Attention is the ability to focus on particular environmental features (Cardwell, 1996). Attention improves thinking procedures, through the process of concentration.

The effort involved in maintaining concentration can be incredibly tiring (McNay, McCarty, & Gold, 2001). There is a restricted supply of attention at our disposal i. e. we cannot tune in to all factors demanding attentiveness simultaneously. Sustained attention in responding to a task is especially tiring.

Boredom sets in after a very short time.It would be beneficial to investigate sustained attention given that accidents are frequently blamed on absent- minded errors (Bernstein, Penner, Clarke & Roy, 2003) or a failure to maintain sustained attention. The individual who accidentally puts the fabric conditioner in the fridge instead of the cupboard and the experienced aircraft pilot who inadvertently closes down all engines instead of the one that is on fire are both individuals who are undergoing absent-minded errors.However, one results in a minor inconvenience and the other possibly a catastrophic disaster. Nevertheless, the same process is affecting both cases of attention slips (Reason, 1984).

Freud (1901) believed absentminded errors were evidence of a mental disorder. Reason (1984) considers both minor and catastrophic errors to be simply human shortcomings. This study supports the idea that slips of attention are universally experienced and consequently is not a type of mental disorder; rather they are part of what makes us imperfectly human.However, although it is human to slip up the seriousness of absentminded errors places a duty on the shoulders of researchers to investigate in what instances they occur most frequently and to what extent they can be controlled or reduced. Understanding why they happen and in what situations they are most likely to occur may lead to the implementation of new strategies to address these areas. The seriousness of absentminded slips is evident in the knock on effect an error has on other individuals.

For example a British Airways Boeing 747 narrowly escaped disaster after both pilots accepted an incorrect clearance height which experience told them was too close to the ground. The pilots overlooked a very small but critical change in well-known circumstances, which could have been disastrous (Reason & Mycielska, 1982). Absent-mindedly they accepted erroneous information from the aircraft controller when the mistake could have been caught early.A similar lapse of attention (the train driver failed to spot a red light) in 1999 resulted in 31 deaths when the First Great Western express heading for London's Paddington station collided with a Thames Train service (see BBC News online, 2000). Train driving is a monotonous task that involves unforeseen quick decision making, yet it is a job that involves repeating the same task over and over, creating monotony and a degree of working on auto pilot.

The fact that drivers missing red lights are a common occurrence suggests the need for an intervention to prevent lapses in attention.This might be in the form of designing equipment or developing effective cues to reduce the likelihood of errors (Reason, 1990). Robertson, Manly, Andrade, Baddeley and Yiend (1997) believe such lapses in attention involve a lack of focus, resulting in the unintentional triggering of an inappropriate action sequence. Action sequences are the result of frequent repetitions of a task that come to achieve a measure of automaticity (Reason, 1984).

Slips of attention are more likely when focus is affected by boredom (as in train driving) (Robertson et al, 1997).When individuals are under time pressures or are feeling below par errors are most likely to happen (Reason (1984). There are obvious safety implications in the realm of ensuring monotonous tasks are either performed in short stints or have attention sustaining interventions. Time pressures (i. e.

keeping to a tight schedule) need careful consideration as Broadbent shows that increased stress can increase the levels of cognitive failures and subsequently increase erroneous responses (Broadbent, Cooper, Fitzgerald ; Parkes, 1982)In order to investigate lapses in attention during a sustained boring attention task Robertson et al (1997) formulated The Sustained Attention to Response Task. The task involves a computer generated single occasional target presenting alongside frequent non - targets. Participants are required to respond to the non-targets and inhibit their response to the target. This task requires constant sustained attention to ensure that the correct non-response is selected for the target.

Additionally the task is designed to be very boring. Robertson et al (1997) analysed the reaction times for each set of four correct presses, preceding the correct withholding response to the target with the reaction times of four correct presses preceding an erroneously pressed target. They found that everyone displayed faster reaction times before an error in the low probability condition i. e. infrequent non-targets, while reaction time after an error was slower.

They found that in the high probability condition there was less of a tendency to go into autopilot as the frequent presentation of a non-target supported the participants' ability to maintain attention. Robertson et al (1997) investigated and found a significant correlation with SART performance and the Cognitive Failures Questionnaire, which is a 25-item measure of self-reported daily errors (Broadbent, Cooper, Fitzgerald & Parkes, 1982). Respondents indicate on a five-point scale if they have ever experienced a specified cognitive failure.Robertson et al (1997) found that a significant number of respondents who scored high on the CFQ, indicating a high rate of cognitive failures, were also both quicker in response to non targets before an error in SART and did not slow down as much after an error (see Manly et al, 1999). Both measures correlate highly thus giving credence to their reliability and validity in measuring lapses of attention.

Arthur, Barrett & Alexander (1991) provide evidence to suggest that high scores on the CFQ are related to the occurrence of accidents.This is of particular interest in the light of the safety implication of absentminded errors. It must be noted that Larson, Alderton, Neideffer & Underhill (1997) have pointed out that the accident and CFQ scores are self-report measures, which are open to participant hindsight evaluations. Despite this criticism, the CFQ is still regarded as a valid and reliable measure of cognitive failures (Manly, Robertson, Galloway & Hawkins, 1999.

It is interesting to note that Martin and Jones (1984) believed that stress induced mild psychiatric symptoms are associated with cognitive failures.Hence reducing stress in high-risk occupations (i. e. occupations in which lapses in attention could be catastrophic), which are by definition stressful because of their important safety role, must be imperative. The intention of this study is to replicate the findings of Robertson et al, 1997 to investigate whether attention slips are preceded by faster reaction times before an error and slower reaction times after an error with high Cognitive Failures Questionnaires scores acting as forecaster of SART errors of erroneously pressing a the number three.