The antisaccade task: Sensory- and motor-related costs to oculomotor planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concurrent presentation of a target and remote distractor (> 20°) increases the planning times of stimulus-driven prosaccades (i.e., the remote distractor effect, RDE). In the present investigation, we sought to determine whether antisaccade planning times are similarly influenced by the presentation of a remote distractor. Indeed, the basis for this question stems from the fact that the non-standard mapping between stimulus and response in the antisaccade task provides a basis for determining whether the sensory- or motor-related features of a distractor influence oculomotor planning times. In Experiment 1, participants completed pro- and antisaccades in a condition that entailed a single and exogenously presented target (i.e., control condition) and conditions wherein the target was presented simultaneously with distractors at remote (i.e., contralateral, foveal) or ipsilateral locations relative to the target. Results for prosaccade latencies showed the aforementioned RDE, whereas antisaccade latencies for all distractor locations were increased compared to their control condition counterparts. Experiment 2 involved same basic methods as Experiment 1 with the exception that we precued distractor location to reduce the attentional demands associated with disentangling target and distractor locations at response planning. Results confirmed the findings of Experiment 1 in that antisaccade latencies were increased across each distractor location. Moreover, the antisaccade latency cost was increased when the spatial properties of the distractor were congruent with motor-related task goals. Based on these findings, we propose that the non-standard nature of antisaccades renders a general increase in oculomotor planning times regardless of the distractor's spatial properties. Further, we propose the spatial relations between distractor and movement-related goals elicit an increased inhibition of oculomotor networks than the spatial relations between distractor and veridical stimulus location. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2014
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".