Look away: the anti-saccade task and the voluntary control of eye movement

Munoz, Douglas P.; Everling, Stefan

doi:10.1038/nrn1345

Cited by 1,231 publications

(1,332 citation statements)

References 138 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,248

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A recent account of antisaccade performance assumes that a "competition" ensues at stimulus onset between the exogenously triggered prosaccade and the endogenously initiated antisaccade (e.g., Munoz & Everling, 2004;Massen, 2004); the pathway that reaches threshold first is executed (see Mokler & Fischer, 1999;Schlag-Rey, Amador, Sanchez & Schlag, 1997;Trappenberg, Dorris, Munoz & Klein, 2001). Reaching threshold for either pathway can be modified either by changing the rate at which activation of the pathway rises to threshold, or the baseline activation in the pathway prior to stimulus onset (see Carpenter, 1981;Carpenter & Williams, 1995;Hanes & Carpenter, 1999).…”

Section: Repetition Priming In the Antisaccade Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Repetition priming effects suggest that the spatial location of the target on the preceding trial may also impact on current trial performance. Current models of antisaccade performance (e.g., Munoz & Everling, 2004) allow for both of these effects to be mediated via changes in the baseline activity in the neural systems mediating saccadic responses, but only repetition priming effects have been investigated. The purpose of the present study was to determine the effects of, and interactions between these factors on antisaccade performance in a large sample of trials.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Trial by trial effects in the antisaccade task

Tatler

Hutton

2006

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The antisaccade task requires participants to inhibit the reflexive tendency to look at a sudden onset target and instead direct their gaze to the opposite hemifield. As such it provides a convenient tool with which to investigate the cognitive and neural systems that support goaldirected behaviour. Recent models of cognitive control suggest that antisaccade performance on a single trial should vary as a function of the outcome (correct antisaccade or erroneous prosaccade) of the previous trial. In addition, repetition priming effects suggest that the spatial location of the target on the previous trial may also influence current trial performance. Thus an analysis of contingency effects in antisaccade performance may provide new insights into the factors that influence the monitoring and modulation of the antisaccade task and other ongoing behaviours. Using a multilevel modelling analysis we explored previous trial effects on current trial performance in a large antisaccade dataset. We found (1) repetition priming effects following correct antisaccades; (2) contrary to models of cognitive control antisaccade error rates were increased on trials following an error, suggesting that failures to adequately maintain the task goal can persist across more than one trial; and (3) current trial latencies varied according to the previous trial outcome (correct antisaccade, slowly corrected error or rapidly corrected error). These results are discussed in terms of current models of antisaccade performance and cognitive control and further demonstrate the utility of multilevel modelling for providing a powerful statistical technique for analysing antisaccade data.

show abstract

Section: Repetition Priming In the Antisaccade Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trial by trial effects in the antisaccade task

Tatler

Hutton

2006

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The antisaccade task was developed by Hallett (1978) instructing intentionally generated saccades away from peripheral stimuli that are in conflict with automatically triggered saccades towards appearing stimuli. Hence, exogenous generation processes must be inhibited, requiring cognitive resources (Abegg, Sharma, & Barton, 2012) and executive control mechanisms (Munoz & Everling, 2004). Antisaccade performance is typically contrasted with instructed prosaccades towards appearing stimuli.…”

Section: Pro-and Antisaccade Paradigmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a Cued Pro- and Antisaccade Paradigm: An Indirect Measure to Explore Automatic Components of Sexual Interest

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…While previous work focused on explaining pro‐/anti‐cue behavioral differences in terms of low‐level motor systems (i.e., basal ganglia; Adam et al., 2011), we here hypothesized that high‐level mechanisms of attentional reorientation, error signaling, and response inhibition are also involved. Evidence from related paradigms (e.g., go/nogo, anti‐saccade, finger‐precuing) support this hypothesis (e.g., Adam, Hommel, & Umiltà, 2003, 2005; Chambers, Garavan, & Bellgrove, 2009; Munoz & Everling, 2004; Swick, Ashley, & Turken, 2011). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Foresight beats hindsight: The neural correlates underlying motor preparation in the pro‐/anti‐cue paradigm

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundHuman motor behaviors are characterized by both, reactive and proactive mechanisms. Yet, studies investigating the neural correlates of motor behavior almost exclusively focused on reactive motor processes. Here, we employed the pro‐/anti‐cue motor preparation paradigm to systematically study proactive motor control in an imaging environment. In this paradigm, either pro‐ or anti‐cues are presented in a blocked design. Four fingers (two from each hand) are mapped onto four visual target locations. Visual targets require a speeded response by one corresponding finger, but, most importantly, they are preceded by visual cues that are congruent (“pro‐cue”), incongruent (“anti‐cue”), or neutral with respect to the responding hand. With short cue‐target intervals, congruence effects are based on automatic motor priming of the correct hand (in case of pro‐cues) or incorrect hand (in case of anti‐cues), generating, respectively, reaction time benefits or reaction time costs relative to the neutral‐cue. With longer cue‐target intervals, slower top‐down processes become effective, transforming early anti‐cue interference into late anti‐cue facilitation.MethodsWe adapted this paradigm to be compatible with neuroimaging, tested and validated it behaviorally—both inside and outside the imaging environment—and implemented it in a whole‐brain functional magnetic resonance imaging study.Results and ConclusionOur imaging results indicate that pro‐cues elicited much less neural activation than did anti‐cues, the latter recruiting well‐known cognitive top‐down networks related to attention, response inhibition, and error monitoring/signaling, thereby revealing high‐level influences on proactive motor processes.

show abstract

Look away: the anti-saccade task and the voluntary control of eye movement

Cited by 1,231 publications

References 138 publications

Trial by trial effects in the antisaccade task

Trial by trial effects in the antisaccade task

Development of a Cued Pro- and Antisaccade Paradigm: An Indirect Measure to Explore Automatic Components of Sexual Interest

Foresight beats hindsight: The neural correlates underlying motor preparation in the pro‐/anti‐cue paradigm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About