The continuous performance test: a window on the neural substrates for attention?

Abstract

Attention is a complex process whose disturbance is considered a core deficit in a number of disorders [e.g., Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), schizophrenia]. In 1956, Rosvold and colleagues [J. Consult. Psychol. 20 (1956) 343.] demonstrated that the continuous performance test (CPT) as a measure of sustained attention was highly sensitive to brain damage or dysfunction. These findings have been replicated with various populations and with various versions of the CPT. The CPT is now cited as the most frequently used measure of attention in both practice and research. Across studies, results are consistent with models of sustained attention that involve the interaction of cortical (frontal, temporal, parietal), subcortical (limbic, basal ganglia), and functional systems including the pathways between the basal ganglia, thalamus, and frontal lobes. Right hemisphere involvement (asymmetric response) is also evident across multiple studies. As such, the CPT demonstrates sensitivity to dysfunction of the attentional system whether this is due to diffuse or more focal damage/dysfunction or in conjunction with any specific disorder. CPT performance can be viewed as symptom specific (attentional disturbance), but it is not disorder specific (e.g., ADHD). Implications for neuropsychological interpretation of CPT results are presented.

GlyT-1 Inhibition Attenuates Attentional But Not Learning or Motivational Deficits of the Sp4 Hypomorphic Mouse Model Relevant to Psychiatric Disorders

“…Training took ∼ 4 months. Consistent with human CPTs (Riccio et al, 2002), successful inhibition of a response in a nontarget trial resulted in a correct rejection (CR) being recorded and reward delivered. Responding in a nontarget trial, however, resulted in a false alarm (FA) being registered and a TO occurring.…”

Executive Functions and Their Differential Contribution to Sustained Attention in 5- to 8-Year-Old Children

“…As a last attentional component, Mirsky and colleagues suggested encoding which comprises the mnemonic aspect of attention including the ability to process information sequentially. Because of its relevance in everyday life, research efforts have frequently been directed towards the component of SA as it is regarded to represent a crucial ability both in normative (Riccio, Reynolds, Lowe, & Moore, 2002) and in clinical populations (Douglas, 1972) and thus suggests to be a highly ecologically valid construct.…”

Relationship between prospective memory and vigilance: Evidence from ERP

“…In this kind of task, targets results in N2, P3 and a slow wave. The peak amplitude of P3 is found in the parietal area, and the medial temporal lobe and frontal lobe may also be involved [20]. While N2 indicates visual target detection, P3 reflects updating of target information or context in working memory or categorization of stimulus [21].…”