Talk:Directed attention fatigue

some
some references from a quick search:
 * http://eab.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/33/4/480
 * http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/9293/Jul19_93/15.htm
 * http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr01/greengood.html
 * http://itdl.org/Journal/Apr_04/article07.htm
 * http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/supportivecare/fatigue/HealthProfessional/page3/print

66.93.0.185 18:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverse infringement
This article was properly tagged for resemblance to in November 2009. Investigation, however, suggests that the infringement is reversed. The oldest archive of that source dates to December 2007:. This article began substantially difference in 2005,, and gradually evolved to this form in November 2007. The most significant textual change in that time occurred in April 2006, but note, too, the addition of text in February 2007 which is also present in that external source. The combined evidence of archival date and natural evolution suggests the copyright of the material belongs to Wikipedia's contributors. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Fast comments for further improvement

 * I have fixed titles of the article: See my reasons here: Titles should not be bolded and should not be redundant with article title. Additionally the first section was unneeded: the lead does not need its own section. I also added the section "references" (They were there but with no section)
 * Use of titles and credentials are discouraged: there is no need to say "Drs X", better simply X, or even eliminate the name if it is not well known.
 * There should not be a space after each section and before the beginning of the next one.
 * More internal links would be a good idea.

I will come back as I have time. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have made comments for the whole class in User talk:NeuroJoe/BI481 Spring 2011. Take a look at them since some of them are appropiate for this article. For example: inline citations in wikipedia go after and not before the full stop of the sentence, there is no space between the full stop and the ref, and after the ref goes a space before the next sentence. A correct example would be "Hello world, I feel great today.[1] Today is sunny."


 * Additionally a conclusion section is great for an essay, but not really suitable for an encyclopedia. It would better be integrated in article or eliminated.


 * Similarly: section "further reading" is quite extensive. With the quantity and quality of references in the article seems a bit redundant. Readings would be better integrated in article as sources, eliminated, or moved to the talk page of the article.

More to come. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your suggestions and corrections! As suggested, we eliminated the Further Reading and Conclusion sections. If you have any other advice concerning the content of the article please let us know! Keaneybr (talk) 20:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

General Comments
This article is definitely an intriguing one due to the fact that this is something that afflicts most people on a day-to-day basis. As has been mentioned on many other pages, citation should only occur once. Also, at times, the English seemed a bit confusing and filled with grammatical and spelling errors. When these are fixed, the article will definitely read much better. I would also recommend explaining the roles that each anatomical portion of the brain play with respect to DAF. Such information would much better explain the pathophysiology of this phenomenon, and would give more insight into greater areas of research. With respect to hyperlinking your article with other Wikipedia articles, I definitely think there needs to be a lot more of that. In the research portion of the article, as mentioned above, there needs to be no real mention of the researchers involved (with the exception of the couple you hyperlinked). This only serves to take up space that can be devoted to explaining the research in greater detail. Citations are perfectly adequate to give credit to authors. The explanation of stress vs. mental fatigue is a great one, and definitely adds to the quality of the article. It would also be interesting to see the role that DAF plays in diseases and syndromes (I'm thinking ADD, schizophrenia, etc.), and whether it is a symptom of any. This might yield to greater discoveries in terms of treatment of the phenomenon if it becomes very serious. Also, try to condense the opening into one paragraph. Hopefully, these suggestions help. Looks like this will be an excellent article. AlexGoldy (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

We have corrected the problem of repeat citation and have made some grammar adjustments to help the article flow a bit better. We have also compressed the introduction section to a single paragraph and adjusted research section to focus more on the content of experimentation and less on the experimenters themselves. While we are continuing to research the specific pathology of the brain circuitry of DAF, there is a limited source of information on this topic and the specific biological mechanisms of DAF are unpublished as far as we have been able to tell thus far. Thanks for your suggestions! Keaneybr (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This topic is one that strikes close to many people nowadays and caught my interest when looking through the topics this class was working on. I just had a few comments on how you may improve certain areas because otherwise I think you guys did a good job. First of all, your wording is confusing in multiple areas of the stub. An example of this is how you guys opened up on the topic. I found myself re-reading the first couple of lines multiple times before grasping what you were trying to get across. You also had a few grammar mistakes including this one in your stress section - "Involuntary attention refers to attention that requires to effort at all." Outside of those mistakes I think you would strengthen this stub if you could explain how our brain is able to inhibit or suppress incoming stimuli. Is it through inhibitory neurotransmitters, and, if so, which are the primary ones. Also, which part of the brain is responsible for inhibiting the stimulus from different activities. For example, does the same part of the brain inhibit irrelevant information when trying to solve a puzzle and when trying to solve a math problem or are two different parts involved. Lastly, I was wondering if medicines that help people with ADHD with concentration could also reduced the occurrence of DAF. In conclusion I think you are in good shape and I like how you tied in the concept of stress with this temporary symptom. Lakkisi (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

We have tried to more clearly word the introduction, as suggested. We have also addressed the grammar mistake that was pointed out. Although we would like to include more specific information regarding the particular neurotransmitters involved in the process of DAF or possible medication treatments, no such research has been conducted as far as we can tell. Such information would certainly strengthen the stub should we find it though. Keaneybr (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It’s good to see that this is on its way to becoming a well-written article. Most of my comments are regarding the content of the page. First off, in the section entitled “Anatomy”, you mention that the inferior frontal cortex (IFC) plays an important role in the integration of bottom-up response-related information to facilitate goal-direct behavior. Maybe you could add a hyperlinks that describe what you mean by “bottom-up related information” and “goal directed behavior”, or maybe you could just briefly explain in a sentence what each one means. It’s important to explain small details such as these in order to fully explain how Directed Attention Fatigue affects people’s cognitive functioning. You also made it very clear that DAF is a result of malfunctioning of the brain’s inhibitory functioning, however, you don’t mention what parts of the brain’s inhibition are affected. Does it involve specific neurotransmitters, inhibition pathways, or both? Maybe tie this information back to the Inhibition theory, which you mentioned at the very beginning of the article. Lastly, in your section entitled “Reduction of Symptoms”, you could possibly tie in some research about clinical drugs that are currently being developed/studied to treat DAF symptoms, seeing as you already focused a lot on the different cognitive and behavioral treatments. As far as grammar is concerned, some of your sentences are a little wordy and can be broken up for simplification. One example of this is in the “symptoms” section where your say, “It is interesting that although the fatigue in these experiments was induced by a task that made heavy demands on attention, many of the effects are not specifically attentional but are expressions of generalized decline in inhibitory control”. So far it looks like a great start. Keep up the good work. Kevin Pádraic (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for the comments. They are very helpful in improving our stub. As suggested, hyperlinks to explain "bottom-up related information" and "goal directed behavior" have been added in. As stated in previous responses, we have been unable to find information explaining which inhibitory neurotransmitters are involved in DAF and have minimal information regarding the specific physiology of DAF. We will continue to search for answers to these questions, and will update our stub should such information become available to us. Keaneybr (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Good work on the article, it is very well written and thorough. In the introduction, are there any more terms which can be linked? Also, the section stress vs. mental fatigue was very interesting, but I found some of the wording to be choppy. For example, the sentence "Characteristic of mental fatigue is difficulty of focusing" didn't seem to fit well, but this is just a stylistic comment (the content was good). In the anatomy section, you mention that several parts of the brain are involved and you give general locations but not the specifc parts. Are they known? If so, I would look into including them in that section otherwise it would be good to mention that they are unknown. Although this issue is one of preference, it may be better to list the symptoms (at the bottom of the paragraph) first and then delve into the symptoms that were brought about in the study. Again, this is just my opinion but is something you may want to look in to. I thought that the intro paragraph in the research section was helpful and the breakdown of each researcher was well written. Good job on the article! Orourkcd (talk) 04:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

We have increased the number of links present throughout the stub and have corrected some of the wording issues that were pointed out to us. While we appreciate the suggestion made regarding the Symptoms section, we feel as though it would be better to leave the structure of this section as is, and give a generalized description before delving into the 6 categories of symptoms. Because many responses have pointed out the lack of specificity in the anatomy section, it may be helpful to specifically state in the article that there is a lack of such information available as you suggested. Keaneybr (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This is certainly an article that will get a lot of views due to how interesting it is and how the symptoms pertain to many people. It looks to be well written and very understandable to someone unfamiliar with neuroscience vernacular. What can be most improved upon is a more scientific approach. What happens to the inhibitory attention mechanisms when they are overused? You touched on it a bit in the introductory paragraph but I was looking for it to be expanded upon later in the article, perhaps in the symptoms section. Could you expand on how the IFC plays a role in response inhibition? I think something interesting that you might want to look into for your reduction of symptoms section, are medicinal aids. What kind of drugs have been used to prevent this. Possibly Aderol or Ritalin? That section could really be expanded upon. You've got some great ideas in it but as you find more information, you could turn them into subsections. For example, you could make aesthetic environment a subsection and elaborate a little more on how that works. As far as format goes, I would suggest calling the reduction of symptoms section, therapy or treatment. Good job thus far! Boothra (talk)

As we stated in other responses, the specific inhibitory mechanisms of the brain involved in DAF are not yet known, and in order to clarify this we have explicitly stated that in the anatomy section. There is also a lack of information presently regarding any drug therapies that may aid in reducing DAF symptoms. While we appreciate the suggestion to add a subheading for aesthetic environment and its role in DAF, we think that this topic is better included in the stub as is. Should we find any more information to help expand this topic, we would consider creating this subheading and adding more detailed information. Keaneybr (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The article seems to be to a good start but the main problem I see is a lack of detail in a few of the sections. This topic seems to be especially relevant today so I feel like it should be easy to find more information to fill up the article. In the “Anatomy” section you briefly mention that the brain has inhibitory mechanisms and that several parts of the brain are involved in directing attention. You should describe how these mechanisms actually function and maybe include what changes the brain undergoes when inhibiting certain external stimuli and while maintaining directed attention. In regards to the last sentence of that section, “Various experiment results are consistent with the hypothesis that this region plays a key role in the integration of bottom-up response-related information to facilitate goal-directed behavior,” perhaps you could give an example of a couple of the experiments performed and what results led to their conclusions. In the “Symptoms” section you could also describe some of the biological mechanisms that are involved in inhibitory control and how DAF affects them. Oconneia (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for your suggestions. We have addressed the last sentence in the Anatomy section that was mentioned here and have included links to bottom-up processing and goal-directed behavior to clarify our meaning to the reader. We have also specifically stated in the Symptoms section that biological mechanisms involved in DAF are not yet known. Keaneybr (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Great work on the article, it's off to a great start and I don't have anything too critical to say in terms of edits. The article overall is well-written, but another read-through for syntax and grammar would be useful. Again, this is nothing too major, it's just to help maintain the article's flow. Also, it was mentioned that DAF was not a clinical illness but the page has a symptoms heading. This led to some confusion on my part, so some clarification or name change might be helpful. Also, the anatomy seemed to be glossed over and there was no real explanation of DAF's mechanisms. Micahsy (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

We have adjusted the article for grammar and syntax, as suggested, to ensure that the article is easy to read and understand. Though DAF is not a clinical illness, it is a form of fatigue and consequently does have symptoms. We feel that the heading "Symptoms" is more appropriate than something like "Characteristics" and so this has been left unchanged. While we would have liked to include more information regarding the anatomy of the DAF mechanisms, such information is unavailable currently. Keaneybr (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is a very interesting read. I found it very informative in its relation to everyday activity. My main critique would be to check over the article for grammar and punctuation errors. There are a few other things that struck out to me though. At times the writing seemed a bit informal. Saying things like "reveal how unpleasant a person is" sounds slightly subjective, so it may be better to use objectively qualitative descripitions. I also found the whole inhibitory process and its ties to DAF very interesting. I would like to see a little more depth into that aspect of the article mainly in regards to the molecular processes or neural pathways that are involved, if that information is available on the subject. I found the research section to be very interesting. It did seem though, that most of the researches came to very similar conclusions with DAF. In my opinion the section would appear more concise and less repetitive if the main consensus of the researchers was stated and then afterward show the details/tangents that the different researchers went with. And since it would be shorter a little more detail would be more interesting... Otherwise very impressive! (Amichael22 (talk) 04:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC))

Grammar and punctuation errors have been corrected. While we agree that the term "unpleasant" is somewhat subjective, it seems to be the best way to convey that when a person experiences DAF they exhibit several negative qualities. Hopefully our extensive description of the specific symptoms in each of the 6 categories help convey an accurate, objective description of the DAF experience. As mentioned in other responses, the specific molecular processes and neural pathways involved in DAF have not yet been discovered, and so this information could not be included on the article page. The research section has also been edited to more clearly summarize the findings of each experimentor. Keaneybr (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Certainly a very interesting and relevant article, so I’m sure it will get many views both from members of the science and non-science community, and you all certainly anticipated this since you used commonly used, relatively easy-to-understand language. I like that you distinguish between stress and mental fatigue, as this is a very fine line and could easily lead to confusion on behalf of the reader. I think a picture or two in the Anatomy section of the inhibitory mechanisms and/or the sections of the brain that are activated when we are focusing our attention would definitely be helpful if you can find them. There is certainly a decrease in usage of links as the article goes on; for example, there isn’t a single linkage in the symptoms section, and while some of the symptom descriptions seem straightforward, others aren’t, such as “metacognition”, which there is a Wikipedia page for. In the reduction of symptoms section, it seems as though the name “Kaplan” is just thrown in there, so if Kaplan is to be mentioned, I think his/her significance to the topic would be fortified by expanding a little bit more on his/her theory on different levels of restorative experience. The research section is very thorough, very relevant and well done, so nice job on that. On a quick review of the references section, I noticed that some of them are doubles, so try to avoid double referencing. Nice work guys; editing with the help of these suggestions will definitely put this article well on its way to becoming a great one! Danika paulo (talk) 23:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. The linking to metacognition has been added in and the double referencing has been eliminated. The mention of Kaplan is now also restricted to the research section. Keaneybr (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

End of Boston College BI481 Project
Hi Bridget, Young and Debra, nice job with this topic, it's in much better shape than before. A few issues that remain:
 * The "Onset" section should have a reference or two for the information you present there.
 * In the "Treatment" section where you say "inhibitory attention chemicals are replenished", you should go into a bit more technical detail than that. It's not exactly clear what those chemicals are. NeuroJoe (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Review
I have compared this version of the page,, from before the start of the project, with this version, , after.

Scale from 1 to 5 1 = most negative 5 = most positive

1. Is the prose clear and concise? 4: Mostly yes, but sometimes appears digressive. More on this below. However, I think there could be a better title than "Research" for the last section.

2. Does the article comply with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, and list incorporation? 3: Problems: Too many words capitalized unnecessarily (directed attention fatigue and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, for example should only be capitalized when the first word is at the start of a sentence, and mental fatigue should not be capitalized in the section header); there should not be spaces before the inline citations.

3. Is the article properly and adequately referenced? 4: The "Onset" section in unreferenced. Otherwise, good sources have been added.

4. Are in-line citations provided in accordance with Scientific citation guidelines? 5

5. Does the article address the main aspects of the topic? 5

6. Does the article stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail? 1: This is what I was referring to when I mentioned digression above. Wikipedia has guidelines about not being an essay and not being an instruction manual. Consequently we discourage writing in the form of telling the reader what to do. This article is full of statements like "It is important to note" and the "Treatment" section is written in terms of what the reader should do, instead of how health care providers usually treat it.

7. Does the article represent viewpoints fairly and without bias? 4: It appears to do so mostly, although the issue noted immediately above makes the page sound as though it could push a biased view.

8. Is the article illustrated by images that are relevant and are tagged with their proper status? 1: There are no illustrations.

Overall, I think the authors have added a good amount of research to the article, but could have been more careful about how they wrote it up. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"Citation needed" for temporary state?
There is a "Citation needed" tag on the instances in the article of claiming DAF is a temporary state. While the sources in the article don't seem to explicitly say it is temporary and not permanent, it is so implied and obvious I want to remove these s. Do I need a source to say that it returns to normal on its own after some time in order to show this? As of now we have sources saying it can be restored with nature exposure for example, but nothing outright saying it resolves on its own. Kimen8 (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)