Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32556295›Full record

ArticleSleep2021

Response speed measurements on the psychomotor vigilance test: how precise is precise enough?

Mathias Basner, Tyler M Moore, Jad Nasrini, Ruben C Gur, David F Dinges

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sleep, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Mathias BasnerUnit of Experimental Psychiatry, Division of Sleep and Chronobiology, Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Tyler M MooreBrain Behavior Laboratory, Neuropsychiatry Section, Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Jad NasriniUnit of Experimental Psychiatry, Division of Sleep and Chronobiology, Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Ruben C GurBrain Behavior Laboratory, Neuropsychiatry Section, Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
David F DingesUnit of Experimental Psychiatry, Division of Sleep and Chronobiology, Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

Funding

INSTITUTIONAL CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE AWARDUL1RR024134 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI FITZGERALD, GARRET A · 2006 to 2011
$70.4M
NEUROBEHAVIORAL EFFECTS OF PARTIAL SLEEP DEPRIVATIONR01NR004281 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI DINGES, DAVID F · 1995 to 2014
$7.9M
Neural basis for differential vulnerability to sleep deprivationR01HL102119 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI RAO, HENGYI · 2010 to 2014
$2.3M
NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024134NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL102119NINR NIH HHS R01 NR004281
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

objectivesThe psychomotor vigilance test (PVT) is frequently used to measure behavioral alertness in sleep research on various software and hardware platforms. In contrast to many other cognitive tests, PVT response time (RT) shifts of a few milliseconds can be meaningful. It is, therefore, important to use calibrated systems, but calibration standards are currently missing. This study investigated the influence of system latency bias and its variability on two frequently used PVT performance metrics, attentional lapses (RTs ≥500 ms) and response speed, in sleep-deprived and alert participants.

methodsPVT data from one acute total (N = 31 participants) and one chronic partial (N = 43 participants) sleep deprivation protocol were the basis for simulations in which response bias (±15 ms) and its variability (0-50 ms) were systematically varied and transgressions of predefined thresholds (i.e. ±1 for lapses, ±0.1/s for response speed) recorded.

resultsBoth increasing bias and its variability caused deviations from true scores that were higher for the number of lapses in sleep-deprived participants and for response speed in alert participants. Threshold transgressions were typically rare (i.e. <5%) if system latency bias was less than ±5 ms and its standard deviation was ≤10 ms.

conclusionsA bias of ±5 ms with a standard deviation of ≤10 ms could be considered maximally allowable margins for calibrating PVT systems for timing accuracy. Future studies should report the average system latency and its standard deviation in addition to adhering to published standards for administering and analyzing the PVT.

Indexed as

Psychomotor PerformanceWakefulnessAttentionHumansReaction TimeSleep DeprivationattentioncalibrationPVTsleep deprivationsleep restrictionvigilance

Identifiers

PMID32556295
PMCPMC8240655

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.