ArticleScientific reports2024
Sustained attention can be measured using a brief computerized attention task.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Immediate Second Look After Cytoreduction for Colorectal or Ovarian Carcinomatosis: An Invisible Gorilla Effect?Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Attentional variability as a cognitive marker of clinical activity in Crohn's disease.Crohn's & colitis 360 · 2026Article
- Cognitive Changes in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Cognitive Assessments in Decision-Making Matters.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- cpCST: a new continuous performance test for high-precision assessment of attention across the lifespan.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Continuous Visual Attention Test (CVAT) is a test that detects visuomotor reaction time (RT, alertness), variability of reaction time (VRT, sustained attention), omission errors (OE, focused attention), and commission errors (CE, response inhibition). The standard test takes 15 min, while the ultrafast version only 90 s. Besides overall task length, the two versions differ by target probability (20% and 80% in the 15-min vs. only 80% in the 90-s test) and stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA) (1, 2, and 4 s in the 15-min vs. only 1 s in the 90-s test. We aimed to analyze the effect of target probability, SOA, and time length on the CVAT variables across the 15-min task and to verify correlations and agreements between the 15-min and the 90-s CVATs. 205 healthy participants performed the two CVATs on the same day. Considering the 15-min task, RT and CE were strongly affected by target probability. Conversely, VRT was not affected. When the 15-min task was compared to the 90-s task, we found no significant difference in the VRT variable. Additionally, a significant agreement between the two tasks was found for the VRT variable. We concluded that sustained attention can be measured with the 90-s CVAT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.