Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38448673›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2024

Perceptual decoupling or trigger happiness: the effect of response delays and shorter presentation times on a go-no-go task with a high go prevalence.

Aman Bedi, Paul N Russell, William S Helton

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2024. 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. 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.

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

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the current investigation, we modified the high Go, low No-Go Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART). Some researchers argue a commission error, an inappropriate response to a No-Go stimulus, in the SART is due to the participant being inattentive, or perceptually decoupled, during stimulus onset. Response delays in the SART reduce commission errors. A response delay may therefore enable a participant who is initially inattentive to recouple their attention in time to appropriately perceive the stimulus and withhold a response to a No-Go stimulus. However, shortening stimulus display duration in the SART should limit the possibility of the participant identifying the stimulus later, if they are initially not attending the stimulus. A response delay should not reduce commission errors if stimulus duration is kept to the minimum duration enabling stimulus recognition. In two experiments, we shortened stimulus onset to offset duration and added response delays of varying lengths. In both experiments, even when stimulus duration was shortened, response delays notably reduced commission errors if the delay was greater than 250 ms. In addition, using the Signal Detection Theory perspective in which errors of commission in the SART are due to a lenient response bias-trigger happiness, we predicted that response delays would result in a shift to a more conservative response bias in both experiments. These predictions were verified. The errors of commission in the SART may not be a measures of conscious awareness per se, but instead indicative of the level of participant trigger happiness-a lenient response bias.

Indexed as

HappinessPsychomotor PerformanceHumansInhibition, PsychologicalPrevalenceReaction TimeAttentionResponse biasSignal detection theorySustained attentionSustained attention to response taskTrigger happiness

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.