Introducing the portable AttentionTrip: An engaging tool for measuring the networks of attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measurement of the efficacy of the networks of attention is a frequent component of research in cognitive and clinical neuroscience. Developed in 2002, the Attention Network Test (ANT), has become the most widely used tool for this purpose. In 2017 a more engaging, game-like tool based on the ANT, called the AttentionTrip was described. The network scores from five studies which used AttentionTrip are shown to be robust. That version of AttentionTrip required a steering wheel and desk-top computer. Here we describe a new, portable version of the AttentionTrip that is administered using a hand-held tablet (iPad) Three samples of participants (total = 44) completed the portable version of AttentionTrip. The network scores generated using the portable AttentionTrip were also robust. Effect sizes compare favourably with those generated by the ANT and the desktop version. The findings support the use of the portable AttentionTrip as an alternative to the ANT when user engagement is important, such as when participants are prone to boredom, and when repeated administrations are required. • Measurement of the networks of attention is important in the clinic & the laboratory. • The AttentionTrip is more engaging than the ANT on which it is modelled. • A portable version of the AttentionTrip generates robust attention network scores. • The portable AttentionTrip is recommended when user engagement is important.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".