ArticlePloS one2017
Back to basics: The effects of block vs. interleaved trial administration on pro- and anti-saccade performance.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring eye-movement changes as digital biomarkers and endophenotypes in subclinical eating disorders: an eye tracking study.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
- Unexpected sounds induce a rapid inhibition of eye-movement responses.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
- Automated Analysis Pipeline for Extracting Saccade, Pupil, and Blink Parameters Using Video-Based Eye Tracking.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Do facially disfiguring features influence attention and perception of faces? Evidence from an antisaccade task.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2022Article
- Inhibitory Control of Saccadic Eye Movements and Cognitive Impairment in Mild Cognitive Impairment.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2022Article
- Mind the food: behavioural characteristics and imaging signatures of the specific handling of food objects.Brain structure & function · 2021Article
- Impaired Spatial Inhibition Processes for Interhemispheric Anti-saccades following Dorsal Posterior Parietal Lesions.Cerebral cortex communications · 2021Article
- Effects of blocked vs. interleaved administration mode on saccade preparatory set revealed using pupillometry.Experimental brain research · 2021Article
- Early saccade planning cannot override oculomotor interference elicited by gaze and arrow distractors.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2020Article
- Microsaccadic rate and pupil size dynamics in pro-/anti-saccade preparation: the impact of intermixed vs. blocked trial administration.Psychological research · 2020Article
- Face stimulus eliminates antisaccade-cost: gaze following is a different kind of arrow.Experimental brain research · 2018Article
- Dynamic Changes in Upper-Limb Corticospinal Excitability during a 'Pro-/Anti-saccade' Double-Choice Task.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The pro and anti-saccade task (PAT) is a widely used tool in the study of overt and covert attention with promising potential role in neurocognitive and psychiatric assessment. However, specific PAT protocols can vary significantly between labs, potentially resulting in large variations in findings across studies. In light of recent calls towards a standardization of PAT the current study's objective was to systematically and purposely evaluate the effects of block vs. interleaved administration-a fundamental consideration-on PAT measures in a within subject design. Additionally, this study evaluated whether measures of a Posner-type cueing paradigm parallels measures of the PAT paradigm. As hypothesized, results indicate that PAT performance is highly susceptible to administration mode. Interleaved mode resulted in larger error rates not only for anti (blocks: M = 22%; interleaved: M = 42%) but also for pro-saccades (blocks: M = 5%; interleaved: M = 12%). This difference between block and interleaved administration was significantly larger in anti-saccades compared to pro-saccades and cannot be attributed to a 'speed/accuracy tradeoff'. Interleaved mode produced larger pro and anti-saccade differences in error rates while block administration produced larger latency differences. Results question the reflexive nature of pro-saccades, suggesting they are not purely reflexive. These results were further discussed and compared to previous studies that included within subject data of blocks and interleaved trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.