Working Memory Differences in Antisaccade Performance: Attentional Preparation or Goal Neglect?

Moffitt, Chad C.; Hutchison, Keith A.

doi:10.1037/e633262013-432

Cited by 4 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first possibility is that high and low WMC individuals differ in the ability to energize or activate the task goal over competing goals (goal activation). As shown in Figure 2a, high WMC individuals may be better able to activate the task goal to a higher level than low WMC individuals (Meier et al, 2018;Moffitt, 2013; see also Unsworth & Robison, 2020 for a similar possibility for WMC differences in sustained attention). This would result in overall better performance (higher accuracy) on the antisaccade task across most delay periods for high WMC individuals compared with low WMC individuals, given that high WMC individuals are more prepared than low WMC individuals resulting in higher asymptotic accuracy (Meier et al, 2018).…”

Section: Present Studymentioning

confidence: 93%

“…In addition to goal management processes that are thought to occur during the preparatory delay interval, we also examined potential WMC differences in what occurs during stimulus onset. As noted above, prior research has suggested that WMC differences on the antisaccade task might also be due to differences in various speed factors such as speed of moving the focus of attention and programming a voluntary saccade in the correct direction (e.g., Heitz & Engle, 2007;Unsworth et al, 2004) or speed of conflict resolution processes (Kane & Engle, 2003;Moffitt, 2013). This suggests that part of the reason for WMC differences in the antisaccade are due to differences in how quickly participants can move their attention to the correct location (or resolve conflict) in order to identify the correct target in time.…”

Section: Present Studymentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Specifically, it is possible that high and low WMC individuals perform fairly equivalently on most trials, but that low WMC individuals This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Moffitt, 2013) found some evidence for this hypothesis, but suggested that differences in consistency did not fully explain the relation between WMC and antisaccade. Note that the current hypotheses represent fairly straightforward and simplified accounts of the different possibilities.…”

Section: Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In line with this theorizing, Unsworth et al (2011) found that antisaccade accuracy increased as delay period increased. In another study, Moffitt (2013) examined WMC differences in antisaccade performance across preparatory delays in three experiments. In all three experiments Moffitt found that WMC and antisaccade were correlated (average r = .25), but WMC did not interact with the delay interval, suggesting that high and low WMC individuals both prepared to the same extent.…”

Section: Working Memory Capacity and The Antisaccade Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As shown in Figure 2b, high WMC individuals may be able to more quickly activate the task goal than low WMC individuals. This would suggest that when the delay is short that low WMC individuals might not yet have the task goal fully activated 1 Note that the current experiments were not necessarily designed to examine discrepancies between Moffitt (2013) and Meier et al (2018) as we began investigating these issues in 2011. Specifically, analyses for Experiment 1 occurred in 2011.…”

Section: Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

On the relation between working memory capacity and the antisaccade task.

Unsworth¹,

Robison²,

Miller³

2022

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eight experiments (N = 2,003) assessed the relation between working memory capacity (WMC) and performance on the antisaccade task. Experiments 1-5 and 7 examined individual differences in aspects of goal management processes occurring during the preparatory delay of the antisaccade task. WMC tended to interact with delay interval suggesting that high WMC individuals better prepared for the upcoming trial by activating the task goal to a higher level than low WMC individuals (although these effects were generally small). Experiments 3a, 4, and 7 further demonstrated that individual differences in the consistency of attention (i.e., lapses of attention) were partially important for the relation between WMC and antisaccade performance. Experiment 5 demonstrated that knowledge of the likelihood of target location increased overall performance, but did not interact with WMC. Experiment 6 manipulated stimulus onset asynchrony and suggested that speed factors are also likely important for the relation between WMC and antisaccade performance. Finally, structural equation models in Experiment 7 suggested that lapses of attention and speed factors partially accounted for the relation between WMC and antisaccade, but WMC still accounted for unique variance in antisaccade. Collectively, the results suggest that multiple factors (goal activation, consistency of attention, and speed factors) contribute to the relation between variation in WMC and performance on the antisaccade task.

show abstract

Section: Present Studymentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Present Studymentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Working Memory Capacity and The Antisaccade Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

On the relation between working memory capacity and the antisaccade task.

Unsworth¹,

Robison²,

Miller³

2022

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Oculometric indicators of individual differences in preparatory control during the antisaccade task.

Unsworth¹,

Miller²,

Robison³

2023

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individual differences in preparatory control in the antisaccade task were examined in two experiments via an examination of pupillary responses and fixation stability during the preparatory delay. In both experiments, high attention control individuals (high-antisaccade performers) demonstrated larger pupillary responses during the preparatory delay than low attention control individuals (low-antisaccade performers). These results suggest that variation in antisaccade performance were partially due to individual differences in the ability to ramp up and regulate the intensity of attention allocated to preparatory control processes. Additionally, fixation stability, working memory capacity, susceptibility to off-task thinking, and taskspecific motivation were found to correlate with antisaccade performance. Furthermore, both preparatory control and off-task thinking accounted for much of the relation between working memory capacity and antisaccade. These results provide evidence that individual differences in antisaccade performance are multifaceted and that variation in preparatory control (along with other factors) are critically important. Public Significance StatementOur ability to ramp up attention and properly prepare for goal-directed action is important for several everyday tasks. In the current study we demonstrate that individual differences in preparatory control are related to individual differences in performance on the antisaccade task. Individuals who are better able to ramp up and regulate their intensity of attention and more fully engage preparatory control perform better than individuals who are less able to ramp up and regulate their intensity of attention for preparatory control. These results further our understanding of how variation in preparatory control is critical for successful goal-directed action.

show abstract

Measuring task set preparation versus mind wandering using pupillometry.

Hutchison¹,

Moffitt²,

Hart³

et al. 2020

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated participants’ task set preparation by measuring changes in pupil diameter during a blank interval as they prepared for an easy (i.e., prosaccade) or difficult (i.e., antisaccade) trial. We used occasional thought probes to gauge “on-task” thoughts versus mind wandering. In both studies, participants’ pupil diameters were larger when anticipating an antisaccade, relative to a prosaccade, trial. In contrast, their self-reported mind wandering depended upon whether the thought probes occurred after their target detection response (Experiment 1) or occurred in lieu of target detection (Experiment 2). In the latter case, self-reported mind wandering echoed the pupil diameter changes in demonstrating greater off-task behavior when preparing for a prosaccade trial. More important, trial type effects in pupil diameter emerged only when participants reported being “on-task,” but disappeared during periods of mind wandering. These results demonstrate that changes in pupil diameter reflect the degree of preparatory control exerted for an upcoming trial, but only when attention is actively focused on the upcoming task.

show abstract

Working Memory Differences in Antisaccade Performance: Attentional Preparation or Goal Neglect?

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

On the relation between working memory capacity and the antisaccade task.

On the relation between working memory capacity and the antisaccade task.

Oculometric indicators of individual differences in preparatory control during the antisaccade task.

Measuring task set preparation versus mind wandering using pupillometry.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About