{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024935511607910577, 'fraction_numerical': 0.018056749785038694, 'mean_word_length': 5.0310880829015545, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Effects of Visual and Auditory Cues About Threat Location on Target Acquisition and Attention to Auditory Communications

This laboratory study examined the effects of visual, spatial language, and 3-D audio cues about target location on target acquisition performance and the recall of information contained in concurrent radio communications. Two baseline conditions were also included in the analysis: no cues (baseline 1) and target presence cues only (baseline 2). In modes in which target location cues were provided, 100% of the targets presented were acquired compared to 94% in baseline 1 and 95% in baseline 2. On average, targets were acquired 1.4 seconds faster in the visual, spatial language, and 3-D audio modes than in the baseline conditions, with times in the visual and 3-D audio modes being 1 second faster than those in spatial language. Overall workload scores were lower in the 3-D audio mode than in all other conditions except the visual mode. Less information (23%) was recalled from auditory communications in baseline 1 than in the other four conditions where attention could be directed to communications between target presentations.