Literature DB >> 20138552

Global interference and spatial uncertainty in the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART).

William S Helton1, Lena Weil, Annette Middlemiss, Andrew Sawers.   

Abstract

The Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) is a Go-No-Go signal detection task developed to measure lapses of sustained conscious attention. In this study, we examined the impact global interference and spatial uncertainty has on SART performance. Ten participants performed either a SART (high-Go) or a traditionally formatted (low-Go) version of a global-local stimuli detection task with spatially certain and uncertain signals. Reaction time in the SART was insensitive to global interference and spatial uncertainty, whereas reaction time in the low-Go task was sensitive. Spatial uncertainty increased errors of omission in the SART, which was not expected if the SART measures mindlessness. There was a high correlation between participants' errors of commission rate and their reaction time in the SART. The results, overall, support the view that the SART is a better measure of response strategy than lapses in sustained attention or mindlessness.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20138552     DOI: 10.1016/j.concog.2010.01.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conscious Cogn        ISSN: 1053-8100


  12 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.  Drifting from slow to "D'oh!": working memory capacity and mind wandering predict extreme reaction times and executive control errors.

Authors:  Jennifer C McVay; Michael J Kane
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2011-10-17       Impact factor: 3.051

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.  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

5.  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

6.  In search of exogenous feature-based attention.

Authors:  Ian Donovan; Ying Joey Zhou; Marisa Carrasco
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 2.199

7.  Go-stimuli probability influences response bias in the sustained attention to response task: a signal detection theory perspective.

Authors:  Aman Bedi; Paul N Russell; William S Helton
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2022-04-11

8.  Fit and vigilant: the relationship between poorer aerobic fitness and failures in sustained attention during preadolescence.

Authors:  Matthew B Pontifex; Mark R Scudder; Eric S Drollette; Charles H Hillman
Journal:  Neuropsychology       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 3.295

9.  Go-stimuli proportion influences response strategy in a sustained attention to response task.

Authors:  Kyle M Wilson; Kristin M Finkbeiner; Neil R de Joux; Paul N Russell; William S Helton
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-06-21       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  The impact of induced anxiety on response inhibition.

Authors:  Oliver J Robinson; Marissa Krimsky; Christian Grillon
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2013-03-07       Impact factor: 3.169

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.