ArticleCognitive science2025
The Sustained Attention Paradox: A Critical Commentary on the Theoretical Impossibility of Perfect Vigilance.
Article in Cognitive science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Whole-Brain Structural Connectivity Alterations in Chronic Subjective Tinnitus: An Exploratory Diffusion Tensor Imaging Study.Brain sciences · 2026Article
- Discrimination and vigilance as psychosocial pathways from food insecurity to cognitive difficulty among U.S. adults: a moderated mediation analysis.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Temporal dynamics of students' physiological arousal in personalized learning contexts: a quasi-experimental study based on electrodermal activity.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- From balance to perception: vestibular-cognitive integration predicts signal discrimination in a Multirule Visual Monitoring Task.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Sustaining student concentration: the effectiveness of micro-breaks in a classroom setting.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- A randomised controlled trial comparing the effects of transcranial pulse stimulation and EEG neurofeedback on sustained attention and depressive symptoms in young adults.International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The human capacity for sustained attention represents a critical cognitive paradox: while essential for numerous high-stakes tasks, perfect vigilance is fundamentally impossible. This commentary explores the theoretical impossibility of maintaining uninterrupted attention, drawing from extensive interdisciplinary research in cognitive science, neuroscience, and psychology. Multiple converging lines of evidence demonstrate that sustained attention is constrained by neural, biological, and cognitive limitations. Neural mechanisms reveal that attention operates through rhythmic oscillations, with inherent fluctuations in frontoparietal networks and default mode network interactions. Neurochemical systems and cellular adaptation effects further underscore the impossibility of continuous, perfect vigilance. Empirical research across domains-including aviation, healthcare, industrial safety, and security-consistently demonstrates rapid declines in attention performance over time, regardless of individual expertise or motivation. Even elite performers like military personnel and experienced meditators exhibit inevitable attention lapses. This paper presents an argument against traditional approaches that seek to overcome these limitations through training or willpower. Instead, it advocates for designing human-technology systems that work harmoniously with cognitive constraints. This requires developing adaptive automation, understanding individual and cultural attention variations, and creating frameworks that strategically balance human capabilities with technological support.
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.