Top

Gepubliceerd in:

08-10-2021 | Original Article

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

Auteurs: Justin M. Mensen, Jasmine S. Dang, Andrew J. Stets, William S. Helton

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 6/2022

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.

vorige artikel On preventing attention capture: Is singleton suppression actually singleton suppression?

volgende artikel Training the attentional blink: subclinical depression decreases learning potential

Altmann, E. M. (2002). Functional decay of memory for tasks. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 66(4), 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-002-0102-9CrossRefPubMed

Brandimonte, M. A., Ferrante, D., Feresin, C., & Delbello, R. (2001). Dissociating prospective memory from vigilance processes. Psicológica, 22(1), 97–113.

Bridges, K. E., Corballis, P. M., Spray, M., & Bagrie, J. (2021). Testing failure-to-identify hunting incidents using an immersive simulation: Is it viable? Applied Ergonomics, 93, 103358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103358CrossRefPubMed

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016CrossRefPubMed

Dang, J. S., Figueroa, I. J., & Helton, W. S. (2018). You are measuring the decision to be fast, not inattention: The Sustained Attention to Response Task does not measure sustained attention. Experimental Brain Research, 236, 2255–2262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-018-5291-6CrossRefPubMed

Finkbeiner, K. M., Wilson, K. M., Russell, P. N., & Helton, W. S. (2014). The effects of warning cues and attention-capturing stimuli on the sustained attention to response task. Experimental Brain Research, 233, 1061–1068. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-014-4179-3CrossRefPubMed

Head, J., & Helton, W. S. (2013). Perceptual decoupling or motor decoupling? Consciousness and Cognition, 22, 913–919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.06.003CrossRefPubMed

Head, J., & Helton, W. S. (2014). Practice does not make perfect in a modified sustained attention to response task. Experimental Brain Research, 232, 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3765-0CrossRefPubMed

Head, J., & Helton, W. S. (2015). Passive perceptual learning versus active searching in a novel stimuli vigilance task. Experimental Brain Research, 233, 1481–1489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4222-zCrossRefPubMed

Head, J., Tenan, M., Tweedell, A., LaFiandra, M., Morelli, F., Wilson, K., Ortega, S., & Helton, W. S. (2017). Mental fatigue influences subsequent marksmanship decision. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 20(2), S126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2017.09.483CrossRef

Head, J., Tenan, M. S., Tweedell, A. J., Wilson, K. M., & Helton, W. S. (2020). Response complexity reduces errors on a response inhibition task. Human Factors, 62, 787–799. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819852801CrossRefPubMed

Helton, W. S. (2009). Impulsive responding and the sustained attention to response task. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 31, 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803390801978856CrossRefPubMed

Helton, W. S., Dember, W. N., Warm, J. S., & Matthews, G. (1999). Optimism-pessimism and false failure feedback: Effects on vigilance performance. Current Psychology, 18, 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-999-1006-2CrossRef

Helton, W. S., Head, J., & Russell, P. N. (2011). Reliable-and unreliable-warning cues in the sustained attention to response task. Experimental Brain Research, 209, 401–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2563-9CrossRefPubMed

Helton, W. S., & Russell, P. N. (2012). Brief mental breaks and content-free cues may not keep you focused. Experimental Brain Research, 219, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3065-0CrossRefPubMed

Liesefeld, H. R., & Janczyk, M. (2019). Combining speed and accuracy to control for speed-accuracy trade-offs (?). Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 40–60.CrossRef

Linde, M., Tendeiro, J., Selker, R., Wagenmakers, E., & van Ravenzwaaij, D. (2020). Decisions about equivalence: A comparison of TOST, HDI-ROPE, and the Bayes Factor. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/bh8vuCrossRef

Lister, C., West, J. H., Cannon, B., Sax, T., & Brodegard, D. (2014). Just a fad? Gamification in health and fitness apps. JMIR Serious Games, 2(2), e3413.CrossRef

Mackworth, N. H. (1948). The breakdown of vigilance during prolonged visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1, 6–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470214808416738CrossRef

Manly, T., Robertson, I. H., Galloway, M., & Hawkins, K. (1999). The absent mind: Further investigations of sustained attention to response. Neuropsychologia, 37, 661–670.CrossRef

Munnik, A., Näswall, K., Woddward, G., & Helton, W. S. (2020). The quick and the dead: A paradigm for studying friendly fire. Applied Ergonomics, 84, 103032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2019.103032CrossRefPubMed

Parasuraman, R., Warm, J. S., & Dember, W. N. (1987). Vigilance: Taxonomy and utility. In L. S. Mark, J. S. Warm, & R. L. Huston (Eds.), Ergonomics and human factors: Recent research (pp. 11–32). Springer.CrossRef

Peebles, D., & Bothell, D. (2004). Modelling performance in the sustained attention to response task. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Cognitive Modeling, 231–236.

Robertson, I. H., Manly, T., Andrade, J., Baddeley, B. T., & Yiend, J. (1997). ‘Oops!’: Performance correlates of everyday attentional failures in traumatic brain injured and normal subjects. Neuropsychologia, 35, 747–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(97)00015-8CrossRefPubMed

Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16, 225–237. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.2.225CrossRefPubMed

Seli, P., Cheyne, A., & Smilek, D. (2012). Attention failures versus misplaced diligence: Separating attention lapses from speed–accuracy trade-offs. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 277–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.09.017CrossRefPubMed

Seli, P., Jonker, T. R., Cheyne, J. A., & Smilek, D. (2013a). Enhancing SART validity by statistically controlling speed-accuracy trade-offs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 265. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00265CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Seli, P., Jonker, T. R., Solman, G. J., Cheyne, J. A., & Smilek, D. (2013b). A methodological note on evaluating performance in a sustained-attention-to-response task. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 355–363.CrossRef

Steinborn, M. B., Langner, R., Flehmig, H. C., & Huestegge, L. (2018). Methodology of performance scoring in the d2 sustained-attention test: Cumulative-reliability functions and practical guidelines. Psychological Assessment, 30(3), 339–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000482CrossRefPubMed

Steinborn, M. B., Langner, R., & Huestegge, L. (2017). Mobilizing cognition for speeded action: Try-harder instructions promote motivated readiness in the constant-foreperiod paradigm. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 81(6), 1135–1151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0810-1CrossRefPubMed

Strayer, D. L., & Kramer, A. F. (1994). Strategies and automaticity: II. Dynamic aspects of strategy adjustment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(2), 342–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.2.342CrossRef

Szalma, J. L. (2009). Individual differences in performance, workload, and stress in sustained attention: Optimism and pessimism. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 444–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.019CrossRef

Szalma, J. L., Hancock, P. A., Dember, W. N., & Warm, J. S. (2006). Training for vigilance: The effect of knowledge of results format and dispositional optimism and pessimism on performance and stress. British Journal of Psychology, 97(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712605X62768CrossRefPubMed

Vandierendonck, A. (2017). A comparison of methods to combine speed and accuracy measures of performance: A rejoinder on the binning procedure. Behavior Research Methods, 49(2), 653–673.CrossRef

Waldfogle, G. E., Hagerty-Koller, M. R., Lane, L. R., Garibaldi, A. E., & Szalma, J. L. (2019). Exploring sex differences in vigilance performance with knowledge of results. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 63, 1321–1325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181319631130CrossRef

Warm, J. S., Finomore, V., Shaw, T. H., Funke, M. E., Hausen, M. J., Matthews, G., Taylor, P., Vidulich, M. A., Repperger, D. W., Szalma, J. L., & Hancock, P. A. (2009). Effects of training with knowledge of results on diagnosticity in vigilance performance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 53, 1066–1070. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120905301705CrossRef

Warm, J. S., & Jerison, H. J. (1984). The psychophysics of vigilance. Sustained Attention in Human Performance, 15–59.

Wilson, K., Head, J., de Joux, N., Finkbeiner, K., & Helton, W. S. (2015). Friendly fire and the sustained attention to response task. Human Factors, 57, 1219–1234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720815605703CrossRefPubMed

Wilson, K. M., De Joux, N. R., Finkbeiner, K. M., Russell, P. N., Retzler, J. R., & Helton, W. S. (2018). Prolonging the response movement inhibits the feed-forward motor program in the sustained attention to response task. Acta Psychologica, 183, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.01.001CrossRefPubMed

Wilson, K. M., Finkbeiner, K. M., de Joux, N. R., Russell, P. N., & Helton, W. S. (2016). Go stimuli proportion influences response strategy in a sustained attention to response task. Experimental Brain Research, 234, 2989–2998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4701-xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Wilson, K. M., Finkbeiner, K. M., de Joux, N. R., Head, J., & Helton, W. S. (2014). Friendly fire and the proportion of friends to foes. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 58(1), 1204–1208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931214581251CrossRef

Wilson, K., Head, J., & Helton, W. (2013). Friendly fire in a simulated firearms task. Proceedings of the HFES Annual Meeting. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213571276CrossRef

Titel: The effects of real-time performance feedback and performance emphasis on the sustained attention to response task (SART)
Auteurs: Justin M. Mensen
Jasmine S. Dang
Andrew J. Stets
William S. Helton
Publicatiedatum: 08-10-2021
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 6/2022
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01602-6

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2022

Correction to: Modelling concrete and abstract concepts using brain-constrained deep neural networks

The dissociation between age of acquisition and word frequency effects in Chinese spoken picture naming

The limits of automatic sensorimotor processing during word processing: investigations with repeated linguistic experience, memory consolidation during sleep, and rich linguistic learning contexts

Temporal integration of feature probability distributions

It is not always positive: emotional bias in young and older adults

The relations between personality, components of executive functions, and intelligence in children and young adults