Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40193594›Full record

ArticleCognitive science2025

The Sustained Attention Paradox: A Critical Commentary on the Theoretical Impossibility of Perfect Vigilance.

Benjamin T Sharpe, Ian Tyndall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

2 authors.

Benjamin T SharpeDepartment of Psychology and Criminology, Institute of Psychology, Business, and Human Sciences, University of Chichester.
Ian TyndallDepartment of Psychology and Criminology, Institute of Psychology, Business, and Human Sciences, University of Chichester.ORCID 0000-0003-2108-9203

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ArousalAttentionBrainCognitionHumansAttentionCognitive limitationsHuman–technology systemsSustained attentionVigilance decrement

Identifiers

PMID40193594
PMCPMC11975262

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.