Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

You are measuring the decision to be fast, not inattention: the Sustained Attention to Response Task does not measure sustained attention

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Experimental Brain Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander RA (1990) A note on averaging correlations. Bull Psychon Soc 28:335–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckmann N, Wood RE (2017) Dynamic personality science. Integrating between-person stability and within person change. Front Psychol 8:1486

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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 (Unpublished master’s thesis).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 Canterbury

  • Berto R (2005) Exposure to restorative environments helps restore attentional capacity. J Environ Psychol 25:249–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheyne JA, Solman GJ, Carriere JS, Smilek D (2009) Anatomy of an error: a bidirectional state model of task engagement/disengagement and attention-related errors. Cognition 111:98–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christoff K, Gordon AM, Smallwood J, Smith R, Schooler JW (2009) Experience sampling during fMRI reveals default network and executive system contributions to mind wandering. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:8719–8724

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J, Cohen P (1983) Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  • Dang JS, Figueroa IJ, Helton WS (2017) Determining practice effects on a cognitive flexibility assessment. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 61:1829–1833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkbeiner KM, Wilson KM, Russell PN, Helton WS (2014) The effects of warning cues and attention-capturing stimuli on the sustained attention to response task. Exp Brain Res 233:1061–1068

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Head J, Helton WS (2013) Perceptual decoupling or motor decoupling? Conscious Cogn 22:913–919

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Head J, Helton WS (2016) The troubling science of neurophenomenology. Exp Brain Res 1–5

  • Head J, Wilson K, Helton WS, Kemp S (2013) The role of calmness in a high-Go target detection task. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 57:838–842 (Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helton WS (2009) Impulsive responding and the sustained attention to response task. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 31:39–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Helton WS, Head J, Russell PN (2011) Reliable- and unreliable-warning cues in the sustained attention to response task. Exp Brain Res 209:401–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Helton WS, Funke GJ, Knott BA (2014) Measuring workload in collaborative contexts: trait versus state perspectives. Hum Factors 56:322–332

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Laming DRJ (1968) Information Theory of Choice-Reaction Times. Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Manly T, Robertson IH, Galloway M, Hawkins K (1999) The absent mind: further investigations of sustained attention to response. Neuropsychologia 37:661–670

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McAvinue IL, O’Keeffe F, McMackin D, Robertson IH (2005) Impaired sustained attention and error awareness in traumatic brain injury: implications for insight. Neuropsychol Rehabil 15:569–587

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller J (1991) Reaction time analysis with outlier exclusion: Bias varies with sample size. Q J Exp Psychol A 43:907–912

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Molenaar PCM (2004) A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: bringing the person back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Meas 2:201–218

    Google 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, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson IH, Manly T, Andrade J, Baddeley BT, Yiend J (1997) ‘Oops!’: Performance correlates of everyday attentional failures in traumatic brain injured and normal subjects. Neuropsychologia 35:747–758

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schooler JW, Smallwood J, Christoff K, Handy TC, Reichle ED, Sayette MA (2011) Meta-awareness, perceptual decoupling and the wandering mind. Trends Cogn Sci 15:319–326

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seli P (2016) The attention-lapse and motor decoupling accounts of SART performance are not mutually exclusive. Conscious Cogn 41:189–198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seli P, Jonker TR, Solman GJ, Cheyne JA, Smilek D (2013a) A methodological note on evaluating performance in a sustained-attention-to-response task. Behav Res Methods 45:355–363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seli P, Jonker TR, Cheyne JA, Smilek D (2013b) Enhancing SART validity by statistically controlling speed accuracy trade-offs. Front Psychol 4:265

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Smallwood J (2013) Penetrating the fog of the decoupled mind: the effects of visual salience in the sustained attention to response task. Can J Exp Psychol 67:32–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smallwood J, Davies JB, Heim D, Finnigan F, Sudberry M, O’Connor R, Obonsawin M (2004) Subjective experience and the attentional lapse: task engagement and disengagement during sustained attention. Conscious Cogn 13:657–690

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Teichner WH, Krebs MJ (1974) Laws of visual choice reaction time. Psychol Rev 81:75–98

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson KM, Finkbeiner KM, de Joux NR, Russell PN, Helton WS (2016) Go-stimuli proportion influences response strategy in a sustained attention to response task. Exp Brain Res 234:2989–2998

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson M, Joux NR, Finkbeiner KM, Russell PN, Retzler JR, Helton WS (2018) Prolonging the response movement inhibits the feed-forward motor program in the sustained attention to response task. Acta Psychol 183:75–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood CC, Jennings JR (1976) Speed-accuracy tradeoff functions in choice reaction time: experimental designs and computational procedures. Atten Percept Psychophys 19:92–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodworth RS, Schlosberg H (1954) Experimental psychology. Holt, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Zelenski JM, Larsen RJ (2000) The distribution of basic emotions in everyday life: a state and trait perspective from experience sampling data. J Res Pers 34:178–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA

    Jasmine S. Dang, Ivonne J. Figueroa & William S. Helton

Authors
  1. Jasmine S. Dang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ivonne J. Figueroa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. William S. Helton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jasmine S. Dang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors listed above declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-018-5291-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation