Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35403969›Full record

ArticlePsychological research2023

Go-stimuli probability influences response bias in the sustained attention to response task: a signal detection theory perspective.

Aman Bedi, Paul N Russell, William S Helton

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological research, 2023. 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
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. An examination of sustained attention during complex multitasking scenarios.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Aman BediUniversity of Canterbury, Canterbury, New Zealand.
Paul N RussellUniversity of Canterbury, Canterbury, New Zealand.
William S HeltonUniversity of Canterbury, Canterbury, New Zealand. whelton@gmu.edu.
University of Canterbury · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The sustained attention to response task (SART) is a popular measure in the psychology and neuroscience of attention. The underlying psychological cause for errors, in particular errors of commission, in the SART is actively disputed. Some researchers have suggested task-disengagement due to mind-wandering or mindlessness, and others have proposed strategic choices. In this study we explored an alternative perspective based on Signal Detection Theory, in which the high rate of commission errors in the SART reflects simply a shift in response bias (criterion) due to the high prevalence of Go-stimuli. We randomly assigned 406 participants to one of ten Go-stimuli prevalence rates (50%, 64%, 74%, 78%, 82%, 86%, 90%, 94%, 98% and 100%). As Go-stimuli prevalence increased reaction times to both Go and No-Go stimuli decreased, omission errors decreased and commission errors increased. These all were predicted from a hypothesized bias shift, but the findings were not compatible with some alternative theories of SART performance. These findings may have implications for similar tasks.

Indexed as

Psychomotor PerformanceSignal Detection, PsychologicalHumansProbabilityReaction TimeTask Performance and Analysis

Identifiers

PMID35403969
OpenAlexW4223469958

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.