The prior-antisaccade effect: Decoupling stimulus and response inhibits the planning and control of subsequent prosaccades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The classic AABB task-switching paradigm has demonstrated that a prosaccade completed after an antisaccade elicits longer response latencies, reduced online trajectory amendments and less accurate endpoints than the second of two consecutively completed prosaccades (i.e., the prior-antisaccade effect; Weiler and Heath, 2012: Exp Brain Res). In the current investigation, we sought to determine whether the prior-antisaccade effect arises from the top-down requirements of the recently completed mirror-symmetrical response (i.e., response suppression and vector inversion) or is related to an explicit task ordering effect. To accomplish that objective, participants completed pro- and antisaccades to a briefly presented target (50 ms) in left and right visual space in two saccade task-switching blocks. In one block the AABB task-switching paradigm was employed wherein pro- and antisaccades were alternated on every second trial. In the other block, pro- and antisaccades were pseudo-randomly interleaved on a trial-by-trial basis thus preventing participants from predicting the nature of the upcoming task. Importantly, both blocks were equated for response-repetition (i.e., pro- or antisaccade followed by the same task) and response-switch (i.e., pro- or antisaccade followed by the opposite task) trials. To index online control, we computed the proportion of variance explained by the spatial location of the eye at normalized increments of movement time relative to the eye’s ultimate endpoint. Results demonstrated that response-switch prosaccade trials yielded longer latencies and fewer online corrections compared to their response-repetition counterparts. Notably, this pattern was not modulated across the AABB and pseudo-randomized trial blocks. Thus, a priori knowledge related to the nature of an upcoming task (i.e., pro- or antisaccade) does not account for the prior-antisaccade effect. Rather, we propose that the top-down requirements of the antisaccade result in a systematic inhibition of the oculomotor networks that support the planning and control of subsequent prosaccades. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".