Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31352660›Full record

ArticleMedical & biological engineering & computing2019

Evaluation of divided attention using different stimulation models in event-related potentials.

Turgay Batbat, Ayşegül Güven, Nazan Dolu

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Turgay BatbatFaculty of Engineering, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey. turgaybatbat@erciyes.edu.tr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0128-2076
Ayşegül GüvenFaculty of Engineering, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey.
Nazan DoluFaculty of Medicine, Başkent University, Ankara, Turkey.

Funding

Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştirma Kurumu 114E440
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Divided attention is defined as focusing on different tasks at once, and this is described as one of the biggest problems of today's society. Default examinations for understanding attention are questionnaires or physiological signals, like evoked potentials and electroencephalography. Physiological records were obtained using visual, auditory, and auditory-visual stimuli combinations with 48 participants-18-25-year-old university students-to find differences between sustained and divided attention. A Fourier-based filter was used to get a 0.01-30-Hz frequency band. Fractal dimensions, entropy values, power spectral densities, and Hjorth parameters from electroencephalography and P300 components from evoked potentials were calculated as features. To decrease the size of the feature set, some features, which yield less detail level for data, were eliminated. The visual and auditory stimuli in selective attention were compared with the divided attention state, and the best accuracy was found to be 88.89% on a support vector machine with linear kernel. As a result, it was seen that divided attention could be more difficult to determine from selective attention, but successful classification could be obtained with appropriate methods. Contrary to literature, the study deals with the infrastructure of attention types by working on a completely healthy and attention-high group. Graphical abstract.

Indexed as

Signal Processing, Computer-AssistedAcoustic StimulationAdolescentAdultAttentionElectroencephalographyEntropyEvent-Related Potentials, P300Evoked PotentialsFemaleFractalsHumansMaleNontherapeutic Human ExperimentationPhotic StimulationReproducibility of ResultsAuditory stimulusClassificationDivided attentionEvent related potentialVisual stimulus

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.