You are required to produce an APA formatted report outlining the Attention Network Test (ANT) experiment reported by Fan et al. (2002).
- You can complete the ANT online via
http://expfactory.org/experiments/attention_network_task/preview
During the timetabled workshop and seminar sessions, you will be provided further details about the coursework, including the report structure (i.e., what is required in each section).
| You will be required to submit ONE report with the following headings and sub-sections: Section Sub-section Suggested word length Scientific Abstract 200-words Lay Summary 200-words Introduction 550-words Method Design 200-words Participants Materials Procedure Data Analysis Results Descriptive Statistics 200-words Inferential Statistics Discussion 550-words References NA Appendices (if relevant) NA Word limit 1,500-words maximum, with no 10% leeway. You must state the word count at the end of the report. The word limit includes sub-headings, in-text citations, figures, and tables, but excludes the scientific abstract, lay summary, reference list, and appendices (if relevant). For accessibility, use font size 12, line spacing of 1.5 or 2, and either Arial or Calibri font. Referencing style Reports should use APA 7th edition referencing both within the body of the report and in the reference list.Common Reference Examples Guide https://apastyle.apa.org/instructional-aids/reference-examples.pdf Reference Quick Guide https://apastyle.apa.org/instructional-aids/reference-guide.pdf |
| Submission Please submit your completed coursework via the Turnitin portal in the Assessment Information, Submission & Feedback block on Learn. A submission template is provided below, which you might like to use. The marking criteria has also been provided. You do not need to upload this with your submission. You should not provide your name or student number within the submitted document or file name to enable anonymous marking. As such, there is no naming convention for the document you submit. Any questions should be directed to the Module Leader through the dedicated Assessment Q&A forum on Learn. |
| Key Reading American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th edition). American Psychological Association. https://vufind.lboro.ac.uk/Record/559074 Fan, J., Bruce D. McCandliss, B. D., Sommer, T., Raz, A., & Posner, M. I. (2002). Testing the Efficiency and Independence of attentional networks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(3), 340-347. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892902317361886 Additional Reading Adólfsdóttir, S., Sørensen, L., & Lundervold, A. J. (2008). The attention network test: a characteristic pattern of deficits in children with ADHD. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 4(9), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1744-9081-4-9Hua, P., Fanb, J., Xuc, P., Zhoua, S., Zhangd, L., Tiana, Y., & Wanga, K. (2013). Attention network impairments in patients with focal frontal or parietal lesions. Neuroscience Letters, 534,177-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2012.12.038 Redick, T. S., & Engle, R. W. (2006). Working memory capacity and attention network test performance. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(5), 713-621. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1224 |
Assessment template (optional)
- 1,500-words maximum, with no 10% leeway. You must state the word count at the end of the report.
- The word limit includes sub-headings, in-text citations, figures, and tables, but excludes the scientific abstract, lay summary, reference list, and appendices (if relevant).
- For accessibility, use font size 12, line spacing of 1.5 or 2, and either Arial or Calibri font.
Title
| Testing alerting/orienting/executive attention[DM1] using the Attention Network Test |
Scientific Abstract
Lay Summary
Introduction
| Hypothesis Altering.Mean reaction time will be faster (or lower) for the double-cue condition compared to no-cue condition. Orienting. Mean reaction time will be faster (or lower) for the spatial-cue condition compared to the centre-cue condition Executive attention. Mean reaction time will be faster (or lower) for congruent flanking conditions compared to incongruent flanking conditions. [DM2] |
| Design. Participants. Materials. Procedure. Data Analysis. |
| Descriptive Statistics. Inferential statistics. |
Discussion
References
Appendices (if relevant)
Word Count:
| Element | 80% and above | 70-79% | 60-69% | 50-59% | 40-49% | Below 40% |
| Scientific Abstract | An exceptionally clear and concise overview of the study aims, methodology used, results, and discussion points. Academic language and writing style used. | A very clear and concise overview of the study aims, methodology used, results, and discussion points. Academic language and writing style used. | A clear overview of the study aims, methodology used, results, and discussion points with some minor missing details. Although an academic language and writing style used, at times, the writing can appear informal. | Some key details missing such as the study aim, methodology, or findings/results. An attempt at an academic writing style used, however, the writing can appear informal in frequent places. | Unclear description of the study aims, methodology used, results, and discussion points. Writing style and language unclear and not suitable for an academic audience. | Missing description of the study aims, methodology used, results, and/or discussion points. Language is very informal and does not follow an academic style of writing. |
| Lay Summary | An exceptionally clear summary of the study, which is written without using any technical language (i.e., aimed at someone without a scientific background). | A very clear summary of the study, which is written without using any technical language (i.e., aimed at someone without a scientific background). | A clear summary of the study, but some technical language used (i.e., not always suitable for someone without a scientific background). | Some key details missing. Technical language used throughout (i.e., unsuitable for someone without a scientific background). | Unclear description of key aspects of the study. Technical language used throughout (i.e., unsuitable for someone without a scientific background). | Missing description of key aspects of the study. Technical language used throughout (i.e., unsuitable for someone without a scientific background). |
| Introduction | Exceptional understanding. Draws upon a comprehensive literature base of both research and theory. Excellent evidence of critical thinking. Rationale and hypothesis clearly defined. | Very good understanding. Draws upon a wide literature base of research, including some theory. Very good evidence of critical thinking. Rationale and hypothesis clearly defined. | Good understanding. Draws upon a good body literature base of research (theory not included). Good evidence of critical thinking. Rationale and hypothesis appropriately defined. | Satisfactory level of understanding. Draws upon some relevant and some irrelevant literature. Limited evidence of critical thinking. Some unclarity in the rationale and hypothesis. | Basic level of understanding. Draws upon very limited evidence base or very irrelevant literature. Lack of evidence of critical thinking Lack of a clear rationale and/or hypothesis. | Little or no understanding. Evidence base not always relevant to the report. No evidence of critical thinking. No rationale and/or hypothesis defined. |
| Method | Exceptionally accurate description of methods. All procedures could be replicated. Identification of correct variables. | Very good description of methods. Procedures replicable. Identification of correct variables. | Appropriate description of the method. Procedures mostly replicable. One or two errors in reporting the independent- and/or dependent-variable, study design. | A few errors in the description of methods in terms of the study design, independent- and/or dependent-variable, participants. Procedures not fully replicable. | Basic description of the method. Lack of a clear design, including no clear independent- and/or dependent-variable. Many details missing. Procedures not replicable. | Limited description of the method. No design, independent- and/or dependent-variable included. Lack of participants or correct procedure. |
| Results | Very clear and concise quantitative results presented. Correctly reported descriptive and inferential statistics, no errors. Very clear interpretation of results presented. | Clear quantitative results presented. Correctly reported descriptive and inferential statistics, no errors. Clear interpretation of results presented. | Very descriptive and some statistical evidence missing. Some errors in reporting either the descriptive or inferential statistics. Some interpretation of results presented. | A few errors or omissions in reporting the statistics. Very descriptive and some statistical evidence missing. Some interpretation of results presented. | Very descriptive. Quantitative: Limited / incorrect descriptive and inferential statistics included. Basic interpretation of results presented. | No inferential statistics included and limited (or no) descriptive statistics included. No interpretation of results presented. |
| Discussion | Excellent concise summary of findings linked back to hypothesis and backed up by evidence. Extensive critical evaluation of the research with excellent future research discussions. Excellent conclusion. | Very good, clear summary of findings linked back to hypothesis and backed up by evidence. A large body of critical evaluation of the research with very good future research discussions. Meaningful conclusion. | Relevant summary of findings linked back to hypothesis but not always logical and/or not always backed up by evidence. Some critical evaluation of the research with future research suggested. Conclusion attempted. | Vague summary of findings presented and/or not linked to hypothesis. Points often not backed up by evidence. Very descriptive and may lack critical evaluation in some places. Conclusion not always logical / missing. | Lack of a clear summary of findings and no link to hypothesis. Points not backed up by evidence. Discussions not always relevant. No critical discussion. Conclusion may be there but not obvious or does not support findings. | A vague summary of findings with no link to hypothesis. Fails to find links to literature and no critical discussion or evaluation of the study. Omitted conclusion. |
| APA referencing | Exemplary referencing. | Excellent referencing. | Fairly accurate referencing. | Some errors in referencing. | Limited attempt at providing APA references | No references. |
[DM1]Delete where appropriate, selecting only ONE aspect of the ANT that you would like to report.
[DM2]Delete where appropriate, selecting only ONE that you have chosen to report.
[DM3]Use the data provided on Learn https://learn.lboro.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=22252§ion=3
Also refer to relevant information reported in:
Fan, J., Bruce D. McCandliss, B. D., Sommer, T., Raz, A., & Posner, M. I. (2002). Testing the Efficiency and Independence of attentional networks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(3), 340-347. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892902317361886
[DM4]Use the data provided on Learn https://learn.lboro.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=22252§ion=3
