Saccadic Preparation in the Frontal Eye Field Is Modulated by Distinct Trial History Effects as Revealed by Magnetoencephalography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optimizing outcomes involves rapidly and continuously adjusting behavior based on context. While most behavioral studies focus on immediate task conditions, responses to events are also influenced by recent history. We used magnetoencephalography and a saccadic paradigm to investigate the neural bases of 2 trial history effects that are well characterized in the behavioral eye movement literature: task-switching and the prior-antisaccade effect. We found that switched trials were associated with increased errors and transient increases in activity in the frontal eye field (FEF) and anterior cingulate cortex early in the preparatory period. These activity changes are consistent with active reconfiguration of the task set, a time-limited process that is triggered by the instructional cue. Following an antisaccade versus prosaccade, there was increased activity in the FEF and prefrontal cortex that persisted into the preparatory period of the subsequent trial, and saccadic latencies were prolonged. We attribute these effects to persistent inhibition of the ocular motor response system from the prior antisaccade. These findings refine our understanding of how trial history interacts with current task demands to adjust responses. Such dynamic modulations of neural activity and behavior by recent experience are at the heart of adaptive flexible behavior.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".