Abstract
The sustained attention to response task (SART) has been used for over 20 years to assess participants’ response times and inability to withhold to No-Go stimuli (commission errors). While there is debate in the literature regarding what causes commissions errors in the SART, there is agreement the SART is subject to a speed-accuracy trade-off (SATO). Researchers have demonstrated that performance on the SART can be influenced by directive instructions to participants to prioritize either speed or accuracy during the task. In the present study, we investigated whether real-time performance feedback and whether feedback emphasis (emphasizing speed or accuracy) affected participants’ response times and accuracy. We found performance feedback per se had no impact on performance, but performance emphasis did affect performance, apparently shifting the SATO. This finding provides further evidence that the commission errors in the SART are not indicative of sustained attention or vigilance as those terms are commonly used in the literature, but more likely assess response strategy and motor control (or lack of motor control). These findings have implications for the psychological assessment literature, as well as applied areas where SART findings have been utilized such as shoot/no-shoot decision making.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The dataset generated and analyzed during the current study is available in the OSF.io repository, https://mfr.osf.io/render?url=https://osf.io/bc97f/?direct%26mode=render%26action=download%26mode=render.
References
Altmann, E. M. (2002). Functional decay of memory for tasks. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 66(4), 287–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-002-0102-9
Brandimonte, M. A., Ferrante, D., Feresin, C., & Delbello, R. (2001). Dissociating prospective memory from vigilance processes. Psicológica, 22(1), 97–113.
Bridges, K. E., Corballis, P. M., Spray, M., & Bagrie, J. (2021). Testing failure-to-identify hunting incidents using an immersive simulation: Is it viable? Applied Ergonomics, 93, 103358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103358
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046016
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, 2255–2262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-018-5291-6
Finkbeiner, K. M., Wilson, K. M., Russell, P. N., & Helton, W. S. (2014). The effects of warning cues and attention-capturing stimuli on the sustained attention to response task. Experimental Brain Research, 233, 1061–1068. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-014-4179-3
Head, J., & Helton, W. S. (2013). Perceptual decoupling or motor decoupling? Consciousness and Cognition, 22, 913–919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.06.003
Head, J., & Helton, W. S. (2014). Practice does not make perfect in a modified sustained attention to response task. Experimental Brain Research, 232, 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-013-3765-0
Head, J., & Helton, W. S. (2015). Passive perceptual learning versus active searching in a novel stimuli vigilance task. Experimental Brain Research, 233, 1481–1489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4222-z
Head, J., Tenan, M., Tweedell, A., LaFiandra, M., Morelli, F., Wilson, K., Ortega, S., & Helton, W. S. (2017). Mental fatigue influences subsequent marksmanship decision. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 20(2), S126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2017.09.483
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, 787–799. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720819852801
Helton, W. S. (2009). Impulsive responding and the sustained attention to response task. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 31, 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803390801978856
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, 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-999-1006-2
Helton, W. S., Head, J., & Russell, P. N. (2011). Reliable-and unreliable-warning cues in the sustained attention to response task. Experimental Brain Research, 209, 401–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2563-9
Helton, W. S., & Russell, P. N. (2012). Brief mental breaks and content-free cues may not keep you focused. Experimental Brain Research, 219, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-012-3065-0
Liesefeld, H. R., & Janczyk, M. (2019). Combining speed and accuracy to control for speed-accuracy trade-offs (?). Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 40–60.
Linde, M., Tendeiro, J., Selker, R., Wagenmakers, E., & van Ravenzwaaij, D. (2020). Decisions about equivalence: A comparison of TOST, HDI-ROPE, and the Bayes Factor. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/bh8vu
Lister, C., West, J. H., Cannon, B., Sax, T., & Brodegard, D. (2014). Just a fad? Gamification in health and fitness apps. JMIR Serious Games, 2(2), e3413.
Mackworth, N. H. (1948). The breakdown of vigilance during prolonged visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1, 6–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470214808416738
Manly, T., Robertson, I. H., Galloway, M., & Hawkins, K. (1999). The absent mind: Further investigations of sustained attention to response. Neuropsychologia, 37, 661–670.
Munnik, A., Näswall, K., Woddward, G., & Helton, W. S. (2020). The quick and the dead: A paradigm for studying friendly fire. Applied Ergonomics, 84, 103032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2019.103032
Parasuraman, R., Warm, J. S., & Dember, W. N. (1987). Vigilance: Taxonomy and utility. In L. S. Mark, J. S. Warm, & R. L. Huston (Eds.), Ergonomics and human factors: Recent research (pp. 11–32). Springer.
Peebles, D., & Bothell, D. (2004). Modelling performance in the sustained attention to response task. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Cognitive Modeling, 231–236.
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, 747–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(97)00015-8
Rouder, J. N., Speckman, P. L., Sun, D., Morey, R. D., & Iverson, G. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16, 225–237. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.2.225
Seli, P., Cheyne, A., & Smilek, D. (2012). Attention failures versus misplaced diligence: Separating attention lapses from speed–accuracy trade-offs. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 277–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2011.09.017
Seli, P., Jonker, T. R., Cheyne, J. A., & Smilek, D. (2013a). Enhancing SART validity by statistically controlling speed-accuracy trade-offs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 265. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00265
Seli, P., Jonker, T. R., Solman, G. J., Cheyne, J. A., & Smilek, D. (2013b). A methodological note on evaluating performance in a sustained-attention-to-response task. Behavior Research Methods, 45(2), 355–363.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000482
Steinborn, M. B., Langner, R., & Huestegge, L. (2017). Mobilizing cognition for speeded action: Try-harder instructions promote motivated readiness in the constant-foreperiod paradigm. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 81(6), 1135–1151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-016-0810-1
Strayer, D. L., & Kramer, A. F. (1994). Strategies and automaticity: II. Dynamic aspects of strategy adjustment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(2), 342–365. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.2.342
Szalma, J. L. (2009). Individual differences in performance, workload, and stress in sustained attention: Optimism and pessimism. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 444–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.019
Szalma, J. L., Hancock, P. A., Dember, W. N., & Warm, J. S. (2006). Training for vigilance: The effect of knowledge of results format and dispositional optimism and pessimism on performance and stress. British Journal of Psychology, 97(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712605X62768
Vandierendonck, A. (2017). A comparison of methods to combine speed and accuracy measures of performance: A rejoinder on the binning procedure. Behavior Research Methods, 49(2), 653–673.
Waldfogle, G. E., Hagerty-Koller, M. R., Lane, L. R., Garibaldi, A. E., & Szalma, J. L. (2019). Exploring sex differences in vigilance performance with knowledge of results. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 63, 1321–1325. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181319631130
Warm, J. S., Finomore, V., Shaw, T. H., Funke, M. E., Hausen, M. J., Matthews, G., Taylor, P., Vidulich, M. A., Repperger, D. W., Szalma, J. L., & Hancock, P. A. (2009). Effects of training with knowledge of results on diagnosticity in vigilance performance. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 53, 1066–1070. https://doi.org/10.1177/154193120905301705
Warm, J. S., & Jerison, H. J. (1984). The psychophysics of vigilance. Sustained Attention in Human Performance, 15–59.
Wilson, K., Head, J., de Joux, N., Finkbeiner, K., & Helton, W. S. (2015). Friendly fire and the sustained attention to response task. Human Factors, 57, 1219–1234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720815605703
Wilson, K. M., De Joux, N. R., Finkbeiner, K. M., Russell, P. N., Retzler, J. R., & Helton, W. S. (2018). Prolonging the response movement inhibits the feed-forward motor program in the sustained attention to response task. Acta Psychologica, 183, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.01.001
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, 2989–2998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-016-4701-x
Wilson, K. M., Finkbeiner, K. M., de Joux, N. R., Head, J., & Helton, W. S. (2014). Friendly fire and the proportion of friends to foes. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 58(1), 1204–1208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931214581251
Wilson, K., Head, J., & Helton, W. (2013). Friendly fire in a simulated firearms task. Proceedings of the HFES Annual Meeting. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931213571276
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all the authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Ethical standards
All the research plans were reviewed and approved by the GMU Institutional Review Board (IRB). All the participants completed an informed consent form prior to beginning of the study and the collected data contained no personally identifiable data.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The views and opinions expressed or implied are those of the authors and should not be construed as carrying the official sanction of the Department of Defense, Air Force, Air Education and Training Command, Air University, the Air Force Institute of Technology or other agencies or departments of the US government.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mensen, J.M., Dang, J.S., Stets, A.J. et al. The effects of real-time performance feedback and performance emphasis on the sustained attention to response task (SART). Psychological Research 86, 1972–1979 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01602-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-021-01602-6