Anti-saccade performance predicted by event-related fMRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the hallmarks of executive control is the suppression of prepotent but inappropriate responses in favour of voluntary motor acts. A stimulus-response incompatibility paradigm that is frequently used to test both of these abilities is the anti-saccade task, because it requires subjects not to look to a flashed stimulus (pro-saccade) but instead to look away from it (anti-saccade). Here we used event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging to measure neural activity in humans during a task in which they were instructed before a stimulus appeared either to make a pro- or anti-saccade. Eye movements were recorded so that neural activity could be grouped into pro-saccades, correct anti-saccades and errors (saccades towards the stimulus on anti-saccade trials). A general linear model was used with one predictor for the 10s instruction period and another predictor for the stimulus/saccade period. The analysis of the instruction period predictor revealed that correct anti-saccade trials were associated with significantly more activity bilateral in the frontal eye field (FEF), supplementary eye field (SEF), anterior cingulate, anterior medial frontal gyrus, and caudate than pro-saccade trials. Correct anti-saccades evoked more activity than errors in the right anterior medial frontal gyrus, SEF, and right FEF during the instruction period. When we analyzed the saccade predictor, we found no differences between correct anti-saccades and pro-saccades. Error trials, however, showed a greater activation than correct anti-saccade trials in the SEF. Our findings demonstrate that 1) pro-saccade and anti-saccade trials differ in their activation before stimulus onset, 2) the activity before stimulus presentation predicts task performance, 3) activation of the supplementary eye field for erroneous saccades is consistent with an involvement of this area in performance monitoring.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".