Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30062441›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2018

Probing oculomotor inhibition with the minimally delayed oculomotor response task.

Paul C Knox, Emma Heming De-Allie, Felicity D A Wolohan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Paul C KnoxEye and Vision Science, Institute of Ageing and Chronic Disease, University of Liverpool, William Henry Duncan Building, 6 West Derby Street, Liverpool, L7 8TX, UK. pcknox@liv.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2578-7335
Emma Heming De-AllieEye and Vision Science, Institute of Ageing and Chronic Disease, University of Liverpool, William Henry Duncan Building, 6 West Derby Street, Liverpool, L7 8TX, UK.
Felicity D A WolohanEye and Vision Science, Institute of Ageing and Chronic Disease, University of Liverpool, William Henry Duncan Building, 6 West Derby Street, Liverpool, L7 8TX, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8403-1730

Funding

Leverhulme Trust RPG329
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The ability to not execute (i.e. to inhibit) actions is important for behavioural flexibility and frees us from being slaves to our immediate sensory environment. The antisaccade task is one of several used to investigate behavioural inhibitory control. However, antisaccades involve a number of important processes besides inhibition such as attention and working memory. In the minimally delayed oculomotor response (MDOR) task, participants are presented with a simple target step, but instructed to saccade not to the target when it appears (a prosaccade response), but when it disappears (i.e. on target offset). Varying the target display duration prevents offset timing being predictable from the time of target onset, and saccades prior to the offset are counted as errors. Antisaccade error rate and latency are modified by alterations in fixation conditions produced by inserting a gap between fixation target offset and stimulus onset (the gap paradigm; error rate increases, latency decreases) or by leaving the fixation target on when the target appears (overlap paradigm; error rate decreases, latency increases). We investigated the effect of gaps and overlaps on performance in the MDOR task. In Experiment 1 we confirmed that, compared to a control condition in which participants responded to target onsets, in the MDOR task saccade latency was considerably increased (increases of 122-272 ms depending on target display duration and experimental condition). However, there was no difference in error rate or saccade latency between gap and synchronous (fixation target offset followed immediately by saccade target onset) conditions. In Experiment 2, in a different group of participants, we compared overlap and synchronous conditions and again found no statistically significant differences in error rate and saccade latency. The timing distribution of errors suggested that most were responses to target onsets, which we take to be evidence of inhibition failure. We conclude that the MDOR task evokes behaviour that is consistent across different groups of participants. Because it is free of the non-inhibitory processes operative in the antisaccade task, it provides a useful means of investigating behavioural inhibition.

Indexed as

Inhibition, PsychologicalAdultAttentionEye Movement MeasurementsEye MovementsFemaleFixation, OcularHumansMaleMiddle AgedReaction TimeYoung AdultAntisaccadeGapInhibitionLatencyOverlapSaccade

Identifiers

PMID30062441
PMCPMC6223844

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.