Search Task Strategies for Attention

Overseen By Cailey Tennyson, BA

Age: 18+

Sex: Any

Trial Phase: Academic

Sponsor: Brigham and Women's Hospital

Disqualifiers: Vision less than 20/25, neuromuscular or visual disorders

No Placebo Group All trial participants will receive the active study treatment (no placebo)

Compensation: Varies

Number of Visits: Unknown

40 Participants Needed

What You Need to Know Before You Apply

What is the purpose of this trial?

This trial explores how people search visually, aiming to determine if task arrangement affects performance. Participants will perform search tasks either in a set order (Blocked Trials) or in a random order (Mixed Trials). The trial suits individuals with good color vision and without serious vision or neuromuscular issues. Meeting these criteria allows participants to help researchers understand visual information processing. As an unphased trial, this study offers a unique opportunity to contribute to foundational research on visual processing.

Do I need to stop taking my current medications to join the trial?

The trial information does not specify whether you need to stop taking your current medications. It might be best to ask the trial organizers for more details.

What prior data suggests that these search task strategies are safe for participants?

In a previous study, researchers found that repeating the same task, known as blocked trials, helps people learn rules for searching more effectively. This suggests that blocked trials are generally safe and well-tolerated, as they improve attention without reported negative effects.

Conversely, studies on mixed trials, where tasks vary, show they can enhance performance in tasks requiring both thinking and moving. This type of training has proven safe and beneficial, particularly for improving focus and coordination in complex situations.

Both blocked and mixed trials study attention and are considered safe. They do not involve physical treatment or medication, so reports of negative effects are rare. These trials focus on mental exercises, which have proven safe in other contexts. ^{1 2 3 4 5}

Why are researchers excited about this trial?

Researchers are excited about the "Search Task Strategies for Attention" trial because it explores innovative ways to improve attention through different task strategies. Unlike common methods that may focus on medication or simple cognitive exercises, this trial examines the impact of task presentation. In the "Blocked Trials" arm, tasks are organized in separate blocks, which could help individuals concentrate more effectively by reducing task-switching demands. On the other hand, the "Mixed Trials" arm randomly mixes tasks, potentially enhancing cognitive flexibility and multitasking skills. These approaches could offer new insights into optimizing attention strategies, providing alternative or complementary methods to existing treatments.

What evidence suggests that this trial's treatments could be effective for attention?

Research has shown that practicing visual search tasks can improve skills, while simply waiting or receiving rewards like money does not have the same effect. In this trial, participants will be assigned to either "blocked trials" or "mixed trials." In the "blocked trials" arm, where the same task is repeated, studies suggest this can train the brain to ignore distractions, such as changes in color. In the "mixed trials" arm, where tasks vary, participants often develop different strategies to handle distractions more effectively. While blocked trials focus on consistent repetition, mixed trials encourage adaptable search methods. Both methods can enhance visual searching skills, depending on task setup. ^{3 6 7 8 9}

Who Is on the Research Team?

Jeremy M Wolfe, PhD

Principal Investigator

Brigham and Women's Hospital

Are You a Good Fit for This Trial?

This trial is suitable for individuals with normal vision and attention spans, as well as those diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder. Participants should be able to perform visual search tasks repeatedly. There are no specific inclusion or exclusion criteria provided.

Inclusion Criteria

Pass Ishihara color vision test

Exclusion Criteria

Vision less than 20/25 with correction

History of neuromuscular or visual disorders

Timeline for a Trial Participant

Screening

Participants are screened for eligibility to participate in the trial

2-4 weeks

Training

Observers are trained on four different search tasks with varying distractors

2 weeks

Experimentation

Participants perform 400 trials in both Mixed and Blocked conditions

4 weeks

Follow-up

Participants are monitored for response time and accuracy after experimentation

4 weeks

What Are the Treatments Tested in This Trial?

Interventions

• Blocked Trials
• Mixed trials

Trial Overview The study examines differences in visual search behavior by comparing 'Blocked Trials' where one task is repeated 100 times, against 'Mixed Trials' where four different tasks are randomly intermixed during the trials.

How Is the Trial Designed?

Group I: Mixed Trials Experimental Treatment 1 Intervention

There are four search tasks in this experiment. All tasks will be randomly mixed in a single block of 400 trials.

Group II: Blocked Trials Experimental Treatment 1 Intervention

There are four search tasks in this experiment. Each task will be presented in a separate block of 100 trials

Who Is Running the Clinical Trial?

Brigham and Women's Hospital

Lead Sponsor

Trials

1,694

Recruited

14,790,000+

National Eye Institute (NEI)

Collaborator

Trials

572

Recruited

1,320,000+

Published Research Related to This Trial

The FDA recommends that sponsors create a Safety Surveillance Plan to systematically monitor safety data, suggesting two methods: analyzing serious adverse events (SAEs) by treatment group or using a trigger rate for unblinded analysis if SAEs exceed expected background rates.

The article introduces a procedural workflow for a blinded review of safety data, utilizing the Bayesian detection method (BDRIBS) to quantitatively assess risks, and provides tools for visualizing and analyzing safety data across multiple studies.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Using the Bayesian detection of potential risk using inference on blinded safety data (BDRIBS) method to support the decision to refer an event for unblinded evaluation. Waterhouse, B., Hartford, A., Mukhopadhyay, S., et al.[2022]

In 2011, the MedWatch system received 600,000 adverse event reports, highlighting its role in improving drug and device safety awareness, but it also faces challenges with reporting bias and data accuracy.

A study analyzing 10.2 million reports found that while patient information was mostly accurate, suspect product data was often incomplete or incorrect, with significant gaps in key details like dosage and product lot numbers, which could lead to incorrect conclusions about drug safety.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Evaluating the completeness and accuracy of MedWatch data. Getz, KA., Stergiopoulos, S., Kaitin, KI.[2017]

The FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) is crucial for monitoring drug safety, but there has been a lack of systematic methods to compare adverse event rates across different drugs.

The study introduces a new statistical method that can effectively identify significant differences in adverse event rates among drugs while also estimating variations in age and gender distributions, enhancing the understanding of drug safety profiles.

NCBI (Pubmed)

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Comparing Different Adverse Effects Among Multiple Drugs Using FAERS Data. Huang, J., Zhang, X., Du, J., et al.[2021]

Citations

1. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8388182/

Search Strategies Improve With Practice, but Not With Time ... In this study, neither time pressure nor financial incentive led to improvements in visual search strategies, ruling out motivation as the explanation.

2. search.bwh.harvard.edu search.bwh.harvard.edu/new/pubs/MixBlock2025.pdf

Mixing it up: Intermixed and blocked visual search tasks ... For some search tasks, performance seems unlikely to change in any qualitative manner, if the tasks are blocked or mixed.

3. journalofcognition.org journalofcognition.org/articles/10.5334/joc.182

Classic Visual Search Effects in an Additional Singleton Task Based on prior work, we expect that the color singleton distractor will no longer capture attention when colors are repeated over many trials ( ...

4. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10319403/

Selection History and the Strategic Control of Attention - PMC To examine use of the optimal strategy over time, we calculated the frequency of reporting the optimal target after dividing each phase into 40-trial blocks. ...

5. sciencedirect.com sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824000576

Beyond the modified dot-probe task: A meta-analysis of ... Alternative attention bias modification tasks produce a medium effect in changing negative attention biases.

6. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8898139/

A Systematic Review on Serious Games in Attention ... A total of 73 outcome measures were related to attention, 42 measures did not have significant results, 30 were significantly improved, 1 was ...

7. ahajournals.org ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/JAHA.125.043554

Cognitive Assessments in Randomized Controlled Trials of ... Cognitive tasks are infrequent outcomes in stroke RCTs. When used, the tasks and domains assessed vary widely and are heavily affected by ...

8. cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com cognitiveresearchjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41235-024-00569-3

Different deployments of attentional breadth selectively predict ... The Useful Field of View task (UFOV) is a strong and reliable predictor of crash risk in older drivers. However, while the functional domain ...

9. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3627747/

Sustaining Attention to Simple Tasks: A Meta-Analytic Review ... The attentional function that enables our prolonged engagement in intellectually unchallenging, uninteresting activities has been termed “vigilant attention.”