ArticlePloS one2019
GIVE me your attention: Differentiating goal identification and goal execution components of the anti-saccade effect.
Article in PloS one, 2019. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The anti-saccade task is a commonly used method of assessing individual differences in cognitive control. It has been shown that a number of clinical disorders are characterised by increased anti-saccade cost. However, it remains unknown whether this reflects impaired goal identification or impaired goal execution, because, to date, no procedure has been developed to independently assess these two components of anti-saccade cost. The aim of the present study was to develop such an assessment task, which we term the Goal Identification Vs. Execution (GIVE) task. Fifty-one undergraduate students completed a conventional anti-saccade task, and our novel GIVE task. Our findings revealed that individual differences in anti-saccade goal identification costs and goal execution costs were uncorrelated, when assessed using the GIVE task, but both predicted unique variance in the conventional anti-saccade cost measure. These results confirm that the GIVE task is capable of independently assessing variation in the goal identification and goal execution components of the anti-saccade effect. We discuss how this newly introduced assessment procedure now can be employed to illuminate the specific basis of the increased anti-saccade cost that characterises various forms of clinical dysfunction.
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.