ArticleExperimental brain research2025
Perceptual decoupling in the sustained attention to response task is indeed unlikely: a reply to Shelat and Geisbrecht (in press).
Article in Experimental brain research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Shelat and Geisbrecht (in press) challenge Bedi et al.'s (Exp Brain Rese 242(8):2033-2040 2024b) position that perceptual decoupling in the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) is unlikely. Instead they argue perceptual decoupling is likely in the SART and advocate for the SART's continued use in perceptual decoupling research. Shelat and Geisbrecht, however, are overlooking the extensive behavioral evidence that perceptual decoupling in the SART is indeed unlikely, including research by the researchers who originally developed the task demonstrating nearly 100% awareness of the task stimuli. The SART was developed to be a very short replacement for the long duration low Go, high No-Go target detection tasks used by sustained attention or vigilance researchers. While altering the response format in the SART to a high Go, low No-Go task indeed resulted in errors occurring reliably in a very short duration, the resulting SART has a substantial speed-accuracy trade-off. This causes immense confusion when interpreting performance in the SART. Furthermore, Shelat and Geisbrecht suggest DeBettencourt et al. (Nat Hum Behav 3(8):808-816, 2019) as a method improvement on the original SART, but ignore the entire point of the SART which was to be a short duration replacement for traditional vigilance tasks. The task utilized by DeBettencourt et al. (Nat Hum Behav 3(8):808-816, 2019) is as long in duration or longer than traditional vigilance tasks, but still is contaminated with a speed-accuracy trade-off, which makes untangling the underlying processes involved challenging. If researchers want to study sustained attention- perceptual decoupling, vigilance researchers have already figured out how to do this and the way to do this is not the SART.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40072597What 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.