Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Go-stimuli probability influences response bias in the sustained attention to response task: a signal detection theory perspective

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Psychological Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The sustained attention to response task (SART) is a popular measure in the psychology and neuroscience of attention. The underlying psychological cause for errors, in particular errors of commission, in the SART is actively disputed. Some researchers have suggested task-disengagement due to mind-wandering or mindlessness, and others have proposed strategic choices. In this study we explored an alternative perspective based on Signal Detection Theory, in which the high rate of commission errors in the SART reflects simply a shift in response bias (criterion) due to the high prevalence of Go-stimuli. We randomly assigned 406 participants to one of ten Go-stimuli prevalence rates (50%, 64%, 74%, 78%, 82%, 86%, 90%, 94%, 98% and 100%). As Go-stimuli prevalence increased reaction times to both Go and No–Go stimuli decreased, omission errors decreased and commission errors increased. These all were predicted from a hypothesized bias shift, but the findings were not compatible with some alternative theories of SART performance. These findings may have implications for similar tasks.

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
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability statement

The dataset for the current study is not publicly available due the fact that they constitute an excerpt of research in progress but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  • Baddeley, A. D., & Colquhoun, W. P. (1969). Signal probability and vigilance: A reappraisal of the ‘signal-rate’effect. British Journal of Psychology, 60(2), 169–178.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, C. L., & Lewis, B. A. (2017). Positive valence music restores executive control over sustained attention. PLoS ONE, 12(11), e0186231.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bellgrove, M. A., Hawi, Z., Kirley, A., Gill, M., & Robertson, I. H. (2005). Dissecting the attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) phenotype: Sustained attention, response variability and spatial attentional asymmetries in relation to dopamine transporter (DAT1) genotype. Neuropsychologia, 43(13), 1847–1857.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cheyne, J. A., Solman, G. J., Carriere, J. S., & Smilek, D. (2009). Anatomy of an error: A bidirectional state model of task engagement/disengagement and attention-related errors. Cognition, 111(1), 98–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christoff, K., Gordon, A. M., Smallwood, J., Smith, R., & Schooler, J. W. (2009). Experience sampling during fMRI reveals default network and executive system contributions to mind wandering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(21), 8719–8724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 181–204.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dang, J. A., Shaw, T. H., McKnight, P. E., & Helton, W. S. (2022). A closer look at warning cues on the sustained attention to response task performance. Human Factors (in press).

  • 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(8), 2255–2262.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Egeland, J., & Kovalik-Gran, I. (2010). Validity of the factor structure of Conners’ CPT. Journal of Attention Disorders, 13(4), 347–357.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, P. A. (2013). In search of vigilance: The problem of iatrogenically created psychological phenomena. American Psychologist, 68(2), 97–109.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hautus, M. J. (1995). Corrections for extreme proportions and their biasing effects on estimated values of d′. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 27(1), 46–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, G. E., Mittner, M., Forstmann, B. U., & Heathcote, A. (2019). Modeling distracted performance. Cognitive Psychology, 112, 48–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Head, J., & Helton, W. S. (2018). The troubling science of neurophenomenology. Experimental Brain Research, 236(9), 2463–2467.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Head, J., Tenan, M. S., Tweedell, A. J., LaFiandra, M. E., Morelli, F., Wilson, K. M., & Helton, W. S. (2017). Prior mental fatigue impairs marksmanship decision performance. Frontiers in Physiology, 8, 680.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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(5), 787–799.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Helton, W. S. (2009). Impulsive responding and the sustained attention to response task. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 31(1), 39–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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(4), 311–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helton, W. S., & Head, J. (2012). Earthquakes on the mind: Implications of disasters for human performance. Human Factors, 54(2), 189–194.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Helton, W. S., Weil, L., Middlemiss, A., & Sawers, A. (2010). Global interference and spatial uncertainty in the sustained attention to response task (SART). Consciousness and Cognition, 19(1), 77–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, M. C., Li, R. H., & Tang, T. C. (2015). Betel nut chewing effects on sustained attention and inhibitory control after sleep deprivation. Australian Journal of Psychology, 67(4), 222–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, J. D., & Balota, D. A. (2012). Mind-wandering in younger and older adults: Converging evidence from the Sustained Attention to Response Task and reading for comprehension. Psychology and Aging, 27(1), 106–119.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, A. J., Muneem, M., & Miles, C. (2013). Chewing gum benefits sustained attention in the absence of task degradation. Nutritional Neuroscience, 16(4), 153–159.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, M. J., Smeekens, B. A., Meier, M. E., Welhaf, M. S., & Phillips, N. E. (2021). Testing the construct validity of competing measurement approaches to probed mind-wandering reports. Behavior Research Methods, 53(6), 2372–2411.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lichstein, K. L., Riedel, B. W., & Richman, S. L. (2000). The mackworth clock test: A computerized version. The Journal of Psychology, 134(2), 153–161.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lo, J. C., Ong, J. L., Leong, R. L., Gooley, J. J., & Chee, M. W. (2016). Cognitive performance, sleepiness, and mood in partially sleep deprived adolescents: The need for sleep study. Sleep, 39(3), 687–698.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lynn, S. K., & Barrett, L. F. (2014). “Utilizing” signal detection theory. Psychological Science, 25(9), 1663–1673.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mackworth, N. H. (1948). The breakdown of vigilance during prolonged visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1(1), 6–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manly, T., Robertson, I. H., Galloway, M., & Hawkins, K. (1999). The absent mind: Further investigations of sustained attention to response. Neuropsychologia, 37(6), 661–670.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, G. (1996). Signal probability effects on high-workload vigilance tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(3), 339–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAvinue, L., O’Keeffe, F., McMackin, D., & Robertson, I. H. (2005). Impaired sustained attention and error awareness in traumatic brain injury: Implications for insight. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 15(5), 569–587.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McVay, J. C., & Kane, M. J. (2009). Conducting the train of thought: Working memory capacity, goal neglect, and mind wandering in an executive-control task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(1), 196–204.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. (1998). Effects of stimulus-response probability on choice reaction time: Evidence from the lateralized readiness potential. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(5), 1521–1534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J., & Pachella, R. G. (1973). Locus of the stimulus probability effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 101(2), 227–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mrazek, M. D., Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2012). Mindfulness and mind-wandering: Finding convergence through opposing constructs. Emotion, 12(3), 442.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, S. T., Alam, L., Funke, G. J., Linja, A., Ibne Mamun, T., & Smith, S. L. (2020). Examining methods for combining speed and accuracy in a Go/No-Go vigilance task. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 64, 1202–1206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, S. T., & Weidemann, C. T. (2008). Decision noise: An explanation for observed violations of signal detection theory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(3), 465–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuechterlein, K. H., Parasuraman, R., & Jiang, Q. (1983). Visual sustained attention: Image degradation produces rapid sensitivity decrement over time. Science, 220(4594), 327–329.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parasuraman, R., & Davies, D. R. (1976). Decision theory analysis of response latencies in vigilance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2(4), 578–590.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peebles, D., & Bothell, D. (2004). Modelling performance in the sustained attention to response task. In ICCM (pp. 231–236).

  • Raettig, T., & Huestegge, L. (2021). Representing action in terms of what not to do: Evidence for inhibitory coding during multiple action control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 47(9), 1253–1273.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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(6), 747–758.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, C. L., Murphy, L. B., Schickedantz, B., & Tucci, J. (2001). The effects of event rate and signal probability on childrens’ vigilance. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 23(2), 215–224.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seli, P., Cheyne, J. A., & Smilek, D. (2012). Attention failures versus misplaced diligence: Separating attention lapses from speed–accuracy trade-offs. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(1), 277–291.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stanislaw, H., & Todorov, N. (1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(1), 137–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Temple, J. G., Warm, J. S., Dember, W. N., Jones, K. S., LaGrange, C. M., & Matthews, G. (2000). The effects of signal salience and caffeine on performance, workload, and stress in an abbreviated vigilance task. Human Factors, 42(2), 183–194.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vallesi, A., Tronelli, V., Lomi, F., & Pezzetta, R. (2021). Age differences in sustained attention tasks: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28, 1755–1775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbruggen, F., & Logan, G. D. (2008). Response inhibition in the stop-signal paradigm. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(11), 418–424.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Whyte, J., Grieb-Neff, P., Gantz, C., & Polansky, M. (2006). Measuring sustained attention after traumatic brain injury: Differences in key findings from the sustained attention to response task (SART). Neuropsychologia, 44(10), 2007–2014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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(10), 2989–2998.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, K. M., Head, J., De Joux, N. R., Finkbeiner, K. M., & Helton, W. S. (2015). Friendly fire and the sustained attention to response task. Human Factors, 57(7), 1219–1234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wühr, P., & Ansorge, U. (2020). Do left-handers outperform right-handers in paper-and-pencil tests of attention? Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 84, 2262–2272.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wyart, V., Nobre, A. C., & Summerfield, C. (2012). Dissociable prior influences of signal probability and relevance on visual contrast sensitivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(9), 3593–3598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No external funding was utilized for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Canterbury, Canterbury, New Zealand

    Aman Bedi, Paul N. Russell & William S. Helton

  2. Department of Psychology, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, 3F5, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA

    William S. Helton

Authors
  1. Aman Bedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul N. Russell
    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 William S. Helton.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee of the University of Canterbury and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bedi, A., Russell, P.N. & Helton, W.S. Go-stimuli probability influences response bias in the sustained attention to response task: a signal detection theory perspective. Psychological Research 87, 509–518 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01679-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-022-01679-7

Search

Navigation