ArticlePsychological research2024
Erroneous saccade co-execution during manual action control is independent of oculomotor stimulus-response translation ease.
Article in Psychological research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimizing action separation and integration through moderate practice.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- Guiding gaze via gaze: Effect anticipation during intentional saccadic gaze leading.Psychological research · 2026Article
- Motor actions across psychiatric disorders: A research domain criteria (RDoC) perspective.Clinical psychology review · 2024Review
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
Recent multiple action control studies have demonstrated difficulties with single-action (vs. dual-action) execution when accompanied by the requirement to inhibit a prepotent additional response (e.g., a highly automatic eye movement). Such a dual-action performance benefit is typically characterized by frequent false-positive executions of the currently unwarranted response. Here, we investigated whether the frequency of false-positive saccades is affected by the ease of translating a stimulus into a spatial oculomotor response (S-R translation ease): Is it harder to inhibit a saccade that is more automatically triggered via the stimulus? Participants switched on a trial-by-trial basis between executing a single saccade, a single manual button press, and a saccadic-manual dual action in response to a single visual stimulus. Importantly, we employed three different stimulus modes that varied in oculomotor S-R translation ease (peripheral square > central arrow > central shape). The hierarchy of S-R translation ease was reflected by increasing saccade and manual reaction times. Critically, however, the frequency of false-positive saccades in single manual trials was not substantially affected by the stimulus mode. Our results rule out explanations related to limited capacity sharing (between inhibitory control and S-R translation demands) as well as accounts related to the time available for the completion of saccade inhibition. Instead, the findings suggest that the erroneous co-activation of the oculomotor system was elicited by the mere execution of a (frequently associated) manual response (action-based co-activation).
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.