Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25537465›Full record

Trial reportExperimental brain research2015

Trial-type probability and task-switching effects on behavioral response characteristics in a mixed saccade task.

Jordan E Pierce, J Brett McCardel, Jennifer E McDowell

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Experimental brain research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jordan E PierceDepartment of Psychology, University of Georgia, 125 Baldwin Street, Athens, GA, 30602, USA, jepierce@uga.edu.
J Brett McCardel
Jennifer E McDowell

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Eye movement circuitry involved in saccade production offers a model for studying cognitive control: visually guided prosaccades are stimulus-directed responses, while goal-driven antisaccades rely upon more complex control processes to inhibit the prepotent tendency to look toward a cue, transform its spatial location, and generate a volitional saccade in the opposite direction. By manipulating the relative probability of these saccade types, we measured participants' behavioral responses to different levels of implicit trial-type probability and task-switching demands in conditions with relatively long inter-trial fixation and trial-type cue lengths. Results indicated that when prosaccades were less probable in a run, more prosaccade errors were generated; however, for antisaccades, trial-type probability had no effect on the percent of correct responses. For reaction times, specifically in runs with a larger probability of antisaccade trials, latencies increased for both anti- and pro-saccades. Furthermore, task switching resulted in a lower percentage of correct responses on switched trials, but a prior antisaccade trial led to slower reaction times for both trial types (i.e., a task switch cost for prosaccades and switch benefit for antisaccades). These findings indicate that cognitive control demands and residual inhibition from antisaccades alter performance relative to trial-type probability and task switching within a run, with the prosaccade task showing greater susceptibility to the influence of a large probability of cognitively complex antisaccades.

Indexed as

Inhibition, PsychologicalAdolescentExecutive FunctionFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationProbabilityReaction TimeSaccadesYoung Adult

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.