Enhancing SART Validity by Statistically Controlling Speed-Accuracy Trade-Offs

Abstract

Numerous studies focused on elucidating the correlates, causes, and consequences of inattention/attention-lapses employ the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART), a GO-NOGO task with infrequent withholds. Although the SART has become popular among inattention researchers, recent work has demonstrated its susceptibility to speed-accuracy trade-offs (SATOs), rendering its assessment of inattention problematic. Here, we propose and illustrate methods to statistically control for the occurrence of SATOs during SART performance. The statistical solutions presented here can be used to correct standard SART-error scores, including those of already-published data, thereby allowing researchers to re-examine existing data, and to more sensitively evaluate the validity of earlier conclusions.

How few and far between? Examining the effects of probe rate on self-reported mind wandering

“…As variability in response time is the main measure of attention yielded by the MRT, aside from probe-caught mind wandering, three measures of variance of the RRTs were also calculated. Our first measure of variability, Mean RRT Variability, was computed using a moving window of the current and preceding four trials across all trials throughout the task except the first five trials and five trials after each probe (see Seli et al, 2013b) 1 . Our second measure of variability was for the five trials preceding subjective reports of on-task performance (On-task RRT Variability).…”

Examining the role of emotional valence of mind wandering: All mind wandering is not equal

“…To control for possible speed-accuracy trade-offs that could occur during the SART (Seli, Cheyne, & Smilek, 2012;Seli, Jonker, Cheyne, & Smilek, 2013) we conducted a series of regression analyses examining the impact of TUTs on NOGO and GO accuracy, controlling for GO trial response time. As seen in Table 3, a significant model was found predicting NOGO trial accuracy, with both the percentage of Negative TUTs and GO trial response time serving as significant predictors.…”

Complementary roles of cortical oscillations in automatic and controlled processing during rapid serial tasks

“…There was a robust correlation between errors and reaction time variability (RTCV) but not simple RT; the latter result indicates that errors were not simply reflective of a speed-accuracy trade-off, but rather likely the consequences of transient periods of off-task behaviour or attention lapses. This follows from the hypothesis that overall task RT reflects a general speeding component of a speed-accuracy trade-off strategy (Seli et al, 2012(Seli et al, , 2013; whereas, RTCV reflects variability in reaction times over the course of the task (i.e. transient periods of speeding and slowing) associated with brief losses of task engagement.…”