Cargando…

Temporal predictability does not impact attentional blink performance: effects of fixed vs. random inter-trial intervals

BACKGROUND: Does the inclusion of a randomized inter-trial interval (ITI) impact performance on an Attentional Blink (AB) task? The AB phenomenon is often used as a test of transient attention (Dux & Marois, 2009); however, it is unclear whether incorporating aspects of sustained attention, by i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shenfield, Lucienne, Beanland, Vanessa, Apthorp, Deborah
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: PeerJ Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7060903/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32185105
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8677
_version_ 1783504311970430976
author Shenfield, Lucienne
Beanland, Vanessa
Apthorp, Deborah
author_facet Shenfield, Lucienne
Beanland, Vanessa
Apthorp, Deborah
author_sort Shenfield, Lucienne
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Does the inclusion of a randomized inter-trial interval (ITI) impact performance on an Attentional Blink (AB) task? The AB phenomenon is often used as a test of transient attention (Dux & Marois, 2009); however, it is unclear whether incorporating aspects of sustained attention, by implementing a randomized ITI, would impact task performance. The current research sought to investigate this, by contrasting a standard version of the AB task with a random ITI version to determine whether performance changed, reflecting a change in difficulty, engagement, or motivation. METHOD: Thirty university students (21 female; age range 18–57, M(age)= 21.5, SD = 7.4) completed both versions of the task, in counterbalanced order. RESULTS: No significant difference in performance was found between the standard AB task and the AB task with the random ITI. Bayesian analyses suggested moderate evidence for the null. CONCLUSION: Temporal unpredictability did not appear to impact task performance. This suggests that the standard AB task has cognitive properties with regards to task difficulty, engagement, and motivation, that are inherently similar to tasks that employ a randomized ITI to measure sustained attention (e.g., the Psychomotor Vigilance Task; PVT; Dinges & Powell, 1985). This finding provides important support for future research which may seek to obtain a more detailed understanding of attention through the comparison of performance on transient and sustained attention tasks.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7060903
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher PeerJ Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70609032020-03-17 Temporal predictability does not impact attentional blink performance: effects of fixed vs. random inter-trial intervals Shenfield, Lucienne Beanland, Vanessa Apthorp, Deborah PeerJ Neuroscience BACKGROUND: Does the inclusion of a randomized inter-trial interval (ITI) impact performance on an Attentional Blink (AB) task? The AB phenomenon is often used as a test of transient attention (Dux & Marois, 2009); however, it is unclear whether incorporating aspects of sustained attention, by implementing a randomized ITI, would impact task performance. The current research sought to investigate this, by contrasting a standard version of the AB task with a random ITI version to determine whether performance changed, reflecting a change in difficulty, engagement, or motivation. METHOD: Thirty university students (21 female; age range 18–57, M(age)= 21.5, SD = 7.4) completed both versions of the task, in counterbalanced order. RESULTS: No significant difference in performance was found between the standard AB task and the AB task with the random ITI. Bayesian analyses suggested moderate evidence for the null. CONCLUSION: Temporal unpredictability did not appear to impact task performance. This suggests that the standard AB task has cognitive properties with regards to task difficulty, engagement, and motivation, that are inherently similar to tasks that employ a randomized ITI to measure sustained attention (e.g., the Psychomotor Vigilance Task; PVT; Dinges & Powell, 1985). This finding provides important support for future research which may seek to obtain a more detailed understanding of attention through the comparison of performance on transient and sustained attention tasks. PeerJ Inc. 2020-03-05 /pmc/articles/PMC7060903/ /pubmed/32185105 http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8677 Text en ©2020 Shenfield et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
spellingShingle Neuroscience
Shenfield, Lucienne
Beanland, Vanessa
Apthorp, Deborah
Temporal predictability does not impact attentional blink performance: effects of fixed vs. random inter-trial intervals
title Temporal predictability does not impact attentional blink performance: effects of fixed vs. random inter-trial intervals
title_full Temporal predictability does not impact attentional blink performance: effects of fixed vs. random inter-trial intervals
title_fullStr Temporal predictability does not impact attentional blink performance: effects of fixed vs. random inter-trial intervals
title_full_unstemmed Temporal predictability does not impact attentional blink performance: effects of fixed vs. random inter-trial intervals
title_short Temporal predictability does not impact attentional blink performance: effects of fixed vs. random inter-trial intervals
title_sort temporal predictability does not impact attentional blink performance: effects of fixed vs. random inter-trial intervals
topic Neuroscience
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7060903/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32185105
http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.8677
work_keys_str_mv AT shenfieldlucienne temporalpredictabilitydoesnotimpactattentionalblinkperformanceeffectsoffixedvsrandomintertrialintervals
AT beanlandvanessa temporalpredictabilitydoesnotimpactattentionalblinkperformanceeffectsoffixedvsrandomintertrialintervals
AT apthorpdeborah temporalpredictabilitydoesnotimpactattentionalblinkperformanceeffectsoffixedvsrandomintertrialintervals