Consider the context: blocked versus interleaved presentation of antisaccade trials.
Conclusions about the cognitive and neural requirements of saccade control may differ as a result of stimulus presentation method. This issue was examined in the current study by evaluating behavioral differences in pro- and antisaccade responses among 12 healthy young adults as a function of task presentation method, length of cue-to-target interval, and previous trial type. A 1-s cue-to-target interval fostered goal neglect, indicated by an increase in uncorrected errors and reaction times for "error" saccades. There was also a strong relationship between speed of visual orienting (prosaccade latencies) and failed inhibition (antisaccade errors) for the simultaneous condition. Interestingly, only the simultaneous condition produced task switch costs (on saccade latencies and error response percentages). The saccadic task presentation method, therefore, can influence conclusions about the cognitive operations supporting successful performance.
Ethridge
Lauren E
LE
Department of Psychology, Bio-Imaging Research Center, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-3013, USA.
Brahmbhatt
Shefali
S
Gao
Yuan
Y
McDowell
Jennifer E
JE
Clementz
Brett A
BA
D000328:Adult; D003071:Cognition / Q000502:physiology*; D003463:Cues; D004585:Electrooculography; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007266:Inhibition, Psychological; D008297:Male; D010775:Photic Stimulation; D011597:Psychomotor Performance / Q000502:physiology; D011930:Reaction Time / Q000502:physiology; D012438:Saccades / Q000502:physiology*; D055815:Young Adult