Trial reportExperimental brain research2012
Response selection in prosaccades, antisaccades, and other volitional saccades.
Trial report in Experimental brain research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The antisaccade task: visual distractors elicit a location-independent planning 'cost'.PloS one · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Saccades made to the opposite side of a visual stimulus (antisaccades) and to central cues (simple volitional saccades) both require active response selection but whether the mechanisms of response selection differ between these tasks is unclear. Response selection can be assessed by increasing the number of response alternatives: this leads to increased reaction times when response selection is more demanding. We compared the reaction times of prosaccades, antisaccades, saccades cued by a central arrow, and saccades cued by a central number, in blocks of either two or six possible responses. In the two-response blocks, reaction times were fastest for prosaccades and antisaccades, and slowest for arrow-cued and number-cued saccades. Increasing response alternatives from two to six caused a paradoxical reduction in reaction times of prosaccades, had no effect on arrow-cued saccades, and led to a large increase in reaction times of number-cued saccades. For antisaccade reaction times, the effect of increasing response alternatives was intermediate, greater than that for arrow-cued saccades but less than that for number-cued saccades. We suggest that this pattern of results may reflect two components of saccadic processing: (a) response triggering, which is more rapid with a peripheral stimulus as in the prosaccade and antisaccade tasks and (b) response selection, which is more demanding for the antisaccade and number-cued saccade tasks, and more automatic when there is direct stimulus-response mapping as with prosaccades, or over-learned symbols as with arrow-cued saccades.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22910901What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.