Literature DB >> 34623490

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

Justin M Mensen1, Jasmine S Dang2, Andrew J Stets2, William S Helton2.   

Abstract

The sustained attention to response task (SART) has been used for over 20 years to assess participants' response times and inability to withhold to No-Go stimuli (commission errors). While there is debate in the literature regarding what causes commissions errors in the SART, there is agreement the SART is subject to a speed-accuracy trade-off (SATO). Researchers have demonstrated that performance on the SART can be influenced by directive instructions to participants to prioritize either speed or accuracy during the task. In the present study, we investigated whether real-time performance feedback and whether feedback emphasis (emphasizing speed or accuracy) affected participants' response times and accuracy. We found performance feedback per se had no impact on performance, but performance emphasis did affect performance, apparently shifting the SATO. This finding provides further evidence that the commission errors in the SART are not indicative of sustained attention or vigilance as those terms are commonly used in the literature, but more likely assess response strategy and motor control (or lack of motor control). These findings have implications for the psychological assessment literature, as well as applied areas where SART findings have been utilized such as shoot/no-shoot decision making.
© 2021. This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34623490     DOI: 10.1007/s00426-021-01602-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Res        ISSN: 0340-0727


  23 in total

1.  Functional decay of memory for tasks.

Authors:  Erik M Altmann
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2002-08-15

2.  Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.

Authors:  D T CAMPBELL; D W FISKE
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1959-03       Impact factor: 17.737

3.  Response Complexity Reduces Errors on a Response Inhibition Task.

Authors:  James Head; Matthew S Tenan; Andrew J Tweedell; Kyle M Wilson; William S Helton
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2019-06-25       Impact factor: 2.888

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.  Perceptual decoupling or motor decoupling?

Authors:  James Head; William S Helton
Journal:  Conscious Cogn       Date:  2013-07-07

6.  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

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.  Passive perceptual learning versus active searching in a novel stimuli vigilance task.

Authors:  James Head; William S Helton
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2015-02-19       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  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

10.  Testing failure-to-identify hunting incidents using an immersive simulation: Is it viable?

Authors:  K E Bridges; P M Corballis; M Spray; J Bagrie
Journal:  Appl Ergon       Date:  2021-01-20       Impact factor: 3.661

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.