We live in a demanding world: the snort of an email, the squeal of a text, fare alerts, breaking news, SQUIRREL! What was I saying? Oh yes, we live in a distracted world. With DVRs holding thousands of hours of entertainment; phones and tablets keeping us occupied while we watch those thousands of DVRed hours, it seems that something always has our attention. But what does that really mean? The term itself is used a bit like a commodity: always demanding that we pay for it. The affectionally dubbed “Brain Bank” allows a controlled bit of withdrawal at any given moment. We are literally trapped in a world bombarded by sensory information. As you read this, you are neglecting your world in order to process these words. What do you hear right now? What sweater are you wearing? Now are you thinking about what you are going to wear tomorrow? Or what’s on your calendar? SQUIRREL! Please allow me to withdrawal a bit of currency from your Brain Bank to discuss the real cost of paying attention.
1) Neurotalent of the year 2013
Vote for Peter Lewinski as the Neurotalent of the year 2013! To assess ad effectiveness Peter Lewinski used facial coding software that tracks over 500 superimposed key-points on a 3D artificial facemask. He gathered online 900 recordings (0.7 million frames) of facial reactions to advertisements and analyzed over 4.1 million unique data points.
The relationship between reaction time variability and observed attention in children with and without ADHD
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) has become a fairly common subject of research in today’s society. The disorder affects working memory, attention span, and inhibitory control. There are two types, Combined and Predominantly Inattentive. In this study, 146 participants between the ages of 7 and 11 were split into three groups: ADHD-Combined (ADHD-C), ADHD-Predominantly Inattentive (ADHD-I), and a control. Tanya Antonini and colleagues looked for an association between reaction time (RT) variability and observed behavioral indicators of attention.
Building on results
Antonini et al.’s study (2013) built on the results that were presented in Epstein et al.’s study (2011). This study examined differences in RT variability between children with and without ADHD across five computerized tasks. The results of this study showed that the RTs of children with ADHD were more variable than those of the control group, and were also less accurate than the control on the majority of the tasks. This study did not have an analog math task.