Literature DB >> 25537468

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

Kristin M Finkbeiner1, Kyle M Wilson, Paul N Russell, William S Helton.   

Abstract

Performance on the sustained attention to response task (SART) is often characterized by a speed-accuracy trade-off, and SART performance may be influenced by strategic factors (Head and Helton Conscious Cogn 22: 913-919, 2013). Previous research indicates a significant difference between reliable and unreliable warning cues on response times and errors (commission and omission), suggesting that SART tasks are influenced by strategic factors (Helton et al. Conscious Cogn 20: 1732-1737, 2011; Exp Brain Res 209: 401-407, 2011). With regards to warning stimuli, we chose to use cute images (exhibiting infantile features) during a SART, as previous literature indicates cute images cause participants to engage attention. If viewing cute things makes the viewer exert more attention than normal, then exposure to cute stimuli during the SART should improve performance if SART performance is a measure of perceptual coupling. Reliable warning cues were shown to reduce both response time and errors of commission, and increase errors of omission, relative to unreliable warning cues. Cuteness of the warning stimuli, however, had no significant effect on SART performance. These results suggest the importance of strategic factors in SART performance, not increased attention, and add to the growing literature which suggests the SART is not a good measure of sustained attention, vigilance or perceptual coupling.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25537468     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-014-4179-3

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


  37 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Vigilance and intrinsic maintenance of alert state: An ERP study.

Authors:  Anne Bonnefond; Nadège Doignon-Camus; Pascale Touzalin-Chretien; André Dufour
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  2010-03-25       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  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

5.  Task unrelated thought whilst encoding information.

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

6.  Event-related cerebral hemodynamics reveal target-specific resource allocation for both "go" and "no-go" response-based vigilance tasks.

Authors:  Tyler H Shaw; Matthew E Funke; Michael Dillard; Gregory J Funke; Joel S Warm; Raja Parasuraman
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  2013-05-31       Impact factor: 2.310

7.  Challenge and error: critical events and attention-related errors.

Authors:  James Allan Cheyne; Jonathan S A Carriere; Grayden J F Solman; Daniel Smilek
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2011-09-08

8.  The relationship between lateral differences in tympanic membrane temperature and behavioral impulsivity.

Authors:  William S Helton
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  2010-07-24       Impact factor: 2.310

9.  Impaired sustained attention and error awareness in traumatic brain injury: implications for insight.

Authors:  Laura McAvinue; Fiadhnait O'Keeffe; Deirdre McMackin; Ian H Robertson
Journal:  Neuropsychol Rehabil       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 2.868

10.  Baby schema in human and animal faces induces cuteness perception and gaze allocation in children.

Authors:  Marta Borgi; Irene Cogliati-Dezza; Victoria Brelsford; Kerstin Meints; Francesca Cirulli
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-05-07
View more
  3 in total

1.  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

2.  Captivated by thought: "Sticky" thinking leaves traces of perceptual decoupling in task-evoked pupil size.

Authors:  Stefan Huijser; Mathanja Verkaik; Marieke K van Vugt; Niels A Taatgen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-12-09       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  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
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.