Citation

Bruck D, Ball M. Hum. Factors 2007; 49(4): 585-601.

Affiliation

School of Psychology, Victoria University, PO Box 14428, MCMC Melbourne 8001, Australia. dorothy.bruck@vu.edu.au

Copyright

(Copyright © 2007, Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Publisher SAGE Publishing)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

17702211

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This review examines research on arousal from sleep in an emergency. It considers whether the current smoke alarm signal is optimal for waking those most at risk of dying in a fire and, if not, how it may be improved. BACKGROUND: The fire fatality rate during the sleeping period is approximately three times greater than at other times. METHOD: Four key areas are reviewed: (a) the characteristics of four signals (high-frequency beeping, Temporal 3, voice, and naturalistic sounds); (b) how human characteristics alter arousal to different signals; (c) research comparing the effectiveness of different alarms in different sleeping populations; and (d) acoustical, methodological, and theoretical implications. RESULTS: Significant risk factors for staying asleep include high levels of background noise, being a heavy sleeper, sleep deprivation, being a child, hypnotics, alcohol intoxication, and hearing impairment. The high-frequency beeping signal was significantly less effective than either a voice alarm or mixed-frequency beeping in waking selected at-risk groups. CONCLUSION: The alternative signals were more effective in arousing various groups of sleepers than was the high-frequency signal currently used in smoke alarms. APPLICATION: Replacement of the current smoke alarm signal with one of a lower frequency is likely to wake more people more quickly and save lives.

Language: en