Enhancing Sustained Attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Arguably, automation is fast transforming many enterprise business processes, transforming operational jobs into monitoring tasks. Consequently, the ability to sustain attention during extended periods of monitoring is becoming a critical skill. This manuscript presents a Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) prototype which seeks to combat decrements in sustained attention during monitoring tasks within an enterprise system. A brain-computer interface is a system which uses physiological signals output by the user as an input. The goal is to better understand human responses while performing tasks involving decision and monitoring cycles, finding ways to improve performance and decrease on-task error. Decision readiness and the ability to synthesize complex and abundant information in a brief period during critical events has never been more important. Closed-loop control and motivational control theory were synthesized to provide the basis from which a framework for a prototype was developed to demonstrate the feasibility and value of a BCI in critical enterprise activities. In this pilot study, the BCI was implemented and evaluated through laboratory experimentation using an ecologically valid task. The results show that the technological artifact allowed users to regulate sustained attention positively while performing the task. Levels of sustained attention were shown to be higher in the conditions assisted by the BCI. Furthermore, this increased cognitive response seems to be related to increased on-task action and a small reduction in on-task errors. The research concludes with a discussion of the future research directions and their application in the enterprise.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".