The effects of warning cues and attention-capturing stimuli on the sustained attention to response task

Abstract

Performance on the sustained attention to response task (SART) is often characterized by a speed–accuracy trade-off, and SART performance may be influenced by strategic factors (Head and Helton Conscious Cogn 22: 913–919, 2013). Previous research indicates a significant difference between reliable and unreliable warning cues on response times and errors (commission and omission), suggesting that SART tasks are influenced by strategic factors (Helton et al. Conscious Cogn 20: 1732–1737, 2011; Exp Brain Res 209: 401–407, 2011). With regards to warning stimuli, we chose to use cute images (exhibiting infantile features) during a SART, as previous literature indicates cute images cause participants to engage attention. If viewing cute things makes the viewer exert more attention than normal, then exposure to cute stimuli during the SART should improve performance if SART performance is a measure of perceptual coupling. Reliable warning cues were shown to reduce both response time and errors of commission, and increase errors of omission, relative to unreliable warning cues. Cuteness of the warning stimuli, however, had no significant effect on SART performance. These results suggest the importance of strategic factors in SART performance, not increased attention, and add to the growing literature which suggests the SART is not a good measure of sustained attention, vigilance or perceptual coupling.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Anderson JR, Lebiere C (1998) Atomic components of thought. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bonnefond A, Doignon-Camus N, Touzalin-Chretien P, Dufour A (2010) Vigilance and intrinsic maintenance of alert state: an ERP study. Behav Brain Res 211:185–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Borgi M, Cogliati-Dezza I, Brelsford V, Meints K, Cirulli F (2014) Baby schema in human and animal faces induces cuteness perception and gaze allocation in children. Front Psychol 5:411. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00411

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Carter L, Russell PN, Helton WS (2013) Target predictability, sustained attention, and response inhibition. Brain Cogn 82:35–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chan RCK (2001) A further study on the sustained attention response to task (SART): the effect of age, gender and education. Brain Inj 15:819–829

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chan RCK (2002) Attentional deficits in patients with persisting post concussive complaints: a general deficit or specific component deficit? J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 24:1081–1093

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cheyne JA, Carriere JSA, Smilek D (2009a) Absent minds and absent agents: attention-lapse induced alienation of agency. Conscious Cogn 18:481–493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cheyne JA, Carriere JS, Solman GJ, Smilek D (2011) Challenge and error: critical events and attention-related errors. Cognition 121:437–446

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dillard MB, Warm JS, Funke GJ, Funke ME, Finomore VS, Matthews G, Parasuraman R (2014) The sustained attention to response task (SART) does not promote mindlessness during vigilance performance. Hum Factors. doi:10.1177/0018720814537521

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dockree PM, Kelly SP, Roche RA, Hogan MJ, Reilly RB, Robertson IH (2004) Behavioural and physiological impairments of sustained attention after traumatic brain injury. Cogn Brain Res 20:403–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dockree PM, Bellgrove MA, O’Keefe FM, Moloney P, Aimola L, Cartoon S, Robertson IH (2006) Sustained attention in traumatic brain injury (tbi) and healthy controls: enhanced sensitivity with dual-task load. Exp Brain Res 168:218–229

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Doneva SP, De Fockert JW (2014) More conservative go/no-go response criterion under high working memory load. J Cogn Psychol 26:110–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Golle J, Lisibach S, Mast FW, Lobmaier JS (2013) Sweet puppies and cute babies: perceptual adaptation to babyfacedness transfers across species. PLoS One 8(3):e58248

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Greene CM, Bellgrove MA, Gill M, Robertson IH (2009) Noradrenergic genotype predicts lapses in sustained attention. Neuropsychologia 47:591–594

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Grier RA, Warm JS, Dember WN, Matthews G, Galinsky TL, Szalma JL, Parasuraman R (2003) The vigilance decrement reflects limitations in effortful attention not mindlessness. Hum Factors 45:349–359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Helton WS (2008) Impulsive responding and the sustained attention to response task. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 31:39–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Helton WS (2010) The relationship between lateral differences in tympanic membrane temperature and behavioral impulsivity. Brain Cogn 74:75–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Helton WS, Head J (2012) Earthquakes on the mind: implications of disasters for human performance. Hum Factors 54:189–194

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Helton WS, Hollander TD, Warm JS, Matthews G, Dember WN, Wallart M, Beauchamp G, Parasuraman R, Hancock PA (2005) Signal regularity and the mindlessness model of vigilance. Br J Psychol 96:249–261

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Helton WS, Kern RP, Walker DR (2009) Speed-accuracy tradeoffs and the role of emotional stimuli on the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART). Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 53:1052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Helton WS, Weil L, Middlemiss A, Sawers A (2010) Global interference and spatial uncertainty in the sustained attention to response task (SART). Conscious Cogn 19:77–85

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Helton WS, Head J, Kemp S (2011a) Natural disaster induced cognitive disruption: impacts on action slips. Conscious Cogn 20:1732–1737

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Helton WS, Head J, Russell PN (2011b) Reliable- and unreliable- warning cues in the Sustained Attention to Response Task. Exp Brain Res 209:401–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Helton WS, Warm JS (2008) Signal salience and the mindlessness theory of vigilance. Acta Psychol 129:18–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Manly T, Heutink J, Davidson B, Greenfield E, Parr A et al (2004) An electronic knot in the handkerchief: “Context free cueing” and the maintenance of attentive control. Neuropsychol Rehabil 14:89–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 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 

  30. McVeigh B (1996) Commodifying affection, authority and gender in the everyday objects of Japan. J Mater Cult 1:291–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Nittono H, Fukushima M, Yano A, Moriya H (2012) The power of kawaii: viewing cute images promotes a careful behavior and narrows attentional focus. PLoS One 7(1–7):e46362

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. O’Connell RG, Bellgrove MA, Dockree PM, Robertson IA (2006) Cognitive remediation in ADHD: effects of periodic noncontingent alerts on sustained attention to response. Neuropsychol Rehabil 16:653–665

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Parasuraman R, de Visser E, Clarke E, McGarry WR, Hussey E, Shaw T, Thompson JC (2009) Detecting threat-related intentional actions of others: effects of image quality, response mode and target cuing on vigilance. J Exp Psychol Appl 15:275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Peebles D, Bothell D (2004) Modelling performance in the sustained attention to response task. In: Proceedings of the sixth International Conference on Cognitive Modeling 231–236. Carnegie Mellon University/University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh

  35. 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. Neuropsychol 35:747–758

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Roberston IH, O’Connell RG (2011) Vigilant attention. In: Nobre AC, Coull JT (eds) Attention and time. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 79–88

    Google Scholar 

  37. Robinson OJ, Krimsky M, Grillon C (2013) The impact of induced anxiety on response inhibition. FNHUM 69:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  38. Seagroves EB (2011) Children’s perceptions of friendliness based on physical appearance in humans and canines. Unpublished Master’s thesis, East Carolina University, North Carolina, United States of America

  39. Shaw TH, Funke ME, Dillard M, Funke GJ, Warm JS, Parasuraman R (2013) Event-related cerebral hemodynamics reveal targetspecific resource allocation for both “go” and “no-go” response based vigilance tasks. Brain Cogn 82:265–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 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 

  41. Smallwood J, Baracaia SF, Lowe M, Obonsawin MC (2003) Task unrelated-thought whilst encoding information. Conscious Cogn 12:452–484

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 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 

  43. Staub B, Doignon-Camus N, Bacon E, Bonnefond A (2014) Investigating sustained attention ability in the elderly by using two different approaches: inhibiting ongoing behavior versus responding on rare occasions. Acta Psychol 146:51–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Stevenson H, Russell PN, Helton WS (2011) Search asymmetry, sustained attention, and response inhibition. Brain Cogn 77:215–222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. van Schie MK, Thijs RD, Fronczek R, Middelkoop HA, Lammers GJ, van Dijk J (2012) Sustained attention to response task (SART) shows impaired vigilance in a spectrum of disorders of excessive daytime sleepiness. J Sleep Res 21:390–395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Warm JS, Parasuraman R, Matthews G (2008) Vigilance requires hard mental work and is stressful. Hum Factor 50:433–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Wilson K, Head J, Helton WS (2013) Friendly fire in a simulated firearms task. Proc Hum Factor Ergon Soc Annu Meet 57:1244–1248

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristin M. Finkbeiner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Finkbeiner, K.M., Wilson, K.M., Russell, P.N. et al. The effects of warning cues and attention-capturing stimuli on the sustained attention to response task. Exp Brain Res 233, 1061–1068 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-014-4179-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • SART
  • Warning cues
  • Predictive
  • Cute