Perceptual decoupling in the sustained attention to response task is unlikely.

Researchers dispute the cause of errors in high Go, low No Go target detection tasks, like the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART). Some researchers propose errors in the SART are due to perceptual decoupling, where a participant is unaware of stimulus identity. This lack of external awareness causes an erroneous response. Other researchers suggest the majority of the errors in the SART are instead due to response leniency, not perceptual decoupling. Response delays may enable a participant who is initially unaware of stimulus identity, perceptually decoupled, to become aware of stimulus identity, or perceptually recoupled. If, however, the stimulus presentation time is shortened to the minimum necessary for stimulus recognition and the stimulus is disrupted with a structured mask, then there should be no time to enable perception to recouple even with a response delay. From the perceptual decoupling perspective, there should be no impact of a response delay on performance in this case. Alternatively if response bias is critical, then even in this case a response delay may impact performance. In this study, we shortened stimulus presentation time and added a structured mask. We examined whether a response delay impacted performance in the SART and tasks where the SART's response format was reversed. We expected a response delay would only impact signal detection theory bias, c, in the SART, where response leniency is an issue. In the reverse formatted SART, since bias was not expected to be lenient, we expected no impact or minimal impact of a response delay on response bias. These predictions were verified. Response bias is more critical in understanding SART performance, than perceptual decoupling, which is rare if it occurs at all in the SART.

Perceptual decoupling or trigger happiness: the effect of response delays and shorter presentation times on a go-no-go task with a high go prevalence.

In the current investigation, we modified the high Go, low No-Go Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART). Some researchers argue a commission error, an inappropriate response to a No-Go stimulus, in the SART is due to the participant being inattentive, or perceptually decoupled, during stimulus onset. Response delays in the SART reduce commission errors. A response delay may therefore enable a participant who is initially inattentive to recouple their attention in time to appropriately perceive the stimulus and withhold a response to a No-Go stimulus. However, shortening stimulus display duration in the SART should limit the possibility of the participant identifying the stimulus later, if they are initially not attending the stimulus. A response delay should not reduce commission errors if stimulus duration is kept to the minimum duration enabling stimulus recognition. In two experiments, we shortened stimulus onset to offset duration and added response delays of varying lengths. In both experiments, even when stimulus duration was shortened, response delays notably reduced commission errors if the delay was greater than 250 ms. In addition, using the Signal Detection Theory perspective in which errors of commission in the SART are due to a lenient response bias-trigger happiness, we predicted that response delays would result in a shift to a more conservative response bias in both experiments. These predictions were verified. The errors of commission in the SART may not be a measures of conscious awareness per se, but instead indicative of the level of participant trigger happiness-a lenient response bias.

Response uncertainty influences response bias in the sustained attention to response task: a signal detection theory perspective.

In the current investigation, we modified the high Go, low No-Go Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) by replacing the single response on Go trials with a dual response to increase response uncertainty. In three experiments, a total of 80 participants completed either the original SART with no response uncertainty regarding the Go stimuli, or versions of the dual response SART in which response probabilities for the two possible responses to the Go stimuli varied from 0.9-0.1, 0.7-0.3, to 0.5-0.5. This resulted in a scale of increasing response uncertainty based on information theory to the Go stimuli. The probability of No-Go withhold stimuli was kept.11 in all experiments. Using the Signal Detection Theory perspective proposed by Bedi et al. (Psychological Research: 1-10, 2022), we predicted that increasing response uncertainty would result in a conservative response bias shift, noted by decreased errors of commission and slower response times to both Go and No-Go stimuli. These predictions were verified. The errors of commission in the SART may not be a measures of conscious awareness per se, but instead indicative of the level of participant trigger happiness-the willingness to respond quickly.

Go-stimuli probability influences response bias in the sustained attention to response task: a signal detection theory perspective.

The sustained attention to response task (SART) is a popular measure in the psychology and neuroscience of attention. The underlying psychological cause for errors, in particular errors of commission, in the SART is actively disputed. Some researchers have suggested task-disengagement due to mind-wandering or mindlessness, and others have proposed strategic choices. In this study we explored an alternative perspective based on Signal Detection Theory, in which the high rate of commission errors in the SART reflects simply a shift in response bias (criterion) due to the high prevalence of Go-stimuli. We randomly assigned 406 participants to one of ten Go-stimuli prevalence rates (50%, 64%, 74%, 78%, 82%, 86%, 90%, 94%, 98% and 100%). As Go-stimuli prevalence increased reaction times to both Go and No-Go stimuli decreased, omission errors decreased and commission errors increased. These all were predicted from a hypothesized bias shift, but the findings were not compatible with some alternative theories of SART performance. These findings may have implications for similar tasks.

How should we refer to people attending sexual health services; patients, clients, users or customers?

Within the healthcare domain, commercial-sector terminology such as 'client', 'customer' and 'user' are replacing the previously acceptable collective noun, 'patient'. Is the term we use important to the individuals accessing our services? A paper survey collected the responses of 581 individuals attending the service between August and October 2019. Overall, 372/496 (75%) (95% CI = 71.2-78.8%) unique responses reported a preference to the term 'patient', while only 92/496 (19%) (95% CI = 15.1-22.0%) preferred 'client', 23/496(5%) (95% CI = 2.8-6.5%) 'customer' and 9/496 (2%) (95% CI = 0.6-3.0%) 'user'. In line with other published data, we acknowledge that people attending our service prefer to be referred to as 'patient' above all else.