Literature DB >> 18608658

Impulsive responding and the sustained attention to response task.

William S Helton1.   

Abstract

Two studies investigated whether the sustained attention to response task (SART) is a better measure of impulsive responding than of sustained attention. Participants performed target detection tasks with global-local letter stimuli using one of two response formats: standard, responding to targets; and SART, withholding to targets. In the first experiment, performance in the SART changed rapidly over time, whereas performance in the standard format was stable over time. In the second experiment, performance in the SART was susceptible to global-local condensation tasks, a result previously found with highly impulsive individuals. Overall the results indicate that the SART is sensitive to impulsive responding.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 18608658     DOI: 10.1080/13803390801978856

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Exp Neuropsychol        ISSN: 1380-3395            Impact factor:   2.475


  38 in total

1.  Text-speak processing and the sustained attention to response task.

Authors:  James Head; Paul N Russell; Martin J Dorahy; Ewald Neumann; William S Helton
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-11-04       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Brief mental breaks and content-free cues may not keep you focused.

Authors:  William S Helton; Paul N Russell
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-03-17       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Feature absence-presence and two theories of lapses of sustained attention.

Authors:  William S Helton; Paul N Russell
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2010-11-20

4.  Practice does not make perfect in a modified sustained attention to response task.

Authors:  James Head; William S Helton
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2013-11-19       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Mind-wandering and falls risk in older adults.

Authors:  Lindsay S Nagamatsu; Julia W Y Kam; Teresa Liu-Ambrose; Alison Chan; Todd C Handy
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2013-09

6.  Reliable- and unreliable-warning cues in the Sustained Attention to Response Task.

Authors:  William S Helton; James Head; Paul N Russell
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-02-02       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  The effects of warning cues and attention-capturing stimuli on the sustained attention to response task.

Authors:  Kristin M Finkbeiner; Kyle M Wilson; Paul N Russell; William S Helton
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2014-12-24       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  You are measuring the decision to be fast, not inattention: the Sustained Attention to Response Task does not measure sustained attention.

Authors:  Jasmine S Dang; Ivonne J Figueroa; William S Helton
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2018-05-30       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Response selection codes in neurophysiological data predict conjoint effects of controlled and automatic processes during response inhibition.

Authors:  Witold X Chmielewski; Moritz Mückschel; Christian Beste
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2018-01-15       Impact factor: 5.038

10.  The neural basis of improved cognitive performance by threat of shock.

Authors:  Salvatore Torrisi; Oliver Robinson; Katherine O'Connell; Andrew Davis; Nicholas Balderston; Monique Ernst; Christian Grillon
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 3.436

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.