ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Assessing the attentional demand: improvements to the experimental protocol and possible learning effects.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Attention control is a fundamental component of cognitive functioning and involves the ability to selectively process relevant stimuli, divide attention across tasks, and flexibly switch between attention demands. The present study describes the development and validation of the Attentional Demands Task (AD-Task), a new paradigm designed to measure selective attention, divided attention, and the cognitive costs associated with switching between these attentional processes. Based on and expanded upon the Switching Attentional Demands Task (SwAD-Task), the AD-Task introduces increased stimulus complexity, optimized temporal dynamics, and enhanced ecological validity. Methods: Forty-one healthy young adults (age: 21.0 ± 2.25; 33 F) completed the AD-Task along with established attentional paradigms (Oddball Task for selective attention, Dual-Task for divided attention). In a second experimental phase, the potential effects of practice were evaluated through an intensive training protocol involving 22 participants (age: 22.5 ± 2.89; 16 F). Results: Performance indices demonstrated strong convergent validity, with significant correlations in reaction times and accuracy measures across tasks. As expected, divided attention was associated with slower response times and reduced accuracy compared to selective attention, reflecting the increased cognitive load of processing multiple stimuli within a single modality. Analysis of switching costs revealed asymmetries, with selective attention displaying greater vulnerability to Task switching effects. No significant differences emerged between trained and untrained groups in overall task performance, aside from a modest improvement in target discrimination accuracy under switching conditions in the trained group. Discussion: These findings support the AD-Task as a sensitive, reliable, and repeatable measure of attentional control and flexibility. The AD-Task advances current methodologies by addressing previous limitations related to sensory modality interference and limited task complexity.
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.