Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Response uncertainty influences response bias in the sustained attention to response task: a signal detection theory perspective

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

Abstract

In the current investigation, we modified the high Go, low No-Go Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) by replacing the single response on Go trials with a dual response to increase response uncertainty. In three experiments, a total of 80 participants completed either the original SART with no response uncertainty regarding the Go stimuli, or versions of the dual response SART in which response probabilities for the two possible responses to the Go stimuli varied from 0.9–0.1, 0.7–0.3, to 0.5–0.5. This resulted in a scale of increasing response uncertainty based on information theory to the Go stimuli. The probability of No-Go withhold stimuli was kept.11 in all experiments. Using the Signal Detection Theory perspective proposed by Bedi et al. (Psychological Research: 1–10, 2022), we predicted that increasing response uncertainty would result in a conservative response bias shift, noted by decreased errors of commission and slower response times to both Go and No-Go stimuli. These predictions were verified. The errors of commission in the SART may not be a measures of conscious awareness per se, but instead indicative of the level of participant trigger happiness—the willingness to respond quickly.

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
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

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

  • Aitken, J. A., Pagan, O., Wong, C. M., Bayley, B., Helton, W. S., & Kaplan, S. A. (2023). Task-related and task-unrelated thoughts in runners and equestrians: Measurement issues in evaluations of thought content. Applied Ergonomics, 110, 104011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bedi, A., Russell, P. N., & Helton, W. S. (2023). Go-stimuli probability influences response bias in the sustained attention to response task: A signal detection theory perspective. Psychological Research, 87(2), 509–518.

    Article  PubMed  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 

  • Blakely, M. J., Kemp, S., & Helton, W. S. (2016). Volitional running and tone counting: The impact of cognitive load on running over natural terrain. IIE Transactions on Occupational Ergonomics and Human Factors, 4(2–3), 104–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter, L., Russell, P. N., & Helton, W. S. (2013). Target predictability, sustained attention, and response inhibition. Brain and Cognition, 82(1), 35–42.

    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. 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 

  • Draheim, C., Tsukahara, J. S., Martin, J. D., Mashburn, C. A., & Engle, R. W. (2021). A toolbox approach to improving the measurement of attention control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(2), 242–275.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fitts, P. M., & Posner, M. I. (1967). Human performance. Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

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

    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., 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., Jackson, K. M., Näswall, K., & Humphrey, B. (2022). The national aviation and space agency task load index (NASA-TLX): does it need updating? Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 66, 1245–1249.

    Article  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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • McVay, J. C., & Kane, M. J. (2012). Drifting from slow to “d’oh!”: Working memory capacity and mind wandering predict extreme reaction times and executive control errors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38(3), 525–549.

    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 

  • 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).

  • Rey-Mermet, A., Gade, M., Souza, A. S., Von Bastian, C. C., & Oberauer, K. (2019). Is executive control related to working memory capacity and fluid intelligence? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(8), 1335–1372.

    Article  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 

  • 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 

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

    Article  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 

  • Unsworth, N., Robison, M. K., & Miller, A. L. (2021). Individual differences in lapses of attention: A latent variable analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(7), 1303–1331.

    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 

  • 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, Chirstchurch, 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

Contributions

AB, PR, and WH wrote the main manuscript text, W.H. prepared the tables and figures. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

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

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

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. Response uncertainty influences response bias in the sustained attention to response task: a signal detection theory perspective. Psychological Research 88, 81–90 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-023-01847-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-023-01847-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation