Literature DB >> 21287153

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

William S Helton1, James Head, Paul N Russell.   

Abstract

The Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) is a Go-No-Go signal detection task developed to measure lapses of attention. In this study, we examined the impact that warning signals, reliable and unreliable, have on SART performance. Eighteen participants performed a no-warning, reliable-warning, or unreliable-warning SART. Response times were faster, errors of commission lower, but errors of omission higher in the reliable-warning SART in comparison with the no-warning or unreliable-warning SART. There was a significant negative correlation between participants' errors of commission rate and their response times in the unreliable-warning and no-warning SART. This correlation was reduced in the reliable-warning SART. Making the task perceptually easier reduces the errors of commission, in contradiction to the mindlessness perspective, and reduces the speed-accuracy trade-off. These results, overall, support the view that the SART is primarily a measure of response strategy, not sustained attention per se.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21287153     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-011-2563-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  28 in total

1.  Effects of cueing and knowledge of results on workload and boredom in sustained attention.

Authors:  E M Hitchcock; W N Dember; J S Warm; B W Moroney; J E See
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 2.888

2.  The vigilance decrement reflects limitations in effortful attention, not mindlessness.

Authors:  Rebecca A Grier; Joel S Warm; William N Dember; Gerald Matthews; Traci L Galinsky; Raja Parasuraman
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 2.888

3.  Behavioural and physiological impairments of sustained attention after traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  Paul M Dockree; Simon P Kelly; Richard A P Roche; Michael J Hogan; Richard B Reilly; Ian H Robertson
Journal:  Brain Res Cogn Brain Res       Date:  2004-08

4.  Subjective experience and the attentional lapse: task engagement and disengagement during sustained attention.

Authors:  Jonathan Smallwood; John B Davies; Derek Heim; Frances Finnigan; Megan Sudberry; Rory O'Connor; Marc Obonsawin
Journal:  Conscious Cogn       Date:  2004-12

5.  Impulsive responding and the sustained attention to response task.

Authors:  William S Helton
Journal:  J Clin Exp Neuropsychol       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 2.475

6.  Noradrenergic genotype predicts lapses in sustained attention.

Authors:  Ciara M Greene; Mark A Bellgrove; Michael Gill; Ian H Robertson
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2008-10-10       Impact factor: 3.139

7.  Task unrelated thought whilst encoding information.

Authors:  Jonathan M Smallwood; Simona F Baracaia; Michelle Lowe; Marc Obonsawin
Journal:  Conscious Cogn       Date:  2003-09

8.  Absent-mindedness: Lapses of conscious awareness and everyday cognitive failures.

Authors:  James Allan Cheyne; Jonathan S A Carriere; Daniel Smilek
Journal:  Conscious Cogn       Date:  2006-01-19

9.  Response variability in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: evidence for neuropsychological heterogeneity.

Authors:  Katherine A Johnson; Simon P Kelly; Mark A Bellgrove; Edwina Barry; Marie Cox; Michael Gill; Ian H Robertson
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2006-12-08       Impact factor: 3.139

10.  Attentional deficits in patients with persisting postconcussive complaints: a general deficit or specific component deficit?

Authors:  Raymond C K Chan
Journal:  J Clin Exp Neuropsychol       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 2.475

View more
  10 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.  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

4.  Working memory load and the vigilance decrement.

Authors:  William S Helton; Paul N Russell
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-06-04       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.  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

7.  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

8.  The effects of real-time performance feedback and performance emphasis on the sustained attention to response task (SART).

Authors:  Justin M Mensen; Jasmine S Dang; Andrew J Stets; William S Helton
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2021-10-08

9.  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

10.  Cognitive Fatigue Influences Time-On-Task during Bodyweight Resistance Training Exercise.

Authors:  James R Head; Matthew S Tenan; Andrew J Tweedell; Thomas F Price; Michael E LaFiandra; William S Helton
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 4.566

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.