MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006552016 · doi:10.1037/a0025111

Consistency of sustained attention across modalities: Comparing visual and auditory versions of the SART.

2011· article· en· W2006552016 on OpenAlex
Paul Seli, James Allan Cheyne, Kevin R. Barton, Daniel Smilek

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMind wandering and attention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsModalitiesPsychologyModality (human–computer interaction)Stimulus modalityCognitive psychologyAudiologyTask (project management)Consistency (knowledge bases)Sensory systemComputer scienceMedicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We develop and assess an auditory version of an increasingly widely used measure of sustained attention, the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART). In two separate studies, the auditory SART generated slower response times and fewer errors than the visual SART. Proportion of errors, response times, and response time variability were, however, significantly and strongly correlated across the two modalities. The cross-modality correlations were generally equivalent to split-half correlations within modalities, indicating a strong agreement of the assessment of individual differences in sustained attention in the visual and auditory modalities. The foregoing results plus the finding that errors on the auditory SART were reduced suggests that the auditory SART may be a preferred alternative for use with populations with deficits in sustained attention.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it