title: Friendly Fire and the Sustained Attention to Response Task.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  We investigated whether losses of inhibitory control could be responsible for some friendly-fire incidents.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  Several factors are commonly cited to explain friendly-fire incidents, but failure of inhibitory control has not yet been explored. The Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) could be a valid model for inhibition failures in some combat scenarios.
  
  
  METHODS
  Participants completed small-arms simulations using near infrared emitter guns, confronting research assistants acting as friends or foes. In Experiment 1, seven participants completed three conditions with three different proportions of foes (high, medium, low). In Experiment 2, 13 participants completed high-foe (high-go) and low-foe (low-go) versions of a small-arms simulation as well as comparative computer tasks.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Participants made more friendly-fire errors (errors of commission) when foe proportion was high. A speed-accuracy trade-off was apparent, with participants who were faster to fire on foes also more likely to accidentally shoot friends. When foe proportion was higher, response times to foe stimuli were faster, and subjective workload ratings were higher.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Failures of inhibitory control may be responsible for some friendly-fire incidents and the SART could be a suitable empirical model for some battlefield environments. The effect appears to be disproportionately greater at higher foe proportions. The exact nature of performance reductions associated with high-foe proportions requires further investigation.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The SART may be a useful model of friendly-fire scenarios. It could be used to indicate a soldier's likelihood to commit a friendly-fire mistake and to identify high-risk environments.
authors.affiliation: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand kyle.wilson@pg.canterbury.ac.nz.
authors.forename: Kyle M
authors.initials: KM
authors.lastname: Wilson
authors.affiliation: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
authors.forename: James
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Head
authors.affiliation: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
authors.forename: Neil R
authors.initials: NR
authors.lastname: de Joux
authors.affiliation: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
authors.forename: Kristin M
authors.initials: KM
authors.lastname: Finkbeiner
authors.affiliation: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
authors.forename: William S
authors.initials: WS
authors.lastname: Helton
mesh_terms: D000056:Accident Prevention; D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D001288:Attention / Q000502:physiology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007266:Inhibition, Psychological; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D008889:Military Personnel; D011597:Psychomotor Performance / Q000502:physiology*; D011930:Reaction Time / Q000502:physiology*; D055815:Young Adult
keywords: attention; blue on blue; fratricide; military; motor decoupling; response inhibition; speed–accuracy trade-off