Attention Deficits and the Effects of Visual Distraction

This study examines the ability of a new visual vigilance task, the Preschool Vigilance Task (PVT), to differentiate between hyperactive and control preschoolers. The PVT was designed to be an objective measure of attention specifically for use with the preschool-age population. Hyperactive and control preschoolers were tested on the PVT and the Continuous Performance Task (CPT). Results indicated that both were useful in differentiating between hyperactive and control preschoolers. Implications for the utility of the PVT and future research directions are discussed.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

The Performance of Hyperactive and Control Preschoolers on a New Computerized Measure of Visual Vigilance: The Preschool Vigilance Task

Harper

Ottinger

1992

“…First, as shown by the percentage of hits emitted, hyperactive children detected fewer signals than normals. This finding is in accord with the results of Anderson et al (1973) and Doyle et al (1976) from investigations with learning disabled children. In those studies, the hyperactive group was the most deficient.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Vigilance in Hyperactive and Normal Children on a Self‐paced Operant Task*†

Goldberg¹,

Konstantareas

1981

SUMMARY A self‐paced vigilance task adapted from operant work was employed to study visual attention in hyperactive and normal children. The task distinguishes between two components of vigilance, observing responses and signal detention responses which are further divided into hits and false alarms. All subjects is were exposed to the same number of signal presentations under a low (VI 53) density and a high (VI 15) density schedule. Hyperactive children emitted a lower percentage of hits and a greater percentage of false alarms than normals. Hyperactive children showed observing response rater than normals. The educational implications of these findings are considered.

“…A similar problem exists in relation to learning disabilities, since hyperactive and learning disabled children also overlap considerably in symptomatology: hyperactivity is often considered a characteristic of learning disabilities (e.g. Doyle, Anderson & Halcomb, 1976), and learning disabilities are often given as symptoms of hyperactivity (e.g. O'Malley & Eisenberg, 1973).…”

Section: Differentiation Between Disordersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The presence or absence of attention deficits cannot be used as a basis for differentiation between these disorders. Poorer selective attention (Ross, 1976), greater distractibility (Hebben et al 1981), slower reaction times (Dykman, Walls, Suzuki, Ackerman & Peters, 1970;Rugel & Rosenthal, 1974), and poorer sustained attention (Doyle et al, 1976;Dykman et al, 1979) have all been documented in learning disabled children. Sanson (1984) attempted to identify differences between purely LD, hyperactive LD and hyperactive non-LD children on a range of tasks including auditory and visual attention.…”

Section: Differentiation Between Disordersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attention Deficit Disorder With Hyperactivity: A Critique

Prior

Sanson

1986

The DSM III category of Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity is considered within a framework of Rutter's (1977) outline of criteria for adequacy of psychiatry classification. Discussion of problems with the operationalization and definition of 'attention deficit' and the difficulty of using this rubric in distinguishing between ADDH and other related childhood disorders, along with the consequent failure to meet other important criteria, leads to the conclusion that the concept needs re-appraisal.