be selected on the
basis of the rule indicated in the preceding display. Reaction times
(RTs) from the onset of stimulus presentation to the participants’
response were measured and recorded. The key pressed by
Fig. 2. Event sequence in a trial.
participants was also recorded to assess the correctness of
participants’ responses. This stimulus display was erased, and
feedback indicating whether the response was correct or not was
provided visually.
2.4. Finger-pointing and calling
In the FPC condition, participants were asked to perform FPC
with the presented task cue. The index finger of the right hand
was used for “finger pointing.” The presented task cue was read
aloud by participants for the “calling.” Participants were asked to
carry out FPC in the instructed way; participants had to fixate on
the task cue, stretch out their right arm in the direction of the task
cue, point to the task cue with their index finger, and read it aloud
clearly. This style of FPC is common in industrial working situa-
tions in Japan.
2.5. Subjective mental workload assessment
The subjective mental workload was assessed using the check-
list developed by Shinohara and Kimura (2010). This checklist
includes 26 questions with a 7-point rating scale. Each question
represented each of six dimensions of mental workload: mental
demand, physical demand, time pressure, performance, effort, and
frustration. These questions were based on the description of
subscales of the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) (Hart and
Staveland, 1988). The original description of the workload dimen-
sions of NASA-TLX includes several expressions for the feelings of
mental stress. It has caused difficulties for the respondents because
the characteristics of each workload dimension are hard to
understand. In the checklist used in this experiment, several scales
were developed by breaking down each description into simple
pairs of adjectives or short sentences. For example, the original
“mental demand” scale was broken down into four scales, which
were “use your head vs. not use your head”, “easy vs. demanding”,
“simple vs. complex”, and ”exacting vs. forgiving”. The average
score was calculated for the scales of the workload dimension and
was used as the mental workload score. In the study of Shinohara
and Kimura (2010), forty participants were asked to perform an
attention-demanding task and to make an assessment of subjective
mental workload by using both the checklist and the original NASA-
TLX. To examine the correspondence between the results of the
checklist and those of the NASA-TLX, six correlation coefficients
between corresponding subscales were calculated. Four of the six
correlations were significant (p < .01), “physical demand” (r ¼ .53),
time pressure (r ¼ .54), effort (r ¼ .56), and frustration (r ¼ .44),
while no significant correlation was found for the remaining two
scales; “mental demand” (r ¼ .15) and “performance” (r ¼ .28).
A profile of the subjective mental workload that occurred in
each condition was described based on these six scores.
2.6. Procedure and design
Each participant was individually tested so that this experiment
simulated a working alone situation. In a real working situation in
which several workers are in the same workplace, each worker is
often encouraged to check the other workers’ FPC and to let the
others know when any errors during FPC are found. This mutually-
checking of FPCs has been regarded as one of the advantages of
using FPC. However, a situation in which a worker engages in a task
alone is increasing because of industrial mechanization and
personnel downsizing. In this situation, it is impossible to check the
FPC on site.
At the beginning of the session, instructions for this experiment
were provided. A visual aid consisting of a PowerPoint slide show
 K. Shinohara et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 43 (2013) 129e136
was used to aid participants in understanding the task. In partic-
ular, the procedure for performing FPC was explained carefully and
presented visually on the slides, including a demonstration movie
clip that showed the ideal way to perform FPC. This instruction was
designed to ensure that FPC would be performed consistently.
Three 30-trial practice sessions of FPC for each rule were
carried out immediately after the instruction. In these practice
sessions, a single rule was applied throughout each session. In the
single rule session, a specific rule which was applied in the
experiment was allocated to each participant throughout the
session. That is, each participant experienced only one of three
rules in the single rule session. Following that, a 30-trial practice of
the mixed rule practice session was carried out, in which one of
three rules was applied in each trial and was switched randomly.
At the end of this practice session, an assessment of the subjective
mental workload was conducted. This procedure was aimed at
familiarizing participants with the checklist method of mental
workload assessment.
Following the practice sessions, participants took part in four
experimental sessions: the mixed rule with FPC session (120 trials),
the mixed rule without FPC session (120 trials), the single rule with
FPC session (90 trials), and the single rule without FPC session (90
trials). The four experimental sessions were counterbalanced. After
completing each session, participants were asked to rate their
subjective mental workload according to the checklist.
The independent variables of this experiment were the task rule
switching (mixed vs. single) and the FPC presence (FPC vs. no FPC).
All variables were within participants. The dependent variables
were the RT, the percentage of correct responses, and the prepa-
ration time for task rules. RT has been used as a major behavioral
measure from the context of human factors research. In particular,
an analysis of RT is useful for examining the cognitive processes
when a human operator engages in an attention demanding task or
when they are in an inactive state (e.g., fatigue or boredom). For
example, RT has been used to examine the effect of the working
memory load on the drivers’ response to a braking lead vehicle
(Engström et al., 2010), the effect of rehearsal in the memory to
a drivers’ performance (Salvucci and Beltowska, 2008), and the
efficiency of the mental information processing of a human oper-
ator in a state of mental fatigue (Meijman, 1997).
It was thought in the present study that the preparation time
included the time to retrieve and activate the memorized task rule
and the RT included the time to select the response under the rule
activated during the preparation time and to execute the response.
3. Results
There were 7992 responses collected in the experiment. Partic-
ipants made 8000 actual responses, but 8 responses (.1%) failed to
be recorded. Of the responses, 199 (2.5%) were incorrect. When FPC
was required, the participants accurately conducted FPC and only
a few FPC errors were observed throughout the experiment.
3.1. Preliminary data processing
Preliminary data processing was conducted for RT data and
preparation time data. Any RTs and preparation times for correct
trials which were longer than three standard deviations above
a participant’s mean RT and mean preparation time in that condi-
tion were defined as an outlier and were replaced with the value of
the mean plus three standard deviations. This procedure is called
“windsorizing” (Barnett and Lewis, 1978; Ratcliff, 1993) for
adjusting a distribution for the outliers. Furthermore, a log trans-
formation was conducted on the RT and preparation time.
133
For the error data, the error rates were calculated for each
participant, task rule switching, and FPC presence.
3.2. Performance
Fig. 3 indicates the mean RTs as a function of the FPC condition
and the rule switching condition. A two-way repeated analysis of
variance (ANOVA) showed that the main effects of task rule
switching (F(1,19) ¼ 18.265, p < .001) and FPC presence
(F(1,19) ¼ 5.879, p < .05) were significant. There was a significant
interaction between task rule switching and FPC presence
(F(1,19) ¼ 6.685, p < .05). A simple main effect was examined, and it
was shown that in the mixed rule condition there was a significant
difference between the FPC condition and the no-FPC condition
(F(1,37) ¼ 12.408, p < .01). When switching of the task rule was
required, reactions became faster by performing FPC. It was also
shown that a significant difference was found between the task rule
switching conditions both in the FPC condition (F(1,25) ¼ 9.163,
p < .01) and in the no-FPC condition (F(1,25) ¼ 24.249, p < .01),
which indicates that introducing the task rule switching increased
the RTs regardless of whether FPC was performed.
Overall, the error rates were quite low, ranging from .011 to .036.
A Friedman test was performed, and it revealed that there was
a significant difference among the four conditions (c2(3) ¼ 13.710,
p < .01). Scheffe’s test was conducted as a multiple comparison
procedure and revealed that the error rate obtained in the single
rule with FPC condition (.011) was significantly lower than the error
rate obtained in the mixed rule without the FPC condition (.036)
(c2(3) ¼ 10.901, p < .05).
Fig. 4 shows the preparation time. Two-way repeated ANOVA
showed a significant interaction (F(1,19) ¼ 79.258, p < .001). A
simple main effect indicated there was no significant difference in
the preparation time between the FPC condition and the no-FPC
condition when the task rule switching was required
(F(1,33) ¼ 3.824, p > .05). When task rule switching was not
required, the preparation time in the FPC condition was signifi-
cantly longer than that in the no-FPC condition (F(1,33) ¼ 62.534,
p < .001). A simple main effect test also showed that in the FPC
condition, the preparation time in the single rule condition was
significantly longer than that in the mixed rule condition
(F(1,37) ¼ 77.581, p < .001). It also indicated that in the no-FPC
condition, on the contrary, the preparation time in the single rule
condition was found to be significantly shorter than the prepara-
tion time in the mixed rule condition (F(1,37) ¼ 8.773, p < .01).
Fig. 3. Mean reaction times as a function of task rule switching condition and finger
pointing and calling condition. Error bars indicate standard errors.
134 K. Shinohara et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 43 (2013) 129e136

Fig. 4. Mean preparation times as a function of task rule switching condition and
finger pointing and calling condition. Error bars indicate standard errors.
3.3. Subjective mental workload assessment
Fig. 5 shows the characteristics of subjective mental workload
(SMWL) for each experimental session, and indicates that “effort”
was consistently the most critical aspect for all experimental
sessions. Two-way repeated ANOVA was conducted for each score
of subjective mental workload. In common, the main effects of task
rule switching were significant (F(1,19) ¼ 5.78 w 42.87, p < .05),
and neither the main effects of FPC presence (F(1,19) ¼ .08 w 2.37,
p > .05) nor the interactions were significant (F(1,19) ¼ .06 w .92,
p > .05). These results indicate that the requirement of task rule
switching increased the level of mental workload regardless of
whether FPC was conducted or not.
1989, 1990), FPC may be explicitly helpful for processes other than
the activation process.
As for the preparation time (Fig. 4), there was no difference
between the FPC conditions under the mixed rule condition. This
suggests that FPC does not affect the preparation process in the
preparation time. According to the study (Rogers and Monsell,
1995) using the task switching paradigm, there are two prepa-
ration components, one is associated with the intentional
(endogenous) preparation and the other is associated with the
stimulus-driven (exogenous) completion of the preparation. The
preparation process in the interval between the presentation of
a task rule and the stimulus onset was an intentional one. Thus,
FPC did not affect an intentional type of preparation. However,
performing FPC enabled the participants to respond faster (Fig. 3),
indicating that FPC positively affected the process after presenting
the stimulus, which included the stimulus-driven completion of
the preparation, the application of the prepared rule, and the
response execution. It means that FPC does not affect the prepa-
ration of the task rule before the stimulus onset, and that the task
rule that is activated with FPC is processed faster after the stim-
ulus onset. As a result, the reaction time is shortened.
As for the single rule condition, there was significant difference
between the FPC conditions. The preparation time under the single
rule condition was significantly longer in the FPC condition than
under the no FPC condition. This difference in preparation time
does not derive from the effect of FPC on the task switching process
because no task rule switching was needed under the single rule
condition. This result may reflect some of the other aspects of the
functions of FPC.
One possible interpretation is that the participants used FPC as
a measure to resist the low-intensity mental load. Under the single
task condition, the participants repeatedly made binary responses
based on the one task rule. A situation entailing a low-intensity

4. Discussion

This research employed a task-switching paradigm to examine

the effects of FPC on cognitive control, which is responsible for the
supervisory attentional system including selective retrieval and
activation of the memorized task rules. Results showed that
carrying out FPC improved performance when the task rule had to
be switched, suggesting that FPC facilitated the cognitive control
process.
As indicated in Fig. 3, RT in the mixed rule condition was shorter
when FPC was applied than when FPC was not applied, while there
was no difference in the accuracy of response between the FPC
condition and the no-FPC condition. This result suggests that per-
forming FPC facilitated the task rule switching without sacrificing
the accuracy of response. It is notable that the difference in RT is
significant only in the mixed rule condition, which suggests that
the FPC prominently facilitated the activation process relating to
the task switching. Even in the single rule condition in which one
task rule is applied continuously, vocalizing the task rule seemed to
be effective for keeping it active in the working memory. However,
this may not be particularly remarkable because keeping one rule
active is generally so easy that it is sufficient to use sub-vocal
rehearsal or inner speech. However, in some situations, such as
when the information to be memorized is so long and/or compli-
cated that storing information in the working memory is difficult,
or when irrelevant sound or speech disrupts phonological infor- Fig. 5. Scoring profiles of subjective mental workload (SMWL) as a function of task
mation in the working memory (Salamé and Baddeley, 1986, 1987, rule switching condition and finger pointing and calling condition.
 K. Shinohara et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 43 (2013) 129e136
mental load can have some negative effects such as reduced vigi-
lance. As Haga et al. (1996) suggested, one of the positive effects of
FPC is an increased physiological arousal due to muscular move-
ment. The participants may have adopted a strategy to expressly do
FPC since the single rule session was so easy and monotonous.
However, in order to expressly do FPC was time-consuming, and
the preparation time under the FPC condition was longer than that
under the no FPC condition.
In the subjective mental workload assessment (Fig. 5), it is note-
worthy that the effect of FPC was not significant whereas the effect of
task switching was significant. As mentioned above, it has been
problematic to perform FPC too frequently because it increases the
workload for operators. In the present study, participants performed
FPC frequently in the FPC condition, and the rate of FPC in the present
experiment was thought to be higher than that in a real work situ-
ation. Nevertheless, FPC did not increase the level of subjective
mental workload and had a positive effect on task performance.
Conducting FPC in a rigid way is likely to be required regardless of
the working situation, particularly when conducting FPC is inten-
sively encouraged in a real industrial situation. When human oper-
ators have to sequentially or simultaneously perform many tasks and
they cannot afford to do any other tasks, FPC will be omitted. Even
when FPC is required in such situations, it will be superficial and
ineffective in error prevention. In this case, the procedure for con-
ducting FPC has to be refined to reduce its burden. However, when
human operators have to perform easy, monotonous, or repetitive
tasks, introducing FPC will help them keep up their activation. In this
case, an overt way of conducting FPC may be welcomed. That is, FPC
can be more acceptable by flexibly adjusting how it is carried out in
accordance with the working situation. The crucial factors of FPC
acceptability have not been studied, and further research is needed
on this issue because it is very important to create an FPC procedure
that is more acceptable than the existing one and to widely
disseminate the FPC procedure into the industrial world.
In summary, the present study revealed that FPC certainly
facilitates the cognitive control processes of the working memory,
particularly the supervisory attentional system or the central
executive. The findings obtained in this study may have some
practical implications for improving FPC in actual working situa-
tions. For example, FPC seems to be effective when an operator who
is checking a visual display not only has to memorize the content of
the display but also to select one behavior from several possible
alternatives in response to the content of the display and other
situational conditions. This is because FPC can support the retrieval
and activation of memorized content. We can assess the relative
effectiveness of FPC in individual cases based on the degree of
involvement of cognitive control processes. Moreover, these find-
ings are useful for developing more persuasive and effective safety
training programs because they are empirically derived evidence of
the effectiveness of FPC.
5. Conclusions
The current study revealed that when FPC was carried out to
a task cue that indicated the task rule to be applied, it facilitated the
subsequent response. This indicates that the use of FPC can facili-
tate the retrieval and activation of a specific task rule that is
selected from three alternatives. In other words, FPC facilitates the
cognitive control processes responsible for the supervisory atten-
tional system or the central executive of the working memory
system. The findings of this study are expected to contribute to
improving the application of FPC in real working situations; the
contributions include encouraging the introduction of FPC, evalu-
ating the relative effectiveness of FPC, and updating FPC imple-
mentation policies and safety training programs in industry.
135
References
Ariga, A., Watanabe, K., 2009. What is special about the index finger?: the index
finger advantage in manipulating reflexive attentional shift. Japanese Psycho-
logical Research 51, 258e265.
Baddeley, A., Chincotta, D., Adlam, A., 2001. Working memory and the control of
action: evidence from task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General 130, 641e657.
Baddeley, A.D., Hitch, G.J., 1974. Working memory. In: Bower, G.H. (Ed.), The
Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory 8.
Academic Press, New York, pp. 47e89.
Baddeley, A.D., Logie, R.H., 1999. Working memory: the multiple-component model.
In: Miyake, A., Shah, P. (Eds.), Models of Working Memory: Mechanisms of
Active Maintenance and Executive Control. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, pp. 28e61.
Barnett, V., Lewis, T., 1978. Outliers in Statistical Data. Wiley, New York.
Brunstein, A., Gonzalez, C., 2011. Preparing for novelty with diverse training.
Applied Cognitive Psychology 25 (5), 682e691.
Bryck, R.L., Mayr, U., 2005. On the role of verbalization during task set selection:
switching or serial order control? Memory & Cognition 33, 611e623.
Chan, A.H.S., Chiu, C.H.Y., 2009. The effects of visual lobe training with easy and
difficult targets on changes of visual lobe shape characteristics and visual search
performance. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 39, 851e859.
Czaja, S.J., Drury, C.G., 1981. Training programs for inspection. Human Factors 23,
473e484.
Dhillon, B.S., Liu, Y., 2006. Human error in maintenance: a review. Journal of Quality
in Maintenance Engineering 12, 21e36.
Emerson, M.J., Miyake, A., 2003. The role of inner speech in task switching: a dual-
task investigation. Journal of Memory and Language 48, 148e168.
Englekamp, J., 1998. Memory for Actions. Psychology Press, Hove, England.
Engström, J., Aust, M.L., Viström, M., 2010. Effects of working memory load and
repeated scenario exposure on emergency braking performance. Human
Factors 52, 551e559.
Gopher, D., Armony, L., Greenshpan, Y., 2000. Switching tasks and attention policies.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 129, 308e339.
Gramopadhye, A., Bhagwat, S., Kimbler, D., Greenstein, J., 1998. The use of advanced
technology for visual inspection training. Applied Ergonomics 29, 361e375.
Haga, S., Akatsuka, H., Shiroto, H., 1996. Laboratory experiments for verifying the
effectiveness of “finger-pointing and call” as a practical tool of human error
prevention. Japanese Association of Industrial/Organizational Psychology Jour-
nal 9, 107e114 (in Japanese with English abstract).
Hart, S.G., Staveland, L.E., 1988. Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): results
of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock, P.A., Meshkati, N. (Eds.),
Human Mental Workload. Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 139e183.
Kiyomiya, E., Ikeda, T., Tomita, Y., 1965. Hukuzatu sentaku hannou ni okeru sagyo
houhou to performance tono kankei ni tuite - Shisa-Kanko no kouka ni tuite no
yobiteki kentou (Procedure of complex selection response and performance:
a preliminary study on the effect of “finger-pointing and calling”). Bulletin of
Railway Labour Science Research Institute 17, 289e295 (in Japanese).
Kramer, A.F., Hahn, S., Gopher, D., 1999. Task coordination and aging: explorations of
executive control processes in the task switching paradigm. Acta Psychologica
101, 339e378.
Latorella, K.A., Prabhu, P.V., 2000. A review of human error in aviation maintenance
and inspection. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 26, 133e161.
Liang, G.-F., Lin, J.-T., Hwang, S.-L., Wang, E.M., Patterson, P., 2010. Preventing human
errors in aviation maintenance using an on-line maintenance assistance plat-
form. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 40, 356e367.
Meijman, T.F., 1997. Mental fatigue and the efficiency of information processing in
relation to work times. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 20, 31e38.
Miyake, A., Emerson, M.J., Padilla, F., Ahn, J.-C., 2004. Inner speech as a retrieval aid
for task goals: the effects of cue type and articulatory suppression in the
random task cuing paradigm. Acta Psychologica 115, 123e142.
Monsell, S., 2003. Task switching. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7, 134e140.
Nalanagula, D., Greenstein, J.S., Gramopadhye, A.K., 2006. Evaluation of the effect of
feedforward training displays of search strategy on visual search performance.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 36, 289e300.
Nilsson, L.G., 2000. Remembering actions and words. In: Tulving, E., Craik, F.I.M.
(Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Memory. Oxford University Press, New York,
pp. 137e148.
Norman, D., 1981. Categorization of action slips. Psychological Review 88, 1e15.
Norman, D., Shallice, T., 1986. Attention to action: willed and automatic control of
behavior. In: Davidson, R.J., Schwartz, G.E., Shapiro, D. (Eds.), Consciousness and Self-
regulation. Advances in Research and Theory 4. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 1e18.
Posner, M.I., 1980. Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology 32, 3e25.
Ratcliff, R., 1993. Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers. Psychological
Bulletin 114, 510e532.
Reason, J., 1990. Human Error. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Rogers, R.D., Monsell, S., 1995. Costs of a predictable switch between simple
cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 124, 207e231.
Saeki, E., Saito, S., 2004. Effect of articulatory suppression on task-switching perfor-
mance: implications for models of working memory. Memory 12, 257e271.
Salamé, P., Baddeley, A.D., 1986. Phonological factors in STM: similarity and the
unattended speech effect. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 24, 263e265.
136 K. Shinohara et al. / International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 43 (2013) 129e136
Salamé, P., Baddeley, A.D., 1987. Noise, unattended speech and short-term-memory.
Ergonomics 30, 1185e1194.
Salamé, P., Baddeley, A.D., 1989. Effects of background music on phonological short-
term-memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human
Experimental Psychology 41, 107e122.
Salamé, P., Baddeley, A.D., 1990. The effects of irrelevant speech on immediate free
recall. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 28, 540e542.
Salvucci, D.D., Beltowska, J., 2008. Effects of memory rehearsal on driver
performance: experiment and theoretical account. Human Factors 50,
834e844.
Shinohara, K., Kimura, T., 2010. Development and validation of an easy-to-answer
checklist of subjective mental workload. The Japanese Journal of Ergonomics
46 (Suppl.), 392e393 (in Japanese).
Shinohara, K., Morimoto, K., Kubota, T., 2009. The effect of “finger-pointing and call”
on orientation of visual attention. The Japanese Journal of Ergonomics 45, 54e57
(in Japanese).
Watanabe, H., Kawaguchi, J., Naki, Y., Tsukada, T., Hikono, M., Nakamura, H., 2005.
Cognitive psychological approach for an effective Shisa-Kosyo in a field
depended on human memory function. The Japanese Journal of Ergonomics 41,
237e243 (in Japanese with English abstract).