ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2026
Deconstructing the vigilance decrement: Changes in bias, lapse rate, and guess rate, but not sensitivity.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The vigilance decrement-a gradual decline in performance over the course of a sustained attention task-has been studied extensively, but its underlying mechanisms remain the subject of debate. We analyzed psychometric curves from a vigilant monitoring task to isolate the contributions of response bias, sensitivity, mental lapses, and guesses to the effect. Stimuli were pairs of small visual probes that varied in their spatial separation from trial to trial. Participants (N = 366) performed a psychophysical task that required them to report occasional trials on which the separation between probes exceeded a criterion value. Stimuli were embedded in dynamic noise, and trials occurred at a forced pace of 40 per minute, conditions designed to elevate processing demands and encourage sensitivity losses. Model comparisons revealed decisive evidence for conservative bias shifts, increases in mental lapse rates, and decreases in positive guess rate over time, but gave evidence against a loss of sensitivity. A reanalysis of data from an earlier study indicated that apparent evidence for a sensitivity loss in that report was the result of model misspecification. Results in total suggest that the vigilance decrement most generally reflects changes of response bias and increases in the frequency of mindless responses, not a fundamental loss of signal-noise discriminability. Open Practices Statement: Data and code are available at https://osf.io/3np2v/ . Experiment was preregistered at https://osf.io/2b58e and https://osf.io/zynx9 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
42265515What 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.