Neural Processes Associated With Antisaccade Task Performance Investigated With Event-Related fMRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the hallmarks of cognitive control is the suppression of prepotent but inappropriate responses. Here we used event-related functional MRI to measure functional brain activation during a stimulus-response incompatibility task. Subjects were instructed before a stimulus appeared either to look at the stimulus (prosaccade) or to look away from the stimulus (antisaccade). Eye movements were recorded so that functional brain activation could be grouped into prosaccades, correct antisaccades, and errors (saccades toward the stimulus on antisaccade trials). Correct antisaccade trials were associated with significantly more activation in frontal and parietal cortical areas compared with prosaccade trials during the late preparatory period before stimulus appearance. Correct antisaccades evoked more activation than errors in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and presupplementary eye fields during this period. No significant differences were found for any comparisons early in the preparatory period. Our data suggest that the preparation of an antisaccade activates a large frontal and parietal network that may be involved in presetting the oculomotor system for the antisaccade task. These findings indicate that a large network of frontal and posterior areas is modulated during the latter component of the preparatory period on antisaccade compared with prosaccade trials. The results further suggest that the activation level of frontal cortical areas before stimulus presentation is associated with subjects' performance in the antisaccade task. In contrast, we found no areas that were more active for correct antisaccades than prosaccades or for correct antisaccades than error antisaccades during the stimulus-response period. In fact, a number of posterior cortical areas and a few areas in the superior frontal lobe were more active during the stimulus-response period on prosaccade trials than on antisaccade trials. Error antisaccades showed a larger activation in the ACC during the stimulus-response period compared with correct antisaccades.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".