Oculomotor task switching: alternating from a nonstandard to a standard response yields the unidirectional prosaccade switch-cost
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The completion of an antisaccade (i.e., a nonstandard task) lengthens the reaction time (RT) of a subsequent prosaccade: a behavioral phenomenon termed the unidirectional prosaccade switch-cost. One explanation for the unidirectional prosaccade switch-cost is suppressing a stimulus-driven prosaccade during the preceding antisaccade trial engenders a residual inhibition of the oculomotor networks that support prosaccade planning (i.e., the oculomotor inhibition hypothesis). Alternatively, the unidirectional prosaccade switch-cost may reflect the persistent activation of the antisaccade's nonstandard task rules (i.e., task set), which delays the planning of the next prosaccade (i.e., task-set inertia hypothesis). To determine which hypothesis provides the most parsimonious account for the unidirectional prosaccade switch-cost, participants alternated between pro- and antisaccades wherein task instructions (i.e., pro- and antisaccade) were provided before (i.e., classic cuing) or concurrent (i.e., delayed cuing) with response cuing. Importantly, pro- and antisaccades elicited via the delayed cuing condition required the suppression of a stimulus-driven prosaccade at response cuing (i.e., response suppression) to discern the appropriate to-be-performed task. Results showed that classic and delayed antisaccades, but not delayed prosaccades, lengthened the RT of subsequent prosaccades. That delayed prosaccades, which require response suppression for their successful execution, did not lengthen the RT of subsequent prosaccades indicates that the oculomotor inhibition hypothesis does not account for the unidirectional prosaccade switch-cost. Instead, the current findings are in line with the assertion that the task set associated with a nonstandard antisaccade persists inertially and delays the planning of a subsequent prosaccade (i.e., task-set inertia hypothesis).
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".