The ANT Executive Control Index: No Evidence for Temporal Decrement

Abstract

Objective: This study tested whether indices of executive control, alertness, and orienting measured with Attention Network Test (ANT) are vulnerable to temporal decrement in performance. Background: Developing the resource theory of sustained attention requires identifying neurocognitive processes vulnerable to decrement. Executive control processes may be prone to impairment in fatigue states. Such processes are also highlighted in alternative theories. Determining the role of executive control in vigilance can both advance theory and contribute to practical countermeasures for decrement in human factors contexts. Method: In Study 1, 80 participants performed the standard ANT for an extended duration of about 55 to 60 min. Study 2 (160 participants) introduced manipulations of trial blocking and stimulus degradation intended to increase resource depletion. Reaction time and accuracy measures were analyzed. Subjective stress and workload were assessed in both studies. Results: In both studies, the ANT induced levels of subjective workload and task disengagement consistent with previous sustained attention studies. No systematic decrement in any performance measure was observed. Conclusion: Executive control assessed by the ANT is not highly vulnerable to temporal decrement, even when task demands are elevated. Future work should differentiate executive control processes; proactive control may be more implicated in sustained attention decrement than in reactive control. Application: Designing systems and interfaces to reduce executive control demands may be generally beneficial but will not directly mitigate temporal performance decrement. Enhancing design guidelines and neuroergonomic methods for monitoring operator attention requires further work to identify key neurocognitive processes for decrement.

Measuring attention and vigilance in the laboratory vs. online: The split-half reliability of the ANTI-Vea

“…Nevertheless, although the present findings might be explained by the resource-control model of vigilance, further research is necessary to disentangle the intrinsic relationship between executive control and EV performance as a function of time on task (Zholdassova, Kustubayeva, & Matthews, 2019). In this vein, it was recently proposed that executive control measured with the ANT does not decrease across time on task, an outcome that challenges the resource-control model (Zholdassova et al, 2019). However, it is important to note that the ANT does not provide a direct measure of vigilance, and therefore, it is not an adequate task to analyze the theoretical explanations of the vigilance decrement phenomenon.…”

The ANTI-Vea task: analyzing the executive and arousal vigilance decrements while measuring the three attentional networks

“…As a consequence, resources are diverted to internal irrelevant thoughts leading to a progressive decrement in vigilance performance (Thomson et al, 2015). Nevertheless, further empirical evidence is necessary to test the predictions stated by the resources-control model, for which a multiple behavioral task as the ANTI-Vea with independent measures of vigilance and cognitive control processes seem to be a more adequate approach than traditional simple signal detection tasks, or tasks measuring executive control but no vigilance decrements, like the one recently used to investigate the decrement in executive control across time on task by Zholdassova, Kustubayeva, & Matthews (2019).…”

Auditory spatial attention gradients and cognitive control as a function of vigilance

“…Prior studies that did find reductions in cognitive control over vigilance watch periods most often used visual search tasks (e.g., Craig & Klein, 2019) or dual‐task paradigms (e.g., Helton & Russell, 2011, 2013, 2017). The flanker effect in the ANT also decreases over the initial 15–20 min of testing (Zholdassova et al., 2019). Increasing working memory load, either spatial or verbal, enhances the vigilance decrement, which suggests that common executive resources were being utilized (Helton & Russell, 2011).…”