Selective attention is practised here by marking uppercase A while ignoring every other token. Two complete lists keep length and target frequency fixed while changing distractor similarity, so hits, misses, false alarms, and burden can be compared honestly.
This dossier explains the evidence and its limits. It is not a diagnosis, personal recommendation, assessment, clearance, performance promise or training programme. Actionable teaching appears only when the canonical Power record explicitly authorises it.
Complete bounded explanation
What this power means.
Capability to develop or express selective attention in a declared context without inheriting broader claims.
What the current evidence supports
Selective-attention practice can improve closely related tasks, but transfer follows shared task demands and has not been shown to improve mobility.
How to observe or measure it without overclaiming
Target sensitivity, search time, errors and distractor cost must be tied to a named modality and task; they do not measure general awareness.
Myth
Notice everything others miss
Metric
Target sensitivity and distractor cost in a declared sensory task, plus a different functional endpoint
Boundary
A better screen score cannot certify broad situational awareness.
Negative and limiting findings
Older adults improved a visual-attention measure without improving any tested balance or mobility outcome.
Claims this evidence cannot support
See everything at once
Train away distraction permanently
A game gives fighter-pilot attention
Screen training prevents falls
Evidence guide frame · non-prescriptive
A guide frame—not a training protocol.
Explain selective attention as target detection under declared distractors, with transfer limited by shared task demands.
What this frame may discuss
Evidence and measurement boundaries for selective attention
Task specificity, access configurations and negative findings
Limits on transfer, efficacy and authority
Conceptual observations
Conceptually distinguish visual search, filtering and useful-field-of-view tasks rather than treating them as one faculty.
Compare near transfer through shared demands with unsupported claims of general awareness.
Reflection prompts
Which target, distractor, modality and task make the claim testable?
What mobility or safety outcome would still require separate evidence?
What it cannot establish
A better screen score cannot certify broad situational awareness.
It cannot establish: See everything at once.
It cannot establish: Train away distraction permanently.
It cannot establish: A game gives fighter-pilot attention.
It cannot establish: Screen training prevents falls.
Accessibility alternatives
A verbal, auditory or static visual example is sufficient; no timed response is needed.
Sensory aids, screen readers, enlarged text and no-attempt are valid configurations.
No road, mobility or fall-related demonstration is implied.
Non-participation remains valid: Yes.
Stop and escalation boundaries
Stop if the frame is used for a road, driving, fall-prevention or hazard-detection self-test.
Stop if timed checking or error monitoring becomes distressing or compulsive.
Changes in vision, attention, mobility or driving safety require the relevant qualified professional.
Prohibited uses
Timed search drills, road simulations, hazard tests or fall-prevention protocols.
Claims of universal awareness, driving fitness or mobility benefit.
Clinical screening or diagnostic conclusions.
No collection or scoring: this page requests no answers, stores nothing and produces no personal or Titan result.
Selective attention is practised here by marking uppercase A while ignoring every other token. Two complete lists keep length and target frequency fixed while changing distractor similarity, so hits, misses, false alarms, and burden can be compared honestly.
OrientRead the definition, evidence, measurement boundary and prohibited claims on this canonical page.
BaselineOpen the governed lesson and record its declared baseline before practising.
PractiseFollow the ordered lesson exactly; do not add dose, intensity or claims.
RetestUse the lesson's delayed retention and predeclared transfer checks as separate records.
Maintain or retireKeep only what remains useful inside the evidence and safety boundary.
Authority boundary: A governed step-by-step lesson may be completed independently inside its stated limits. The method is Power-specific; its actionability follows this treatment.
Citation roles are explicit. A source may support existence or trainability while simultaneously limiting transfer, certainty, generalisation or safety.
Adrian M Owen; Adam Hampshire; Jessica A Grahn; Robert Stenton; Said Dajani; Alistair S Burns; Robert J Howard; Clive G Ballard · 2010 · Primary research
Adam C Oei; Michael D Patterson · 2013 · Primary research
Current teaching and evidence boundary
The next gate remains visible.
No external confirmation is required for the current bounded explainer and non-prescriptive guide-frame permissions; any stronger efficacy, generalisation, protocol, promotion or independent-validation claim requires a new adjudication.
A separately governed practical lesson is available at /tutorials/pwr-098/. Its safe configuration, prerequisites, ordered practice, measurement, stopping, accessibility, retention, transfer and review rules remain controlling.