Trial reportExperimental brain research2015
Trial-type probability and task-switching effects on behavioral response characteristics in a mixed saccade task.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microsaccade rate activity during the preparation of pro- and antisaccades.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2023Article
- Effects of blocked vs. interleaved administration mode on saccade preparatory set revealed using pupillometry.Experimental brain research · 2021Article
- Microsaccadic rate and pupil size dynamics in pro-/anti-saccade preparation: the impact of intermixed vs. blocked trial administration.Psychological research · 2020Article
- Back to basics: The effects of block vs. interleaved trial administration on pro- and anti-saccade performance.PloS one · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
25537465What 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.