MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3013568520 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00388

The Attention Network Test Database: ADHD and Cross-Cultural Applications

2020· article· en· W3013568520 on OpenAlexaff
Swasti Arora, Michael A. Lawrence, Raymond M. Klein

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCognitionAttention networkDatabaseTest (biology)Task (project management)Cognitive psychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attention is a central component of cognitive and behavioral processes and plays a key role in basic and higher-level functioning. Posner's model of attention describes three components or networks of attention: the alerting, which involves high intensity states of arousal; the orienting, which involves the selective direction of attention; and the executive control, which involves cognitive functions such as conflict resolution and working memory. The Attention Network Test (ANT) is a computerized testing measure that was developed to measure these three networks of attention. This project describes the ANT, its widely used variants, and the recently developed ANT Database, a repository of data extracted from all studies that have used the ANT as of 2019. To illustrate the potential uses of the database, two meta-analyses conducted using the ANT Database are described. One explores task performance in children with and without attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The other one explores regional differences between studies conducted in China, Europe, and the United States. We are currently in the process of integrating the database into a publicly available web interface. When that work is complete, researchers, clinicians, and the general public will be able to use the database to explore topics of interest related to 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.359
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.342 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations62
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207