English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The Psychomotor Vigilance Test is a well-validated measure of sustained attention used to assess daytime alertness in sleep research studies.1 It is commonly used in a variety of research settings due to its high sensitivity to sleep loss and absence of learning effects,2 making it an ideal tool to assess objective alertness. As some types of sleep research transition out of controlled laboratory environments, tools like the PVT require modification to maximize their reliability. The validation of the 3-minute version (PVT-B) against the 10-minute PVT is an example of this modification.3 However, considerable work is needed to improve trust in the utility of the PVT-B in and outside of traditional laboratory settings. Methods We carefully analyzed data from a mobile-based version of the PVT-B, noting responses that occurred during the interstimulus interval which were termed “wrong taps.” Wrong taps indicated that participants were not performing the task as instructed. In some cases, wrong taps occurred across multiple trials of the same PVT block, indicative of participants repeatedly tapping the screen throughout the task to minimize response times. A comprehensive examination of wrong taps was carried out in order to identify instances where this pattern emerged. Results A total of 1,338,538 PVT-B trials from 7,028 participants were examined to determine the number of wrong taps present across all trials. While 91.7% of PVT-B trials were free of wrong taps, 8.3% of PVT-B trials contained 1 or more wrong taps and 5.2% contained 2 or more wrong taps. It appears that a maximum of one wrong tap per trial is acceptable and trials containing 2 or more should be excluded to maximize PVT data quality. Conclusion Utilizing a metric like wrong taps can help identify individuals taking the PVT-B who are tapping the screen multiple times prior to stimulus display. Closely examining this metric can help to ensure the validity of PVT-B administrations. Two possible uses of the metric could be to provide feedback during training trials and to remove trials where this strategy was employed. Support (if any) This analysis was supported by the VA San Diego Healthcare System Research Service.

101 Measurement of Tapping During the Interstimulus Interval as a Validation Metric for the 3-Minute Psychomotor Vigilance Test