# EEG-Based Measurement for Detecting Distraction in Coal Mine Workers
## 4 Results  
### Behavioral and Subjective Responses  
Given the non-uniform variance and rejection of normality in the behavioral data, along with differences in the number of trials between the focused and distracted groups, we employed the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test for analysis. The statistical results for accuracy, response time, and subjective attention evaluations in the hazard identification task for both control and noise test groups, as well as between the focused and distracted groups, are presented in Table 1.  
The results showed a significant reduction in mean response times for the noise group compared to the control group (1385.95 ms vs. 1646.59 ms, \(p<0.001\)). However, no significant difference in mean response accuracy was observed between the two groups. This aligns with [PERSON] et al. [36], who suggest that high-intensity noise exposure may expedite reaction times. In other words, intense noise levels appear to amplify psychological stress, prompting individuals to respond quickly as a coping mechanism against auditory distraction.  
The self-reported attention scores of the control group were significantly higher than those of the noise group (18.68 vs. 14.82, \(p<0.001\)). This suggests that the noise condition likely contributed to the observed distraction. According to the load theory of attention, noise acts as a distraction whose impact is mediated by the cognitive demands of the primary task [37]. High cognitive load tasks occupy attentional resources, reducing susceptibility to distractions like noise. Conversely, low cognitive load tasks leave surplus attentional resources vulnerable to noise interference [29; 38]. For coal miners, hazard identification is a routine task with a relatively low cognitive load, making them more susceptible to the effects of noise.  
Following the categorization protocol, which divided all trials into focused and distracted groups, we found no statistically significant difference in mean response times between these groups (1514.80 ms vs. 1538.94 ms, \(p=0.782\)). This indicates the absence of a meaningful statistical difference.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Group** & **M \(\pm\) SD** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Sample** \\ **Size** \\ \end{tabular} & \(U\) & \(p\) \\ \hline Response accuracy & \begin{tabular}{c} Control \\ Noise \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} 0.68 \(\pm\) 0.17 \\ 0.68 \(\pm\) 0.13 \\ \end{tabular} & 28 & \(-\)0.42 & 0.675 \\ Self-reported & \begin{tabular}{c} Control \\ Noise \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} 18.68 \(\pm\) 3.07 \\ 14.82 \(\pm\) 3.85 \\ \end{tabular} & 28 & \(-\)3.809 & \(<\)0.001 \\ Response time & \begin{tabular}{c} Control \\ Noise \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} 1646.59 \(\pm\) 1039.01 \\ 1385.95 \(\pm\) 889.22 \\ \end{tabular} & 840 & \(-\)5.987 & \(<\)0.001 \\ (ms) & \
\begin{tabular}{c} Focused \\ Distracted \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} 1514.80 \(\pm\) 959.34 \\ 1538.94 \(\pm\) 985.36 \\ \end{tabular} & 532 & 0.276 & 0.782 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Statistical results for different environmental test groups and different attention groups.