Slow and steady: Validating the rhythmic visual response task as a marker for attentional states

Jalava, Shaela T.; Wammes, Jeffrey D.

doi:10.3758/s13428-024-02409-0

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In another recent study, Jalava and Wammes found that RT variability and speed predict depth of mind-wandering (Jalava & Wammes, 2024). However, this task remains limited as it does not allow for the demonstration of impaired attentional performance during periods of mindwandering and the increased occurrence of attentional lapses.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Objective Markers of Sustained Attention Fluctuate Independently of Mind-Wandering Reports

Chidharom,

Bonnefond,

Vogel

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sustained attention fluctuates between periods of good and poor attentional performance. Two major methodologies exist to study these fluctuations: an objective approach that identifies "in-the-zone" states of consistent response times (RTs) and "out-of-the-zone" states of erratic RTs and a subjective approach that asks participants whether they are on-task or mind wandering. Although both approaches effectively predict attentional lapses, it remains unclear whether they capture the same or distinct attentional fluctuations. We combined both approaches within a single sustained attention task requiring frequent responses and response inhibition to rare targets to explore their consistency (N=40). Behaviorally, both objective out-of-the-zone and subjective mind-wandering states were associated with more attentional lapses. However, the percentage of time spent out-of-the-zone did not differ between on-task and mind-wandering periods and both objective and subjective states independently predicted error-proneness, suggesting that the two methods do not capture the same type of attention fluctuations. Whereas attentional preparation before correct inhibitions was greater during out-of-the-zone compared to in-the-zone periods, preparation did not differ by subjective state. In contrast, post-error slowing differed by both objective and subjective states, but in opposite directions: slowing was observed when participants were objectively out-of-the-zone or subjectively on-task. Overall, our results provide evidence that objective and subjective approaches capture distinct attention fluctuations during sustained attention tasks. Integrating both objective and subjective measures is crucial for fully understanding the mechanisms underlying our ability to remain focused.

show abstract

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%