You are measuring the decision to be fast, not inattention: the Sustained Attention to Response Task does not measure sustained attention
The Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) has been widely used in psychological literature as a measure of vigilance (the ability to sustain attention over a prolonged period of time). This task uses a Go/No-Go paradigm and requires the participants to repetitively respond to the stimuli as quickly and as accurately as possible. Previous literature indicates that performance in SART is subjected to a “speed–accuracy trade-off” (SATO) resulting from strategy choices and from the failures of controlling motor reflexes. In this study, 36 participants (n = 36) performed a series of four SARTs. The results support the perspective of strategy choice in SART and suggest that within-subjects SATO in SART should also be acknowledged in attempting to explain SART performance. The implications of the speed–accuracy trade-off should be fully understood when the SART is being used as a measure or tool.
KeywordsSustained Attention to Response Task Speed–accuracy trade-off Within-subject speed–accuracy trade-off (SATO)
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors listed above declare that there is no conflict of interest.
- Bedi A (2015) The effects of response probability on commission errors in high go low no-go dual response versions of the sustained attention to response task (SART). (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of CanterburyGoogle Scholar
- Cohen J, Cohen P (1983) Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
- Head J, Helton WS (2016) The troubling science of neurophenomenology. Exp Brain Res 1–5Google Scholar
- Laming DRJ (1968) Information Theory of Choice-Reaction Times. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Molenaar PCM (2004) A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: bringing the person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Meas 2:201–218Google Scholar
- Peebles D, Bothell D (2004) Modelling performance in the sustained attention to response task. In: Proc ICCM 231 236. Carnegie Mellon University/University of Pittsburgh, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
- Woodworth RS, Schlosberg H (1954) Experimental psychology. Holt, New YorkGoogle Scholar