<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# Age differences in motivation drive performance during the sustained attention to response task

Simon Hanzal, Gemma Learmonth, Gregor Thut, Monika Harvey

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Simon Hanzal, Gemma Learmonth, Gregor Thut, Monika Harvey. Age differences in motivation drive performance during the sustained attention to response task. PLoS ONE, 2025, 20 (11), pp.e0324694. 10.1371/journal.pone.0324694. hal-05469701

HAL Id: hal-05469701

https://hal.science/hal-05469701v1

Submitted on 21 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
RESEARCH ARTICLE

# Age differences in motivation drive performance during the sustained attention to response task

Simon Hanzal<sup>1*</sup>, Gemma Learmonth<sup>1,2</sup>, Gregor Thut<sup>1,3</sup>, Monika Harvey<sup>1</sup>

1 School of Psychology and Neuroscience University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom, 2 Division of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom, 3 The Brain and Cognition Research Centre (CerCo), CNRS and University of Toulouse, Toulouse, France

* hanzalsimon@gmail.com

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

## Abstract

Young and older adults prioritise speed and accuracy differently during sustained attention tasks. While older adults generally show a preference of accuracy over speed, this is not always the case. The underlying factor behind this inconsistency may be motivational differences, with older participants compensating for a speed disadvantage with increased intrinsic motivation to perform well. We investigated this in a pre-registered study, using the Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) in young (n=25, mean age=19) and older adults (n=25, mean age=69.5). We matched participant accuracy by titrating response window length. Both groups achieved similar performance and strategy during the titration, enabling a comparison without confounds resulting from differences in default age-specific strategies. All participants were then given monetary incentives to perform better in terms of accuracy. Both groups responded with enhanced accuracy, but the young participants improved much more, outperforming older adults, and reversing the speed-accuracy strategies that are typically observed. In addition, older participants reported higher baseline levels of motivation alongside a reduced motivation to alter performance for money. So, while the older participants could match young participant performance in titration due to their higher baseline motivational levels, the young participants improved much more than older adults in response to the monetary incentive. From these findings we argue that older adults are intrinsically motivated to do well on tasks whereas younger age groups perform optimally only after incentivisation.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

OPEN ACCESS

**Citation:** Hanzal S, Learmonth G, Thut G, Harvey M (2025) Age differences in motivation drive performance during the sustained attention to response task. PLoS One 20(11): e0324694. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324694

**Editor:** David Keisuke Sewell, The University of Queensland, AUSTRALIA

**Received:** April 30, 2025

**Accepted:** October 30, 2025

**Published:** November 17, 2025

**Peer Review History:** PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process; therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. The editorial history of this article is available here: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324694

**Copyright:** © 2025 Hanzal et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution,

## Introduction

### Age effects in sustained attention

The Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) [1] has been widely used to study sustained attention in both clinical [2] and healthy populations [3]. It is mainly used as a short probe of failures in attention to reflect lapses in vigilance, but has been
and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original author and source are credited.

**Data availability statement:** All experimental
data files and the analysis and data collection
scripts are available from the osf.io database
(https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XP7MK).

**Funding:** SH was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council Grant: ES/P000681/1. The funder had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

**Competing interests:** The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

increasingly used to investigate diverse factors influencing attentional responses in the healthy population. This has led to the identification of age-specific behavioural patterns during SART performance [4,5]. Older participants typically show higher accuracy on nogo trials, or trials when response is withheld [6], and have thus been reported as prioritising accuracy in their response [4,7]. Conversely, their longer reaction times [4,8] are often understood to reflect the general decline in sustained attention ability arising from ageing [9] or a general decline in processing speed linked to changes in key brain areas involved in its maintenance [10]. Older participants may use a longer processing window to counteract this decline in processing (and instead maintain high accuracy [11]) so this older participant accuracy advantage has been framed as an adaptation to reductions in processing speed [12]. On the other hand, because this difference between young and older participants could simply reflect age-dependent strategic choices in task execution (a different argument put forward previously [9,13]), an interpretation of the observed performance differences in terms of an effect of ageing is questionable. In a recent study [14], although we replicated the age-dependent performance strategies (high accuracy and slow responses in older adults, low accuracy and high response speed in young adults), importantly we did not find vigilance decrements [15] that we expected to observe from time-on-task fatiguing mechanisms [16,17] in either age group. We therefore highlighted the need to identify different factors leading to age-dependent differences in overall vigilance (including strategy choices, motivation, resilience to fatigue), to better understand the general effects of ageing on sustained attention.

The default parameters of the SART [1] provide the participant with an ambigu-
ous choice of prioritising either speed or accuracy. The participant is incentivised to
decide their own strategic priority, based on unmonitored internal processes [18,19].
A dichotomy in strategic response is thus enabled by a sufficiently long response win-
dow in the default task design. Group-specific strategies then emerge [4,20] because
participants choose different points in the window to respond: Young participants
typically react early in the response window, displaying faster reaction times [6]. In
contrast, older participants tend to more fully utilise the length of the window and in
so doing, increase their accuracy [8,21].

Previous studies have used modified versions of the SART to investigate under-
lying mental processes that may influence performance [22–24] including manipula-
tions of task complexity [25,26] to affect strategy choice. We follow this strand here
by manipulating the speed-accuracy trade-off [27,28] in the strategy choice between
accuracy and reaction time. We achieve this by imposing a varied response window
length, eliciting faster response times by necessity and thus reducing participant
accuracy. In titrating [29–31] to a pre-defined accuracy constant we aimed to unify
the strategy across both age groups and thus reveal underlying differences in the
performance of each group [32–36].

Motivation

Researchers have already stated an effect of age on strategy choice as underpinned
by differences in levels of baseline motivation. Definitions of motivation may vary,
but are commonly linked to reward [37]. Intrinsic motivation is generally characterised as an interest or enjoyment in the task stemming from the individual [38]. Multiple studies describe older adults as highly intrinsically motivated participants [14,39–41]. Motivation has previously been noted to underlie the surprising behavioural advantage in older adults [4], biasing them towards a more motivationally-demanding accuracy strategy [36]. In other related investigations, older adults were noted to opt for a more self-driven inhibitory strategy, again leading to the pattern of longer reaction times and higher accuracy [8,21]. Others have shown older adults to be less prone to shift their strategy in response to further motivators due to ceiling motivation levels arising from their values [40]. They are considered to experience higher rewarding value from the onset of the experiment, stemming from their beliefs of a benefit to society and a positive contribution in participation in research [39]. In addition, older adults have been shown to have less sensitivity to reward and punishment, limiting alterations to their strategy [42,43]. It is even possible that older adults may experience a paradoxical worsening reaction to reward initiatives [44].

This increased baseline level of motivation in older adults can be contrasted with the bias present in a young student sample. Samples exclusively relying on a population of psychology students were previously criticised for low internal validity [45]. The monetary reward used as a means of sampling participants for experiments was suggested to carry a confounding effect [46,47]. Specifically, student participants have been noted to rely on a strategy of conservation of effort [48], while also showing higher mind-wandering levels when compared to other samples [6]. In this experiment, after titration, we introduce a surprise (monetary) motivational intervention to test for any resulting performance divergence between the age groups.

## Fatigue

Fatigue is another factor considered to impede performance during sustained attention, with several studies reporting heightened levels of subjective fatigue accompanying time-on-task effects [15,49–53]. While some work has highlighted an effect of fatigue on behaviour, we failed to detect a reliable relationship with SART performance in our recent work [14], amongst other investigators who also failed to find a reliable link [54,55]. It has been theorised that motivational effects may contribute to the assumed behavioural effect of fatigue [56,57]. The present study will thus also include a measure of recently experienced fatigue to re-test its possible impact on behaviour.

## Study rationale

In previous research, the introduction of an objective reward as a motivational manipulation led to both an increase in speed and accuracy, yet so far this has been tested only in a young, student sample [27,28,37]. It thus remains unclear how different age groups perform in response to a motivational initiative once their underlying strategy is unified, or in fact whether they differ in response to a manipulation of motivation. The precise relationship of motivational changes to age-specific performance in sustained attention is thus addressed in the present experimental design: we first aligned young and older participants to the same (higher accuracy over reaction time) strategy by titration of the task difficulty and then introduced a surprise monetary incentive. We predicted that inherent lower motivation would elicit a stronger motivating effect of the surprise motivational intervention, leading to a greater accuracy in the motivational block. We also predicted young participants to have lower starting levels of motivation and that their accuracy improvement would be greater after the surprise motivational intervention than that of the older age group.

## Methods

### Participants

The experimental design and hypotheses were pre-registered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/pyzn7). The study was approved by the University of Glasgow College of Medical and Veterinary Life Sciences Ethics committee
(Approval number: 200230387). All participant data was acquired between the dates 10th of October 2024 and 21st of November 2024. A total of 56 healthy adults were recruited between the ages of 18 and 96 from the university subject pool and local area and given monetary compensation for their time. Written consent was acquired from all participants. Participants were balanced for gender and were asked to report any existing medical conditions, eye-sight correction and medications which might impact their performance. Six participants were excluded throughout data collection: One participant reported an uncorrected visual deficiency in the left eye, as also detected by a visual field test. One participant was excluded for excessive caffeine use (2 units above recommended dosage). A further participant was excluded for reporting poor sleep (4 hours per day). Two participants were excluded for low MoCA scores (<24). Finally, a participant was excluded due to a possible technical fault, or inaccurate attendance to instructions (go accuracy lower than 80% throughout multiple blocks).

The final sample consisted of 50 participants (F = 28, M = 21, NB = 1) based on a power analysis of the sample needed to acquire an effect size of f = 0.2 in a 2x2 ANOVA within-between factor interaction. The participants were divided into a young (M = 25, F = 16, NB = 1, mean age = 19, SD = 1.38, range = 18–23) and older (n = 25, F = 13, mean age = 69.5, SD = 6.72, range = 60–85) age group. Five participants were left-handed, one was a smoker, all reported low to moderate caffeine consumption (estimated mean units per day = 1.09, SD = 1.05, range = 0–4), matching the maximum recommended daily dose of 400 mg of caffeine [58]. They also reported an average of 7.2 hours of sleep per day (SD = 1.04, range = 6–12). All young participants were enrolled university students. The participants were screened for cognitive difficulties using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment test (MoCA; [59]), reflecting scores representative of a healthy population [60] in both young (mean score = 29.2, SD = 1.7, range = 25–31) and older adults (mean = 27.7, SD = 1.65, range = 24–30). A Welch's t-test showed lower MoCA scores in the older group, t(48) = 3.12, p = .003, d = .883, as expected when comparing young and older populations [61]. Cut-offs for the age groups were defined as 2 SDs below the mean [60], meaning all participants with a MoCA score below 24 were excluded. A short (4-minute) computerised visual screening assessment was administered at the beginning of the session to exclude potential visual pathologies. The task was adapted from a previous experiment on young and older groups [14]. A Welch's t-test identified no age-group differences in target detection within the visual regions where the SART stimuli were to be presented, t(48) = 1.57, p = .128, d = .500.

## Procedure

The experimental task and procedure are outlined in Fig 1. Participants provided basic demographic information and self-reported any known impediments to participation. After this, they first completed a measure of trait fatigue (MFI) and a

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 1.** Experimental procedure.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324694.g001
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

brief adapted visual screening test [14] targeting their central visual area to detect any impairments preventing them from participation. Participants proceeded to a brief training session to familiarise them with the SART. If they were unable to achieve the minimum required standard in the experiment during 2 mins of non-titrated SART (above chance accuracy), the training session was repeated. They then undertook one 5-minute baseline block of the SART matching our previous experiment [14]. The participants then carried out an adapted version of the task, designed for a titration-based investigation of performance. They were instructed to be as accurate as possible, but to respond before the onset of the next trial. The difficulty levels of the task were manipulated through either an increase or decrease of the response window length by 50ms, based on the participant's accuracy in sets of 25 trials and determined by a target criterion of 92% accuracy. In total, participants carried out the titration procedure for 25 minutes, divided into 4 blocks with short breaks in between. They were not informed how many blocks of the task they were expected to complete in total. This procedure aimed to determine the response window length (300ms – 2500ms) at which the participant consistently achieved an overall accuracy close to 92%.

At the end of the titration, the participants were informed that the experiment was finished, and completed a subjective intrinsic motivation inventory [IMI; 62] and a brief adapted subjective measure to record specific motivations behind their experimentation. They then took a self-paced break. Then, all participants were informed about a further, unanticipated, block of the task presented at the same difficulty level as the last. They were likewise informed that if they achieved the highest improvement in accuracy, relative to all other participants in their age group, they would receive a prize of £50. The participants then carried out a final 5-minute block of the task, set to the difficulty level matching the average response window length of the last 125 trials at the end of the titration period, but with no further titration. At the end of the motivational block, they proceeded to fill in a single item measure (VAS-M) on perceived changes in their motivation as a result of the initiative. Before the end, they were screened for any cognitive impairments that could impact the experiment using the MoCA [59] and then proceed to be debriefed. The overall duration of the experiment was 65 minutes.

## Task

The participants underwent a modified version of the SART with varied levels of difficulty, implemented in PsychoPy, using custom Python scripts [63]. The task was displayed on a digital monitor (Dell Optiplex 9010), with a screen resolution of 1280x1024 pixels and a refresh rate of 60 Hz. Participants were seated 60 cm from the screen, maintaining horizontal eye level with the centre of the display by the use of a chin rest. In each trial, the participants were instructed to fixate centrally on the fixation cross and attend to a stimulus presented at an angular distance of 1°, consisting of a number between 0–9 presented centrally for 150ms. The number then disappeared during the response window, which had a variable duration of 300–2500ms, before the next trial started. The response window length and the learning block response window lengths were set to 1000ms at the start of the experiment for all participants. The task was to respond using a spacebar press to all numbers that appeared (go trials), apart from the numbers 3 or 6, whilst withholding response to the appearance of numbers 3 and 6 (nogo trials). The numbers were pre-generated to be distributed randomly and represented in equal frequency. Based on the accuracy of the participant in a set of 25 trials, the subsequent set of trials had their response window length shortened or lengthened by 50ms to eventually achieve a desired equilibrium (92% accuracy for each participant). If accuracy on the previous block was lower than 92%, the subsequent block was made easier by lengthening the response window by 50ms. If accuracy was exactly 92%, the response window was kept constant. An accuracy of 92% was chosen to correspond to 60% nogo accuracy and 100% go accuracy (corresponding to 20% nogo trial rate), since go trial accuracy was expected to be at ceiling level for most participants [5]. An additional static fixation period of 6s was added between the sets of 25 trials. The difficulty of the motivational block was calculated to represent the average response window length, rounded to the nearest increment of 50ms in the last 125 trials of the titration, to reduce the effects of random fluctuations in accuracy.
## Measures

The participants were asked to report their age, gender, number of hours of sleep in the past week and caffeine intake on the day as well as disclose known impediments to participation.

The Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) was used as a measure of subjective motivation [62]. It has been recently used for valuation of motivation and cognitive task performance [64] and continues to show good reliability (Cronbach alpha > .7, [65]). It is a 7-point Likert scale that contains 45 items spread across 7 subscales. The three most relevant subscales were used: interest (7 items; e.g., 'I enjoyed doing this activity'), effort (5 items; e.g., 'I put a lot of effort into this') and value (7 items; e.g., 'I think this was an important activity') subscales. The experiment further used a motivation item question adapted from the use in our lab, probing participants for reasons for taking part in the experiment (8 options; e.g., 'To help the researchers make new scientific discoveries'). The participants were also probed on a visual analogue scale for motivation (VAS-M) with values 0–100 and a single question on the extent they felt motivated by the motivational intervention.

The Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) [66] was used to measure trait fatigue, and was comprised of 5 subscales with 4 items each (20 items in total) on a 5-point Likert scale. Previous work indicated a very good reliability of $\alpha = .84$ and showed a lack of floor and ceiling effects as well as item redundancy [67].

## Results

All analyses were carried out in R (R Core Team, 2024) using the packages 'tidyverse' [68], 'psych' [69], 'psycho' [70], 'BayesFactor' [71], 'lsr' [72] and 'ez' [73]. Packages used for graphical depiction were: 'ggpubr' [74], 'viridis' [75] and 'Cairo' [76]. Any trials with a reaction time < 150ms were excluded from the analysis as likely to be representative of anticipation error [77] (.6%). In addition to the pre-registered aims, trials with reaction times of excessive length defined as 3 standard deviations above the age group mean were also excluded (1.29%, see Vankov for a discussion of acceptable trimming methods [78]). Reaction times further showed a skew (0.835), and so were log-transformed for any subsequent analysis. While not originally included in the pre-registration, D-prime ($d'$) was chosen as a useful addition to further measure participant sensitivity in the context of possible changes of task strategy [79]. $D'$ was computed using the 'psycho' package [69], using the function *dprime*, following the formula in Stanislaw and Todorov [80] and applying an adjustment for extreme values from Hautus [81]. Correct go trials were considered hits, incorrect go trials misses, correct nogo trials correct rejections and incorrect nogo trials false alarms. As per previous findings [79], the achieved mean $d'$ values fell in the range expected for the SART.

Since each participant completed the task for a fixed duration of 25 minutes, the total trial numbers differed among the participants due to the variable response window lengths. A t-test on the total number of titration period trials in young (mean = 954.89, SD = 138.52, range = 700–1150) and older adults (mean = 99.25, SD = 125.41, range = 700–1275) showed no differences between the groups, $t(48) = -1.14, p = .258, d = .305$. A t-test was also run on the average window length between the young (mean = .880, SD = .217, range = .647–1.41) and older adults (mean = .827, SD = .190, range = .523–1.38) in the whole titration period, also showing no between-group differences, $t(48) = .919, p = .363, d = .260$.

As the frequentist approach taken in our analyses resulted in multiple borderline significant effects (see below), we added a Bayesian analysis follow-up approach (following Keysers et al. [82]) approach to help quantifying the strength of evidence for either the alternative ($H_1$) or the null hypothesis ($H_0$). Bayes factors (BFs) were reported to express the likelihood of the data under $H_1$ relative to $H_0$ (BF < 1/3 indicating support for $H_0$, and BF > 3 indicating strong support for $H_1$, and values between 1/3 and 3 suggesting that the data are insensitive or only provide anecdotal evidence for the respective hypotheses [83]). All t-test and ANOVA Bayesian equivalent tests were conducted using the 'BayesFactor' R Package [71]. Informed by our earlier work [5,14], the prior scale value was pre-set to 1/2 through *rscaleFixed* = "medium" for t-test and *rscaleRandom* = "medium" for ANOVAs, respectively.
## Age-specific strategies

We first investigated differences among the age groups in the baseline block. A between groups t-test showed no differences between the two age groups on nogo accuracy in the baseline SART block, t(48) = -.200, p = .421, d = .057, depicted in Fig 2A. A between-groups t-test showed that the older group had higher reaction times in the baseline SART block, t(48) = -1.77, p = .042, d = .500, as reflected in Fig 2B. As this constituted a marginally null finding prior to the removal of the long reaction times, a Bayes factor equivalent was run, showing no evidence for either of the hypotheses ($B_{10} = 1.00, \pm .010\%$, $H_1$: age difference in reaction times). In light of the marginal significance and the bayes test, we interpret this finding as underpowered, yet hinting at the expected age effect, with higher reaction times in older adults.

Additionally, to test age effects after titration, a two-sample t-test was run, testing the difference between young and older participants on experimental difficulty level (combined trial and presentation length) at the titrated window length. This again showed no differences between the groups, t(48) = .608, p = .273, d = .172, as depicted in Fig 2C.

The findings thus indicate that we did not replicate age-specific strategies in our sample, but that both groups had similar performance levels throughout the period prior to the motivational monetary manipulation.

## Titration

Although not pre-registered, we tested the impact of the titration procedure on participant performance. The goal of this analysis was to demonstrate (as a sanity check) that the titration did indeed work in terms of performance changes in all (high and lower performing) participants, via the adapting of the response window. We did this across the whole sample as an age split would have underpowered this essential validation of our titration method.

Participants were split based on their initial median accuracy (93.50%). This resulted in two groups: those who had better accuracy than the average at baseline (mean = 95.80%, SD = 1.03%) and those who were worse in accuracy than the average (mean = 91.0%, SD = 2.91%). Then, the performance of both groups across the four titration blocks was modelled on several behavioural metrics.

A multiple linear regression [F(3, 196) = 16.74, R² = .19, p < .001, f² = .237] showed that better performers at baseline had higher accuracy over all 4 blocks: $\beta$ = -.052, t = -5.81, p < .001. A main effect of titration block showed that overall accuracy decreased throughout the experiment, $\beta$ = -.013, t = -5.65, p < .001. There was an interaction between the effects

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 2.** Age differences at baseline and after titration. Young participants did not differ from older participants in the baseline comparison block (5 minutes) neither in nogo accuracy (A) nor reaction times (B). Additionally, age groups (young and older) did not differ in their titrated window lengths at the end of titration (C).</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324694.g002
of group and titration, $\beta$=-.015, t=4.48, p<.001. A series of post-hoc t-tests was conducted to outline the titration blocks where the groups differed. A t-test found a difference between the groups in block one, t(48) = 7.72, p=.001, but not in block two, t(48) = 1.33, p=.19, block three, t(48) = -.576, p=.57 or block four, t(48) = .875, p=.386. The groups were thus no longer different in their overall accuracy by block two. Collectively, this indicates that the gap between the performers in overall accuracy decreased over time and disappeared, as seen in Fig 3A.

A multiple linear regression [F(3, 196) = 19.74, R²=.22, p<.001, f²=.283] showed that better performers had higher nogo accuracy $\beta$=-.189, t=-5.16, p<.001. A main effect of titration block showed that nogo accuracy decreased throughout the experiment, $\beta$=-.034, t=-3.69, p<.001. There was an interaction between the effects of group and titration, $\beta$=.035, t=2.64, p=.009. A series of post-hoc t-tests was conducted to test in which titration blocks the groups differed. A t-test found a difference between the groups in block one, t(48) = 7.44, p<.001 and block two, t(48) = 2.70, p=.01. No difference was found in block three, t(48) = 1.35, p=.185 and block four, t(48) = 1.51, p=.176. Collectively, this indicates that the gap between the performers in nogo accuracy decreased over time and disappeared, as seen in Fig 3B.

A multiple linear regression [F(3, 196) = 7.73, R²=.092, p<.001, f²=.101] showed that better performers had higher reaction times, $\beta$=-.113, t=-2.72, p=.007. A main effect of titration block showed that reaction times generally decreased throughout the experiment, $\beta$=-.025, t=-2.40, p=.017. There was no interaction between the effects of group and titration, $\beta$=.017, t=1.14, p=.256. As this previously constituted a marginally null finding (prior to the removal of the long reaction times), a bayes factor test was run, showing highest evidence in favour of the model *Perfomance group + Block* without an interaction, (B₁₀>5, ±3.43%). This thus further suggests an unlikely interaction between block and age groups.

Collectively, this indicates that better performers preserved their slower reaction times throughout the titration period relative to worse performers, but both groups generally reduced their response times, as seen in Fig 3C.

A multiple linear regression [F(3, 196) = 32.89, R²=.325, p<.001, f²=.481] showed no difference between the groups in their response window length: $\beta$ =.072, t = 1.12, p=.263. A main effect of titration block showed that response window length decreased throughout the experiment, $\beta$=-.059, t=-3.65, p=.001. There was an interaction between the effects of group and titration, $\beta$=.068, t=2.90, p=.004. The interaction indicates that better performers gradually achieved more narrow (hence difficult) response window lengths, with high performers reaching a relatively low response window length and low performers retaining a high response window length, as seen in Fig 3D.

Collectively, the testing of performance over time confirms that both groups of performers achieved an average of 92% accuracy at the end of the titration blocks. Good performers, in addition, reached a shorter response window length while matching the same accuracy level. The titration thus generally raised the difficulty of the task for high performers and maintained or reduced the difficulty for poorer performers. Alongside this, there was a limited effect on reaction times, with high performers preserving higher reaction times to maintain a more accurate strategy.

## Motivational manipulation

The following analysis investigated the effects of the surprise motivational intervention. A 2x2 mixed ANOVA between age groups (young, older) and time points (last 125 trials of titration, whole motivational block) was run on overall accuracy. The resulting model showed no main effect of age, F(1, 48) = 2.50, p=.120, $\eta^2$=.029, but that all participants were more accurate after the motivation, F(1, 48) = 48.27, p<.001, $\eta^2$=.302. A significant interaction, F(1, 48) = 4.37, p=.042, $\eta^2$=.038, showed that the young participants improved much more than the older adults, as depicted in Fig 4A. A Bayes Factor test was run to reconstruct the 2x2 ANOVA. Of all possible resulting models (n=7), the model with the highest Bayes Factor was *Block + Age group:Block*, providing strong evidence for H₁ (BF>5, ±.790%). Thus, it confirmed that the motivational manipulation worked to increase accuracy in both groups, but more so in the young group.

A 2x2 mixed ANOVA between age groups (young, older) and time points (last 125 trials of titration, whole motivational block) was run only on nogo accuracy, showing the same pattern. There was no main effect of age, F(1, 48) = .001, p=.974, $\eta^2$<.001, but the participants were more accurate after the intervention, F(1, 48) = 39.33, p<.001, $\eta^2$=.163. A
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 3.** Median-split participant performance in titration over time. Participants were split into better (green) and worse (orange) performance groups based on their overall accuracy in titration block 1. The performance of each of these groups was then plotted across all four titration blocks in the metrics of overall accuracy (A), nogo accuracy (B), mean reaction time (C) and titrated response window length (D).</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324694.g003
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

Age group young older

**Fig 4. Performance difference after motivational manipulation.** Plots comparing participant performance at the end of the titration period (last 125 trials of titrated block 4) with performance during the Motivational block. Young participants improved significantly more than older participants after the motivational manipulation both when measured in overall accuracy (A), when focusing on nogo accuracy (B) or sensitivity captured by d' (C). No clear differences were present across reaction times (D).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324694.g004

significant interaction, F(1, 48) = 7.26, p<.001, η²=.035, showed that the young participants improved much more than older adults, as seen in Fig 4B. As per previous analysis, a Bayes Factor equivalent to a 2x2 ANOVA was run, testing the effect of age group and time point on nogo accuracy. Across all possible models (n=7), the model showing highest evidence in favour of H₁ was *Time Point + Age Group:Time Point* (B₁₀>5, ±.680%), confirming that the motivational manipulation worked to increase nogo accuracy in both groups, but more so in the young group.

In addition, we were interested in testing the same effects on d' as the chosen measure of sensitivity. A 2x2 mixed ANOVA between age groups (young, older) and time points (last 125 trials of titration, whole motivational block) was
run on *d'*, showing the same pattern as the previous tests of accuracy. There was no main effect of age, $F(1, 48) = 2.07$, $p = .156$, $\eta^2 = .022$, but the participants were more accurate after the intervention, $F(1, 48) = 81.80$, $p < .001$, $\eta^2 = .383$. A significant interaction, $F(1, 48) = 4.75$, $p = .034$, $\eta^2 = .035$, further showed that the motivational manipulation worked to increase sensitivity in both age groups, but that young participants' sensitivity improved much more than that of the older adults, as seen in Fig 4C.

A 2x2 mixed ANOVA between age groups (young, older) and time points (last 125 trials of titration, whole motivational block) was run for reaction times. There was no main effect of age, $F(1, 48) = 3.40$, $p = .072$, $\eta^2 = .060$, but the participants were slower after the motivational manipulation $F(1, 48) = 8.36$, $p = .006$, $\eta^2 = .019$, with no significant interaction, $F(1, 48) = .716$, $p = .402$, $\eta^2 = .002$, indicating a similar pattern of slowing in both age groups. The subsequent Bayes Factor test reconstructing the 2x2 ANOVA deviated from this finding though. Of all the resulting models, the model including *Age group* had the highest Bayes factor, showing anecdotal evidence supporting the $H_1 (B_{10} = 2.12, \pm 0.01\%)$. Because of the inconsistency across the frequentist and Bayesian results, we draw no conclusions here, despite the overall differences in reaction times slowing, as per Fig 4D.

## Motivational differences

Next, we investigated the differences among age groups in the subjective perception of their motivation.

A Cronbach's alpha was calculated for each of the subjective scales. IMI – interest showed alpha = .841, IMI – effort alpha = .765, IMI – value alpha = .821, indicating good to excellent reliability of the measures.

A between groups t-test was run, testing for differences between young and older participants on intrinsic motivation upon completion of the titration, for each of the three motivation sub-scales. Older participants had higher subjective motivation on IMI – interest, $t(48) = -2.23$, $p = .015$, $d = .632$ (Fig 5A), and IMI – value, $t(48) = -2.31$, $p = .013$, $d = .655$ (Fig 5B), but not on IMI – effort, $t(48) = -.038$, $p = .485$, $d = .011$ (Fig 5C).

A t-test was run between the two age groups on post-motivational block change in motivation measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS-M). The young group was significantly more motivated by the monetary incentive compared to the older adults, $t(48) = 6.40$, $p < .001$, $d = 1.81$, seen in Fig 5D.

A Pearson's chi-square test assessed the difference between the young and older participants in the distribution of their reported reasons for taking part in the experiment. The test did not show any differences between age groups, $X(36) = 42$, $p = .227$. Arguably, the findings were underpowered to adequately detect differences among the two age groups as out of the 8 reasons for participation, some cell observations in reasons for participation fell under 5 [84]. Nevertheless, the young participants were informatively much more motivated by money to participate (23 young vs 5 older).

## Connection to fatigue

We also explored whether levels of motivation and subjective trait fatigue were associated with performance on the SART.

Cronbach's alpha was calculated for each of the subjective subscales of the multidimensional fatigue inventory. Most of the scales had good reliability: MFI – general fatigue had an alpha = .82, MFI – mental fatigue alpha = .843, MFI – physical fatigue alpha = .813, MFI – reduced activity alpha = .757, but MFI – reduced motivation only showed low alpha = .578.

Multiple linear regressions were run between the two age groups on subjective fatigue scores and titrated window length in the titration SART block, one for each subscale of MFI. No prediction of titrated window length or age group by fatigue was found for MFI scores overall, [$F(3, 46) = .676, R^2 = 0.020, p = .571$], MFI general fatigue [$F(3, 46) = .399, R^2 = 0.038, p = .754$], MFI physical fatigue [$F(3, 46) = .453, R^2 = 0.035, p = .716$], MFI mental fatigue [$F(3, 46) = 1.018, R^2 = 0.001, p = .393$], MFI reduced activity [$F(3, 46) = .670, R^2 = 0.021, p = .575$] or MFI reduced motivation [$F(3, 46) = .592, R^2 = 0.026, p = .623$].

A multiple linear regression tested the difference between the two age groups on the correlation between total subjective fatigue scores and total intrinsic motivation scores [$F(3, 46) = 6.08, R^2 = .237, p = .001, f^2 = .311$]. Older
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 5. Age differences in motivation.** Older participants had higher motivation to undertake the task based on IMI – Interest (A) and IMI – value (B), but not IMI – effort (C). The older participants were also less motivated by the intervention than younger participants (D).</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324694.g005

adults were more motivated than young adults, $\beta$ = 47.43, t = 3.09, p = .003, with no main effect of fatigue, $\beta$ = .164, t = .669, p = .507 and with a significant interaction between age group and MFI total fatigue, $\beta$ = -.906, t = -2.78, p = .008. An inspection of a Fig 6 depicting the relationship shows that there was no relationship between motivation and fatigue in young participants, but older participants experienced more motivation if they also experienced being less fatigued.
<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 6.** Age differences in the relationship of fatigue to motivation. Older participant total scores on the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) were associated with lower total scores on the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI), with no such relationship in young participants.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324694.g006

Discussion

This study examined how age, motivation, and fatigue influence strategy choice in the SART. To ensure comparable performance of both age groups, the response window was individually adjusted by titration to attain a shared accuracy of 92%. Notably, older participants reached the target accuracy without, as a group, requiring longer (and thus easier) response windows than the young adults. As a result, we did not replicate the prominent age effect of older adults being accurate but slower, and young adults being fast but inaccurate [4,5]. Nevertheless, the titration procedure still ensured that accuracy was matched before all participants were incentivised to perform better. This manipulation then successfully elicited an age effect: older adults showed less improvement than younger participants, who became much more accurate.

Both age groups initially reached a comparable level of task difficulty, as indicated by the similar response window lengths at the end of titration. During this phase, older adults also reported higher levels of subjective motivation, aligning with previous findings about their higher intrinsic motivation [85]. We thus propose that their intrinsic higher motivation enabled this group of older adults to keep pace with the younger group up to the point of the motivational manipulation [86,87]. Younger adults in turn were less motivated to do the task, which likely explains their (relatively) poorer performance prior to incentivisation and their greater ability to subsequently improve. In a related study, DeRight and Jorgensen [88] investigated low effort in a sample of college students and also found a proportion of students with low effort, resulting in a surprising, subthreshold performance on key attentional and cognitive tasks. Dunn and colleagues [89] reached a similar conclusion with a motivational imbalance in the student sample. The young participants in our study may be seen as exerting the minimum effort required to meet task demands, thereby adopting a strategy aimed at conserving energy [44,90,91] until there comes a point of renewed interest; in this case the interest is renewed by an extra monetary reward [92]. This parsimonious strategy is arguably advantageous in light of the relatively low perceived value of the experiment,
which then changes as a result of the motivation manipulation: our young participants strategically limited their effort during the titration and then improved heavily once motivated.

We thus highlight, for the first time in sustained attention research, motivation as the primary factor driving age-related differences in performance. The young participants reported strong reactivity to the motivational manipulation and showed greater improvement in accuracy compared to the older adults. The older sample did not alter their performance as much after the motivation manipulation and reported a low perceived effect of the monetary initiative.

In the existing literature, diverse reasons are in discussion regarding the increased presence of intrinsic motivation in the older participants. It has been suggested that older adults seek to compensate for age-related slowing and so become more motivated to perform well [8,13]. This is then translated into a more demanding behavioural strategy. The account is based on reports of strong rapport between older adults and the researcher [40,93] and a strong self-reported positive valuation of experimental participation associated with older adults [94]. According to the socioemotional selectivity theory [40,41,95], older participants experience the positive value of participation as they are more attracted to short-term goals directly related to their experience during the experiment. They maximise the emotional well-being experienced in the present moment, gained from volunteering in scientific research [96]. Young participants conversely perceive time as a vast resource and so prioritise future-oriented goals, including advancing their future socio-economic status, and thus responding to monetary rewards. As a result, older adults may perceive participating in research itself as more rewarding than the financial compensation. This could further explain why the motivational manipulation only showed a limited improvement in older adults, who reported that the prospect of a future reward did not impact their already strong investment in the experiment. Their limited responsivity likewise aligns with a report of a smaller inclination of older adults to switch to a different behavioural strategy, contrasting with the ability of young people to more readily change task strategy [97].

None of these effects were connected to fatigue and there were no differences in trait fatigue between the groups, aside from a link between fatigue and motivation in the older group. We speculate that this could indicate fatigue as a component of motivation in the older group, but more research is needed to test this connection directly. Given this minimal link to fatigue, we propose that the motivational differences at baseline and in response to additional monetary manipulation underlie the observed age effect in sustained attention.

## Limitations

It should be acknowledged that the study's recruitment approach was selective, thus making it potentially susceptible to bias in the form of higher socioeconomic status, health and educational levels relative to the typically ageing population. This was reflected in the matched high educational attainment and generally minor differences only in MoCA scores between the age groups [61]. Nevertheless, the conclusions regarding the older sample are aimed at populations typically participating in research. Older research participants may also differ from the typical population in their ability to access university-based research, and their interest in and awareness of opportunities to participate [98]. Future research may still consider ways to widen engagement, for example recruiting during public engagement events [99] may further aid the generalisability of the present findings. Our findings may also be amenable to replication in an online context (see our previous findings about strong age effects on sustained attention [5]).

## Future research

Our study raises the wider issue of the confounding effect of motivational factors in student samples commonly employed in experiments measuring performance. The present findings indicate that the choice of response strategy in young participants is dynamically affected by their level of motivation. Future studies, particularly those investigating the capacity of participants to perform at a certain level, should track motivational confounds. We thus show that on the SART, older participants were inherently motivated to do well, with only a little accuracy gain after the monetary incentive. In the case of this study, the commonly used young participant population was shown to generate suboptimal performance up to the
point of the extra motivational manipulation. We thus propose that older adults can be seen as intrinsically motivated to do well on tasks, whereas younger age groups perform optimally only after incentivisation. The approach of factoring subjective motivation into the study design may be further utilised and expanded by the use of more precise measurements of motivation, including follow-up probes of participation motives [100] or frequent probes during the task [49].

This experiment indirectly enriches the discussion of the theoretical underpinnings of vigilance. Poor overall vigilance in sustained attention has previously been suggested to correspond to fatigue. This was seen when fatigued populations performed worse in tasks requiring vigilance [17,101]. As further evidence, a vigilance decline would sometimes be observed during time-on-task in tiring tasks [49,102], yet this was not always the case [14,103–107]. The present findings indicate that the possible reason for this inconsistency may stem from a stronger influence of the motivation state on vigilance, more so than that of fatigue.

Finally, this study showed that the effect of motivation can be studied by targeting different participant age groups. As age has been previously strongly associated with the difference in performance during sustained attention [4,5], this experiment instead supports a motivational account of sustained attention performance differences [37,108]. It implies that overall vigilance can be better understood by incorporating the factor of motivation [109–111]. It also contributes to a possible explanation of the mixed efficacy of attempts to improve performance in students [112], pointing to the role of intrinsic motivation as an explanation.

## Conclusion

This study investigated the impact of motivation on age differences in performance during sustained attention. We showed that young participants' performance in sustained attention was improved by interference with their motivation levels much more than in a sample of older adults. Older participants reported higher baseline levels of motivation alongside a reduced motivation to alter performance for money. So, while the older participants could match young participant performance in titration due to their higher baseline motivational levels, the young participants improved much more than older adults in response to the monetary incentive. From these findings, we argue that older adults are intrinsically motivated to do well on tasks whereas younger age groups perform optimally only after incentivisation. The findings show the need to track motivational factors in investigations into sustained attention and likely apply to most studies comparing older and young samples.

## Author contributions

**Conceptualization:** Simon Hanzal, Gemma Learmonth, Gregor Thut, Monika Harvey.

**Formal analysis:** Simon Hanzal.

**Investigation:** Simon Hanzal.

**Methodology:** Simon Hanzal, Gemma Learmonth.

**Software:** Simon Hanzal.

**Visualization:** Simon Hanzal.

**Writing – original draft:** Simon Hanzal.

**Writing – review & editing:** Simon Hanzal, Gemma Learmonth, Gregor Thut, Monika Harvey.

## References

1. Robertson IH, Manly T, Andrade J, Baddeley BT, Yiend J. "Oops!": performance correlates of everyday attentional failures in traumatic brain injured and normal subjects. Neuropsychologia. 1997;35(6):747–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0028-3932(97)00015-8 PMID: 9204482

2. van der Heide A, van Schie MKM, Lammers GJ, Dauvilliers Y, Arnulf I, Mayer G, et al. Comparing Treatment Effect Measurements in Narcolepsy: The Sustained Attention to Response Task, Epworth Sleepiness Scale and Maintenance of Wakefulness Test. Sleep. 2015;38(7):1051–8. https://doi.org/10.5665/sleep.4810 PMID: 25902810
3. Lara T, Madrid JA, Correa Á. The vigilance decrement in executive function is attenuated when individual chronotypes perform at their optimal time of day. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e88820. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088820 PMID: 24586404

4. Vallesi A, Tronelli V, Lomi F, Pezzetta R. Age differences in sustained attention tasks: A meta-analysis. Psychon Bull Rev. 2021;28(6):1755-75. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-01908-x PMID: 33772477

5. Hanzal S, Learmonth G, Thut G, Harvey M. Probing sustained attention and fatigue across the lifespan. PLoS One. 2024;19(7):e0292695. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0292695 PMID: 39018279

6. Staub B, Doignon-Camus N, Marques-Carneiro JE, Bacon É, Bonnefond A. Age-related differences in the use of automatic and controlled processes in a situation of sustained attention. Neuropsychologia. 2015;75:607-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.07.021 PMID: 26209357

7. Wiemers EA, Redick TS. The influence of thought probes on performance: Does the mind wander more if you ask it? Psychon Bull Rev. 2019;26(1):367-73. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1529-3 PMID: 30225780

8. Jackson JD, Balota DA. Mind-wandering in younger and older adults: converging evidence from the Sustained Attention to Response Task and reading for comprehension. Psychol Aging. 2012;27(1):106-19. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023933 PMID: 21707183

9. Fortenbaugh FC, DeGutis J, Germine L, Wilmer JB, Grosso M, Russo K, et al. Sustained Attention Across the Life Span in a Sample of 10,000: Dissociating Ability and Strategy. Psychol Sci. 2015;26(9):1497-510. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615594896 PMID: 26253551

10. Kerchner GA, Racine CA, Hale S, Wilhelm R, Laluz V, Miller BL, et al. Cognitive processing speed in older adults: relationship with white matter integrity. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e50425. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050425 PMID: 23185621

11. Eckert MA, Keren NI, Roberts DR, Calhoun VD, Harris KC. Age-related changes in processing speed: unique contributions of cerebellar and prefrontal cortex. Front Hum Neurosci. 2010;4:10. https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.09.010.2010 PMID: 20300463

12. Robison MK, Diede NT, Nicosia J, Ball BH, Bugg JM. A multimodal analysis of sustained attention in younger and older adults. Psychol Aging. 2022;37(3):307-25. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000687 PMID: 35446084

13. Hsieh S, Wu M, Tang C-H. Adaptive Strategies for the Elderly in Inhibiting Irrelevant and Conflict No-Go Trials while Performing the Go/No-Go Task. Front Aging Neurosci. 2016;7:243. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2015.00243 PMID: 26779012

14. Hanzal S, Learmonth G, Thut G, Harvey M. EEG markers of vigilance, task-induced fatigue and motivation during sustained attention: Evidence for decoupled alpha- and beta-signatures. bioRxiv. 2024:2024.10.16.618638. https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.10.16.618638

15. Gartenberg D, Gunzelmann G, Hassanzadeh-Behbaha S, Trafton JG. Examining the Role of Task Requirements in the Magnitude of the Vigilance Decrement. Front Psychol. 2018;9:1504. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01504 PMID: 30177902

16. Head J, Helton WS. Natural scene stimuli and lapses of sustained attention. Conscious Cogn. 2012;21(4):1617-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2012.08.009 PMID: 23000831

17. Roach GD, Petrilli RMA, Dawson D, Lamond N. Impact of layover length on sleep, subjective fatigue levels, and sustained attention of long-haul airline pilots. Chronobiol Int. 2012;29(5):580-6. https://doi.org/10.3109/07420528.2012.675222 PMID: 22621354

18. Liesefeld HR, Janczyk M. Combining speed and accuracy to control for speed-accuracy trade-offs(?). Behav Res Methods. 2019;51(1):40-60. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1076-x PMID: 30022459

19. Blurton SP, Feifel J, Gondan M. Speeded response tasks with unpredictable deadlines. J Math Psychol. 2023;115:102776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2023.102776

20. Katsimpokis D, Hawkins GE, van Maanen L. Not all Speed-Accuracy Trade-Off Manipulations Have the Same Psychological Effect. Comput Brain Behav. 2020;3(3):252-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42113-020-00074-y

21. Brache K, Scialfa C, Hudson C. Aging and vigilance: who has the inhibition deficit? Exp Aging Res. 2010;36(2):140-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610731003613425 PMID: 20209418

22. Seli P, Carriere JSA, Smilek D. Not all mind wandering is created equal: dissociating deliberate from spontaneous mind wandering. Psychol Res. 2015;79(5):750-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-014-0617-x PMID: 25284016

23. Li Z, Yi C, Chen C, Liu C, Zhang S, Li S, et al. Predicting individual muscle fatigue tolerance by resting-state EEG brain network. J Neural Eng. 2022;19(4):10.1088/1741-2552/ac8502. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ac8502 PMID: 35901723

24. Rizzo R, Knight SP, Davis JRC, Newman L, Duggan E, Kenny RA, et al. SART and Individual Trial Mistake Thresholds: Predictive Model for Mobility Decline. Geriatrics (Basel). 2021;6(3):85. https://doi.org/10.3390/geriatrics6030085 PMID: 34562986

25. Kool W, McGuire JT, Rosen ZB, Botvinick MM. Decision making and the avoidance of cognitive demand. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2010;139(4):665-82. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020198 PMID: 20853993

26. Magnuson JR, Doesburg SM, McNeil CJ. Development and recovery time of mental fatigue and its impact on motor function. Biol Psychol. 2021;161:108076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2021.108076 PMID: 33716108

27. Manohar SG, Chong TT-J, Apps MAJ, Batla A, Stamelou M, Jarman PR, et al. Reward Pays the Cost of Noise Reduction in Motor and Cognitive Control. Curr Biol. 2015;25(13):1707-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.05.038 PMID: 26096975

28. Wolf C, Lappe M. Motivation by reward jointly improves speed and accuracy, whereas task-relevance and meaningful images do not. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2023;85(3):930-48. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-022-02587-z PMID: 36289140
29. Martin TJ, Grigg A, Kim SA, Ririe DG, Eisenach JC. Assessment of attention threshold in rats by titration of visual cue duration during the five choice serial reaction time task. J Neurosci Methods. 2015;241:37-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2014.12.007 PMID: 25528113

30. Learmonth G, Gallagher A, Gibson J, Thut G, Harvey M. Intra- and Inter-Task Reliability of Spatial Attention Measures in Pseudoneglect. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0138379. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138379 PMID: 26378925

31. Manly T, Robertson IH, Galloway M, Hawkins K. The absent mind: further investigations of sustained attention to response. Neuropsychologia. 1999;37(6):661-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0028-3932(98)00127-4 PMID: 10390027

32. Smulders FT, Kenemans JL, Schmidt WF, Kok A. Effects of task complexity in young and old adults: reaction time and P300 latency are not always dissociated. Psychophysiology. 1999;36(1):118-25. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0048577299961590 PMID: 10098387

33. Tun PA, Lachman ME. Age differences in reaction time and attention in a national telephone sample of adults: education, sex, and task complexity matter. Dev Psychol. 2008;44(5):1421-9. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012845 PMID: 18793073

34. Der G, Deary IJ. Age and sex differences in reaction time in adulthood: results from the United Kingdom Health and Lifestyle Survey. Psychol Aging. 2006;21(1):62-73. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.21.1.62 PMID: 16594792

35. Gorus E, De Raedt R, Mets T. Diversity, dispersion and inconsistency of reaction time measures: effects of age and task complexity. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2006;18(5):407-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03324837 PMID: 17167305

36. Hübner R, Druey MD, Pelzer T, Walle A. On the difficulty of overcoming one's accuracy bias for choosing an optimal speed-accuracy tradeoff. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2021;47(12):1604-20. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000957 PMID: 34647785

37. Engelmann JB, Damaraju E, Padmala S, Pessoa L. Combined effects of attention and motivation on visual task performance: transient and sustained motivational effects. Front Hum Neurosci. 2009;3:4. https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.09.004.2009 PMID: 19434242

38. Srivastava N, Kapoor K, Schrater PR. A cognitive basis for theories of intrinsic motivation. In: 2011 IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning (ICDL). 2011. p. 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1109/DEVLRN.2011.6037327

39. Carr DC, Tian S, He Z, Chakraborty S, Dieciuc M, Gray N, et al. Motivation to Engage in Aging Research: Are There Typologies and Predictors? Gerontologist. 2022;62(10):1466-76. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnac035 PMID: 35267020

40. Ryan AD, Campbell KL. The ironic effect of older adults' increased task motivation: Implications for neurocognitive aging. Psychon Bull Rev. 2021;28(6):1743-54. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-021-01963-4 PMID: 34173190

41. Swirsky LT, Sparrow EP, Sullivan MD, Valenzano SL, Chowdhury S, Spaniol J. Age differences in motivated cognition: A meta-analysis. J Gerontol Series B. 2023;78: 1169-81. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbad049

42. Ennis GE, Hess TM, Smith BT. The impact of age and motivation on cognitive effort: implications for cognitive engagement in older adulthood. Psychol Aging. 2013;28(2):495-504. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031255 PMID: 23421325

43. Westbrook A, Kester D, Braver TS. What is the subjective cost of cognitive effort? Load, trait, and aging effects revealed by economic preference. PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e68210. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068210 PMID: 23894295

44. Botvinick M, Braver T. Motivation and cognitive control: from behavior to neural mechanism. Annu Rev Psychol. 2015;66:83-113. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015044 PMID: 25251491

45. Croucher S, Kelly S, Elers P, Jackson K, Nguyen T. Does student sampling impact our understanding of argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness? 2024 [cited 26 Apr 2025]. Available from: https://mro.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/71673

46. Hanel PHP, Vione KC. Do Student Samples Provide an Accurate Estimate of the General Public? PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0168354. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168354 PMID: 28002494

47. Singer E, Bossarte RM. Incentives for survey participation when are they "coercive"?. Am J Prev Med. 2006;31(5):411-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2006.07.013 PMID: 17046413

48. Rodman AM, Powers KE, Insel C, Kastman EK, Kabotyanski KE, Stark AM, et al. How adolescents and adults translate motivational value to action: Age-related shifts in strategic physical effort exertion for monetary rewards. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2021;150(1):103-13. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000769 PMID: 32496090

49. Reteig LC, van den Brink RL, Prinssen S, Cohen MX, Slagter HA. Sustaining attention for a prolonged period of time increases temporal variability in cortical responses. Cortex. 2019;117:16-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2019.02.016 PMID: 30925309

50. Kato Y, Endo H, Kizuka T. Mental fatigue and impaired response processes: event-related brain potentials in a Go/NoGo task. Int J Psychophysiol. 2009;72(2):204-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2008.12.008 PMID: 19135100

51. MacLean KA, Aichele SR, Bridwell DA, Mangun GR, Wojciulik E, Saron CD. Interactions between endogenous and exogenous attention during vigilance. Atten Percept Psychophys. 2009;71(5):1042-58. https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.71.5.1042 PMID: 19525536

52. Martínez-Pérez V, Andreu A, Sandoval-Lentisco A, Tortajada M, Palmero LB, Castillo A, et al. Vigilance decrement and mind-wandering in sustained attention tasks: Two sides of the same coin? Front Neurosci. 2023;17:1122406. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2023.1122406 PMID: 37056308

53. Walker HEK, Trick LM. Mind-wandering while driving: The impact of fatigue, task length, and sustained attention abilities. Trans Res F Traffic Psychol Behav. 2018;59:81-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.08.009

54. MacCoon DG, MacLean KA, Davidson RJ, Saron CD, Lutz A. No sustained attention differences in a longitudinal randomized trial comparing mindfulness based stress reduction versus active control. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e97551. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097551 PMID: 24955584
55. Schwid SR, Tyler CM, Scheid EA, Weinstein A, Goodman AD, McDermott MP. Cognitive fatigue during a test requiring sustained attention: a pilot study. Mult Scler. 2003;9(5):503-8. https://doi.org/10.1191/1352458503ms946oa PMID: 14582777

56. Hopstaken JF, van der Linden D, Bakker AB, Kompier MAJ. A multifaceted investigation of the link between mental fatigue and task disengagement. Psychophysiology. 2015;52(3):305-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12339 PMID: 25263028

57. Gergelyfi M, Jacob B, Olivier E, Zénon A. Dissociation between mental fatigue and motivational state during prolonged mental activity. Front Behav Neurosci. 2015;9:176. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00176 PMID: 26217203

58. Mitchell DC, Knight CA, Hockenberry J, Teplansky R, Hartman TJ. Beverage caffeine intakes in the U.S. Food Chem Toxicol. 2014;63:136-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2013.10.042 PMID: 24189158

59. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x PMID: 15817019

60. Borland E, Nägga K, Nilsson PM, Minthon L, Nilsson ED, Palmqvist S. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment: Normative Data from a Large Swedish Population-Based Cohort. J Alzheimers Dis. 2017;59(3):893-901. https://doi.org/10.3233/JAD-170203 PMID: 28697562

61. Ong R, Yap CW, Ge L. Regression-based normative scores for the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in an Asian population. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):17895. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-03167-5 PMID: 40410439

62. Ryan RM, Mims V, Koestner R. Relation of reward contingency and interpersonal context to intrinsic motivation: A review and test using cognitive evaluation theory. J Personal Social Psychol. 1983;45(4):736-50. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.736

63. Peirce J, Gray JR, Simpson S, MacAskill M, Höchenberger R, Sogo H, et al. PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behav Res Methods. 2019;51(1):195-203. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y PMID: 30734206

64. Cagna CJ, Bhanji JP, Smith D, Delgado MR, Tricomi E. Decisions to seek cognitive performance feedback: Potential determinants of feedback value and consequences for learning. Learn Motiv. 2024;88:102051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2024.102051

65. Monteiro V, Mata L, Peixoto F. Intrinsic Motivation Inventory: Psychometric Properties in the Context of First Language and Mathematics Learning. Psicol Reflex Crit. 2015;28(3):434-43. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-7153.201528302

66. Smets EM, Garssen B, Bonke B, De Haes JC. The Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) psychometric qualities of an instrument to assess fatigue. J Psychosom Res. 1995;39(3):315-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(94)00125-o PMID: 7636775

67. Lin J-MS, Brimmer DJ, Maloney EM, Nyarko E, Belue R, Reeves WC. Further validation of the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory in a US adult population sample. Popul Health Metr. 2009;7:18. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-7954-7-18 PMID: 20003524

68. Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, Chang W, McGowan L, François R, et al. Welcome to the Tidyverse. J Open Source Softw. 2019;4(43):1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686

69. Revelle W. psych: Procedures for Psychological, Psychometric, and Personality Research. 2025. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/psych/index.html

70. Makowski D. The psycho Package: an Efficient and Publishing-Oriented Workflow for Psychological Science. J Open Source Softw. 2018;3(22):470. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00470

71. Morey RD, Rouder JN, Jamil T, Urbanek S, Forner K, Ly A. BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes Factors for Common Designs. 2024. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/BayesFactor/index.html

72. Kothe DN. (bookdown translation: E. Learning statistics with R: A tutorial for psychology students and other beginners. (Version 0.6.1). Available from: https://learningstatisticswithr.com/book/

73. Lawrence MA. Ez: Easy analysis and visualization of factorial experiments. 2016. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ez/index.html

74. Kassambara A. Ggpubr: "ggplot2" based publication ready plots. 2023. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ggpubr/index.html

75. Garnier S, Ross N, Rudis B, Sciaini M, Camargo AP, Scherer C. Viridis: Colorblind-friendly color maps for r. 2023. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/viridis/index.html

76. Urbanek S, Horner J. Cairo: R graphics device using cairo graphics library for creating high-quality bitmap (PNG, JPEG, TIFF), vector (PDF, SVG, PostScript) and display (X11 and Win32) output. 2023. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/Cairo/index.html

77. Hawkins GE, Mittner M, Forstmann BU, Heathcote A. Modeling distracted performance. Cogn Psychol. 2019;112:48-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsychol.2019.05.002 PMID: 31129426

78. Vankov II. The hazards of dealing with response time outliers. Front Psychol. 2023;14:1220281. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1220281 PMID: 37691812

79. Bedi A, Russell PN, Helton WS. Perceptual decoupling in the sustained attention to response task is unlikely. Exp Brain Res. 2024;242(8):2033-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-024-06885-w PMID: 38958722

80. Stanislaw H, Todorov N. Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 1999;31(1):137-49. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03207704 PMID: 10495845

81. Hautus MJ. Corrections for extreme proportions and their biasing effects on estimated values ofd'. Behav Res Method Ins Comput. 1995;27(1):46-51. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03203619
82. Keysers C, Gazzola V, Wagenmakers E-J. Using Bayes factor hypothesis testing in neuroscience to establish evidence of absence. Nat Neurosci. 2020;23(7):788-99. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-020-0660-4 PMID: 32601411

83. Stefan AM, Gronau QF, Schönbrodt FD, Wagenmakers E-J. A tutorial on Bayes Factor Design Analysis using an informed prior. Behav Res Methods. 2019;51(3):1042-58. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01189-8 PMID: 30719688

84. McHugh ML. The chi-square test of independence. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2013;23(2):143-9. https://doi.org/10.11613/bm.2013.018 PMID: 23894860

85. Staub B, Doignon-Camus N, Bacon E, Bonnefond A. Investigating sustained attention ability in the elderly by using two different approaches: inhibiting ongoing behavior versus responding on rare occasions. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2014;146:51-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.act-psy.2013.12.003 PMID: 24378237

86. Bourisly AK, Shuaib A. Neurophysiological Effects of Aging: A P200 ERP Study. Transl Neurosci. 2018;9:61-6. https://doi.org/10.1515/tnsci-2018-0011 PMID: 29967690

87. Vallesi A. Dual-task costs in aging are predicted by formal education. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2016;28(5):959-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-015-0385-5 PMID: 26006256

88. DeRight J, Jorgensen RS. I just want my research credit: frequency of suboptimal effort in a non-clinical healthy undergraduate sample. Clin Neuropsychol. 2015;29(1):101-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2014.989267 PMID: 25494327

89. Dunn TL, Inzlicht M, Risko EF. Anticipating cognitive effort: roles of perceived error-likelihood and time demands. Psychol Res. 2019;83(5):1033-56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0943-x PMID: 29134281

90. Gray WD, Sims CR, Fu W-T, Schoelles MJ. The soft constraints hypothesis: a rational analysis approach to resource allocation for interactive behavior. Psychol Rev. 2006;113(3):461-82. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.3.461 PMID: 16802878

91. Shenhav A, Musslick S, Lieder F, Kool W, Griffiths TL, Cohen JD, et al. Toward a Rational and Mechanistic Account of Mental Effort. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2017;40:99-124. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-072116-031526 PMID: 28375769

92. Milyavskaya M, Galla BM, Inzlicht M, Duckworth AL. More Effort, Less Fatigue: The Role of Interest in Increasing Effort and Reducing Mental Fatigue. Front Psychol. 2021;12:755858. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.755858 PMID: 34867652

93. Kylén M, Slaug B, Jonsson O, Iwarsson S, Schmidt SM. User involvement in ageing and health research: a survey of researchers' and older adults' perspectives. Health Res Policy Syst. 2022;20(1):93. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-022-00894-3 PMID: 36050697

94. Barber SJ. An Examination of Age-Based Stereotype Threat About Cognitive Decline: Implications for stereotype threat research and theory development. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2017;12(1):62-90. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616656345 PMID: 28073332

95. Carstensen LL. Motivation for social contact across the life span: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. In: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1992: Developmental perspectives on motivation. Lincoln, NE, US: University of Nebraska Press; 1993. p. 209-54.

96. Wirth M, Mikkelsen M, Charles S. Recent advances in assessing age differences in affect dynamics. Innov Aging. 2023;7(Supplement_1):293-4. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igad104.0979

97. Harris MA, Wiener JM, Wolbers T. Aging specifically impairs switching to an allocentric navigational strategy. Front Aging Neurosci. 2012;4:29. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnagi.2012.00029 PMID: 23125833

98. Hjortskov M, Jacobsen CB, Kjeldsen AM. Choir of believers? Experimental and longitudinal evidence on survey participation, response bias, and public service motivation. Int Public Manag J. 2023;26(2):281-304. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2023.2166635

99. Turner C, Baylan S, Bracco M, Cruz G, Hanzal S, Keime M, et al. Developmental changes in individual alpha frequency: Recording EEG data during public engagement events. Imaging Neurosci (Camb). 2023;1:1-14. https://doi.org/10.1162/imag_a_00001 PMID: 37719836

100. Soule MC, Beale EE, Suarez L, Beach SR, Mastromauro CA, Celano CM, et al. Understanding motivations to participate in an observational research study: Why do patients enroll? Soc Work Health Care. 2016;55(3):231-46. https://doi.org/10.1080/00981389.2015.1114064 PMID: 26933943

101. Brosnan MB, Dockree PM, Harty S, Pearce DJ, Levenstein JM, Gillebert CR, et al. Lost in Time: Temporal Monitoring Elicits Clinical Decreaments in Sustained Attention Post-Stroke. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2022;28(3):249-57. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617721000242 PMID: 33745486

102. Smit AS, Eling PATM, Coenen AML. Mental effort affects vigilance enduringly: after-effects in EEG and behavior. Int J Psychophysiol. 2004;53(3):239-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2004.04.005 PMID: 15246677

103. Ackerman PL, Kanfer R. Test length and cognitive fatigue: an empirical examination of effects on performance and test-taker reactions. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2009;15(2):163-81. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015719 PMID: 19586255

104. Ackerman PL, Kanfer R, Shapiro SW, Newton S, Beier ME. Cognitive Fatigue During Testing: An Examination of Trait, Time-on-Task, and Strategy Influences. Human Performance. 2010;23(5):381-402. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2010.517720

105. Dobryakova E, DeLuca J, Genova HM, Wylie GR. Neural correlates of cognitive fatigue: cortico-striatal circuitry and effort-reward imbalance. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2013;19(8):849-53. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617713000684 PMID: 23842042

106. Nakagawa S, Sugiura M, Akitsuki Y, Hosseini SMH, Kotozaki Y, Miyauchi CM, et al. Compensatory effort parallels midbrain deactivation during mental fatigue: an fMRI study. PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e56606. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056606 PMID: 23457592

107. Nieznański M, Gasiul H, Strus W, Obidziński M, Kobos Z, Rowiński T. Relationship between self-reported symptoms of fatigue and cognitive performance: switch cost as a sensitive indicator of fatigue. Psihologijske teme. 2020;29:199-228. https://doi.org/10.31820/pt.29.2.1
108. DiMenichi BC, Tricomi E. The power of competition: Effects of social motivation on attention, sustained physical effort, and learning. Front Psychol. 2015;6:1282. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01282 PMID: 26388801

109. Boksem MAS, Tops M. Mental fatigue: costs and benefits. Brain Res Rev. 2008;59(1):125-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresrev.2008.07.001 PMID: 18652844

110. Boehler CN, Hopf J-M, Stoppel CM, Krebs RM. Motivating inhibition - reward prospect speeds up response cancellation. Cognition. 2012;125(3):498-503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.07.018 PMID: 22921189

111. Arnau S, Möckel T, Rinkenauer G, Wascher E. The interconnection of mental fatigue and aging: An EEG study. Int J Psychophysiol. 2017;117:17-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2017.04.003 PMID: 28400244

112. Schunk DH, DiBenedetto MK. Self-efficacy and human motivation. In: Advances in motivation science. San Diego, CA, US: Elsevier Academic Press; 2021. p. 153-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2020.10.001