Perceptual decoupling or trigger happiness: the effect of response delays and shorter presentation times on a go-no-go task with a high go prevalence
Tóm tắt
In the current investigation, we modified the high Go, low No-Go Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART). Some researchers argue a commission error, an inappropriate response to a No-Go stimulus, in the SART is due to the participant being inattentive, or perceptually decoupled, during stimulus onset. Response delays in the SART reduce commission errors. A response delay may therefore enable a participant who is initially inattentive to recouple their attention in time to appropriately perceive the stimulus and withhold a response to a No-Go stimulus. However, shortening stimulus display duration in the SART should limit the possibility of the participant identifying the stimulus later, if they are initially not attending the stimulus. A response delay should not reduce commission errors if stimulus duration is kept to the minimum duration enabling stimulus recognition. In two experiments, we shortened stimulus onset to offset duration and added response delays of varying lengths. In both experiments, even when stimulus duration was shortened, response delays notably reduced commission errors if the delay was greater than 250 ms. In addition, using the Signal Detection Theory perspective in which errors of commission in the SART are due to a lenient response bias–trigger happiness, we predicted that response delays would result in a shift to a more conservative response bias in both experiments. These predictions were verified. The errors of commission in the SART may not be a measures of conscious awareness per se, but instead indicative of the level of participant trigger happiness—a lenient response bias.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Bedi A, Russell PN, Helton WS (2023) Go-stimuli probability influences response bias in the sustained attention to response task: A signal detection theory perspective. Psychol Res 87(2):509–518
Biggs AT, Pettijohn KA (2022) The role of inhibitory control in shoot/don’t-shoot decisions. Q J Exp Psychol 75(3):536–549
Bridges KE, Corballis PM, Spray M, Bagrie J (2021) Testing failure-to-identify hunting incidents using an immersive simulation: Is it viable? Appl Ergon 93:103358–103358
Cheyne JA, Solman GJ, Carriere JS, Smilek D (2009) Anatomy of an error: A bidirectional state model of task engagement/disengagement and attention-related errors. Cogn 111:98–113
Christoff K, Gordon AM, Smallwood J, Smith R, Schooler JW (2009) Experience sampling during fMRI reveals default network and executive system contributions to mind wandering. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:8719–8724
Dang JS, Figueroa IJ, Helton WS (2018) You are measuring the decision to be fast, not inattention: the Sustained Attention to Response Task does not measure sustained attention. Exp Brain Res 236:2255–2262
Dang JA, Shaw TH, McKnight PE, Helton WS (2023) A closer look at warning cues on the sustained attention to response task performance. Hum Factors 65:1793–1803
Dehaene S, Spelke E, Pinel P, Stanescu R, Tsivkin S (1999) Sources of mathematical thinking: Behavioral and brain-imaging evidence. Science 284(5416):970–974
Green DM, Swets JA (1966) Signal detection theory and psychophysics Vol. 1, pp. 1969–2012. New York: Wiley
Hautus MJ (1995) Corrections for extreme proportions and their biasing effects on estimated values of d′. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 27:46–51
Head J, Helton WS (2013) Perceptual decoupling or motor decoupling? Conscious Cogn 22:913–919
Head J, Tenan MS, Tweedell AJ, LaFiandra ME, Morelli F, Wilson KM, Helton WS (2017) Prior mental fatigue impairs marksmanship decision performance. Front Physiol 8:680
Helton WS (2009) Impulsive responding and the sustained attention to response task. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 31:39–47
Keysers C, Gazzola V, Wagenmakers EJ (2020) Using Bayes factor hypothesis testing in neuroscience to establish evidence of absence. Nat Neurosci 23(7):788–799
Manly T, Robertson IH, Galloway M, Hawkins K (1999) The absent mind: further investigations of sustained attention to response. Neuropsychologia 37:661–670
Manly T, Davison B, Heutink J, Galloway M, Robertson IH (2000) Not enough time or not enough attention ? Speed, error and self-maintained control in the Sustained Attention to Response Test (SART). Clin Neuropsychol Assessm 3:167–177
Miller J (1998) Effects of stimulus-response probability on choice reaction time: Evidence from the lateralized readiness potential. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perfor 24(5):1521–1534
Munnik A, Näswall K, Woodward G, Helton WS (2020) The quick and the dead: A paradigm for studying friendly fire. Appl Ergon 84:103032–103032
Peebles D, Bothell D (2004) Modelling performance in the Sustained Attention to Response Task. Proc ICCM 231 236. Carnegie Mellon University/University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
Robertson IH, Manly T, Andrade J, Baddeley BT, Yiend J (1997) ‘Oops!’: Performance correlates of everyday attentional failures in traumatic brain injured and normal subjects. Neuropsychologia 35:747–758
Ruxton GD, Beauchamp G (2008) Time for some a priori thinking about post hoc testing. Behav Ecol 19:690–693
Schooler JW, Smallwood J, Christoff K, Handy TC, Reichle ED, Sayette MA (2011) Meta-awareness, perceptual decoupling and the wandering mind. Trends Cogn Sci 15:319–326
Seli P (2016) The attention-lapse and motor decoupling accounts of SART performance are not mutually exclusive. Conscious Cogn 41:189–198
Seli P, Cheyne JA, Smilek D (2012) Attention failures versus misplaced diligence: separating attention lapses from speed-accuracy trade-offs. Conscious Cogn 21:277–291
Smallwood J (2013) Penetrating the fog of the decoupled mind: the effects of visual salience in the sustained attention to response task. Can J Exp Psychol/revue Canadienne De Psychologie Expérimentale 67:32–40
Smallwood J, Davies JB, Heim D, Finnigan F, Sudberry M, O’Connor R, Obonsawin M (2004) Subjective experience and the attentional lapse: Task engagement and disengagement during sustained attention. Conscious Cogn 13:657–690
Stanislaw H, Todorov N (1999) Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 31(1):137–149
Wilson KM, Head J, De Joux NR, Finkbeiner KM, Helton WS (2015) Friendly fire and the sustained attention to response task. Hum Factors 57(7):1219–1234
Wilson KM, Finkbeiner KM, de Joux NR, Russell PN, Helton WS (2016) Go-stimuli proportion influences response strategy in a sustained attention to response task. Exp Brain Res 234:2989–2998
Wilson M, Joux NR, Finkbeiner KM, Russell PN, Retzler JR, Helton WS (2018) Prolonging the response movement inhibits the feed-forward motor program in the sustained attention to response task. Acta Psychol 183:75–84