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

Goldberg, Joel O.; Konstantareas, M. Mary

doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1981.tb00531.x

Cited by 18 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies may be described in three groups. First, those where there was no difference in IQ between hyperactives and controls have reported impaired vigilance (Sykes et al, 1973;Goldberg and Konstantareas, 1981) or time-on-task defects (Dykman et al, 1979) in hyperactives. Second, those that have matched IQ between hyperactives and controls report, nevertheless, deficits in span of apprehension (Denton and Mclntyre, 1978) or poorer preparation (Zahn et al, 1975) in hyperactives.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On Data Limitations in Hyperactivity

Sergeant

Scholten

1985

Child Psychology Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three groups of children rated firstly as overactive and distractible, secondly as distractible and thirdly as low on both activity and distractibility were examined in a visual search task with three levels of display load: two, three and four items. The children were tested twice in two conditions of stimulus visibility to examine the encoding stage of the model used here. The experimental results reject the hypothesis that an encoding deficit or data limitation may explain the attentional performance of either hyperactive or somewhat hyperactive subjects. They suggest, rather, that a trade-off in speed and accuracy may be evident in (the) hyperactives.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On Data Limitations in Hyperactivity

Sergeant

Scholten

1985

Child Psychology Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That is, increased time on task for high-risk children leads to a genuine decrement in how they artend to various sources of information when compared to low-risk children. These deficiencies in attention have been attributed to such variables as impulsivity (e.g., Swanson, 1983), inhibition (Goldberg & Konstantareas, 1981), and distractibility (e.g., Edley & Knopf, 1987), to name but a few. Thus, both high-and low-risk children wane in their ability to sustain attention over a period of time, but high-risk children show greater decrements in pefformance in later time periods than low-risk children.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The relationship between intelligence and vigilance in children at risk

Carter

Swanson

1995

J Abnorm Child Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to compare two competing models as an explanation of the relationship between intelligence and sustained attention in educationally at-risk kindergarten children. One model assumes that lower-IQ subjects allocate greater amounts of attentional resource of information-processing tasks than higher-IQ subjects, whereas the other model assumes that a "less-than" optimal level of arousal is associated with decrements in task performance across time. Twenty-nine teacher-nominated at-risk and 29 normal achieving kindergarten students were administered the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence-Revised (WPPSI-R) and vigilance taks. Signal detection measures of stimulus detectability (d'), decision criterion (beta), correct detections, and false alarms were used to assess children's sustained attention across three time periods (2, 4, and 6 min). The important results were (a) high-risk children were inferior on d' measures when compared to normal achieving children, (b) vigilance measures did not vary over time in either group, and (c) intelligence and vigilance shared a common factor in high-risk, but not low-risk, children. The results suggest that children educationally at risk suffer deficits related to attentional capacity for processing information.

show abstract

“…Vigilance and vigilance-like tasks have been shown to discriminate the performance of normal children from those diagnosed as having brain damage (Rosvold, Mirsky, Sarason, Bransome, & Beck, 1956), phenylketonuria (Anderson, Siegel, Fisch, & Wirt, 1969), and learning disability (Anderson, Halcomb, & Doyle, 1973;Swanson, 1980), as well as groups who exhibit poor performance on standardized achievement tests (Kirchner & Knopf, 1974). Perhaps the most consistent finding, however, is that poor vigilance performance is related to childhood hyperactivity (Anderson, Halcomb, & Doyle, 1973;Doyle, Anderson, & Halcomb, 1976;Goldberg & Konstantareas, 1979;Loiselle, Stamm, Maitinsky, & Whipple, 1980;and Rapoport et al, 1980).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%