Vol.:(0123456789)
1 3
Experimental Brain Research
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-018-5291-6
RESEARCH ARTICLE
You are measuring the decision to be fast, not inattention:
the Sustained Attention to Response Task does not measure sustained
attention
Jasmine S. Dang
1
· Ivonne J. Figueroa
1
· William S. Helton
1
Received: 27 November 2017 / Accepted: 15 May 2018
© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018
Abstract
The Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) has been widely used in psychological literature as a measure of vigi-
lance (the ability to sustain attention over a prolonged period of time). This task uses a Go/No-Go paradigm and requires
the participants to repetitively respond to the stimuli as quickly and as accurately as possible. Previous literature indicates
that performance in SART is subjected to a “speed–accuracy trade-off” (SATO) resulting from strategy choices and from
the failures of controlling motor reflexes. In this study, 36 participants (n = 36) performed a series of four SARTs. The
results support the perspective of strategy choice in SART and suggest that within-subjects SATO in SART should also be
acknowledged in attempting to explain SART performance. The implications of the speed–accuracy trade-off should be fully
understood when the SART is being used as a measure or tool.
Keywords Sustained Attention to Response Task · Speed–accuracy trade-off · Within-subject speed–accuracy trade-off
(SATO)
Introduction
The Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART; Robert-
son et al. 1997) is a short duration Go-No–Go task in which
the majority of stimuli (88.9% of stimuli) are Go stimuli. In
the task, the participants are instructed to respond to repeti-
tive stimuli (typically numbers 1–9; Helton et al. 2011; Rob-
ertson et al. 1997) as quickly and as accurately as possible
over a 4.3-min period. Participants detect non-target stimuli
by responding when they appear. Participants withhold their
response when a target stimulus (a pre-selected one of the
numbers) has been detected. The No-Go target stimuli are
relatively rare (11.1% of stimuli). Withholding a response
during the SART is difficult due to the rare and unpredictable
nature of target appearance (Manly et al. 1999). There is,
however, an ongoing debate regarding whether errors of
commission, responding to the No-Go stimuli, are indica-
tive of attentional failures to the stimuli (known as percep-
tual decoupling) or due to an inappropriate response strategy
choice (Helton et al. 2011; Seli et al. 2013a).
Advocates of errors of commission in the SART being
indicative of attention lapses or inattention to the task stim-
uli suggest that the repetitive and monotonous nature of the
task lulls participants into a state of automaticity (Manly
et al. 1999). From this perspective, there is not enough exog-
enous (external) support for the maintenance of attention.
Robertson et al. (1997) suggested this resulted in a state of
mindlessness, where the participant automatically and essen-
tially unconsciously responded to the number stimuli, like a
kind of responding zombie. This view was later broadened
by other researchers to the concept of perceptual decou-
pling, a lack of external awareness, due to preoccupation
with task-unrelated thoughts or daydreaming (Cheyne et al.
2009; Christoff et al. 2009; Schooler et al. 2011; Smallwood
2013; Smallwood et al. 2004). According to this perspective,
commission errors in the SART occur because the partici-
pant is not attending to the task.
* Jasmine S. Dang
adang9@gmu.edu
Ivonne J. Figueroa
ifigu001@gmail.com
William S. Helton
whelton@gmu.edu
1
Department of Psychology, George Mason University, 4400
University Drive, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA
@Phil_Robichaud
@deepthiw
@JoseServera