Why do humans make antisaccade errors?

Lee, Hyung; Abegg, Mathias; Rodriguez, Amadeo; Koehn, John; Barton, Jason J S (2010). Why do humans make antisaccade errors? Experimental brain research, 201(1), pp. 65-73. Berlin: Springer 10.1007/s00221-009-2008-x

Preview

Text Lee2010_Article_WhyDoHumansMakeAntisaccadeErro.pdf - Published Version Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (283kB) | Preview

Antisaccade errors are attributed to failure to inhibit the habitual prosaccade. We investigated whether the amount of information about the required response the patient has before the trial begins also contributes to error rate. Participants performed antisaccades in five conditions. The traditional design had two goals on the left and right horizontal meridians. In the second condition, stimulus-goal confusability between trials was eliminated by displacing one goal upward. In the third, hemifield uncertainty was eliminated by placing both goals in the same hemifield. In the fourth, goal uncertainty was eliminated by having only one goal, but interspersed with no-go trials. The fifth condition eliminated all uncertainty by having the same goal on every trial. Antisaccade error rate increased by 2% with each additional source of uncertainty, with the main effect being hemifield information, and a trend for stimulus-goal confusability. A control experiment for the effects of increasing angular separation between targets without changing these types of prior response information showed no effects on latency or error rate. We conclude that other factors besides prosaccade inhibition contribute to antisaccade error rates in traditional designs, possibly by modulating the strength of goal activation.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

37 since deposited on 04 Oct 2013
20 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item