Sustained and Transient Attention in the Continuous Performance Task

• Published in: Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology 2006-09, Vol.28 (6), p.859-883
• Main Authors: Smid, H.G.O.M., de Witte, M.R., Homminga, I., van den Bosch, R.J.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Attention - physiology; Biological and medical sciences; Cognition - physiology; Electroencephalography - methods; Evoked Potentials - physiology; Female; Humans; Male; Medical sciences; Pattern Recognition, Visual - physiology; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems; Psychomotor Performance - physiology; Psychomotor Performance - radiation effects; Psychopathology. Psychiatry; Reaction Time - physiology; Task Performance and Analysis; Techniques and methods
• ISSN: 1380-3395; 1744-411X
• DOI: 10.1080/13803390591001025

One of the most frequently applied methods to study abnormal cognition is the Continuous Performance Task (CPT). It is unclear, however, which cognitive functions are engaged in normal CPT performance. The aims of the present study were to identify the neurocognitive functions engaged in the main variants of the CPT and to determine to what extent these variants differentially engage these functions. We hypothesized that the main CPT versions (CPT-X, CPT-AX, CPT-Identical Pairs) can be distinguished by whether they demand sustained or transient attention and sustained or transient response preparation. Transient attention to objects like letters or digits, that is, the need to switch attention to different objects from trial to trial, impairs target detection accuracy relative to sustained attention to a single object. Transient response preparation, that is, the possibility to switch response preparation on and off from trial to trial, improves response speed relative to having to sustain response preparation across all trials. Comparison of task performance and Event-Related brain Potentials (ERPs) of healthy participants obtained in the main CPT variants confirmed these hypotheses. Behavioral and ERP measures indicated worse target detection in the CPT-AX than in the CPT-X, consistent with a higher demand on transient attention in that task. In contrast, behavioral and ERP measures indicated higher response speed in the CPT-AX than in the CPT-X, associated with more response preparation in advance of the targets. This supports the idea of increased transient response preparation in the CPT-AX. We conclude that CPTs differ along at least two task variables that each influences a different cognitive function.