Literature DB >> 12544848

Why are antisaccades slower than prosaccades? A novel finding using a new paradigm.

Bettina Olk1, Alan Kingstone.   

Abstract

Eye movements away from a new object (antisaccades) are slower than towards it (prosaccades). This finding is assumed to reflect the fact that prosaccades to new objects are made reflexively, and that for antisaccades, reflexive eye movements have to be inhibited and antisaccades are generated volitionally. Experiment 1 investigated the relative contribution of saccade inhibition by comparing the latency difference between pro- and antisaccades obtained in the traditional blocked paradigm and in a new paradigm in which oculomotor inhibition across pro- and antisaccades was matched. When inhibition was placed on the oculomotor system, the latency difference between pro- and antisaccades was significantly reduced. Experiment 2 examined the contribution of volitional saccade programming and execution by requiring both pro- and antisaccades to be programmed volitionally. This manipulation did not decrease further the difference between pro- and antisaccades. It is thus concluded that oculomotor inhibition is the main factor leading to long antisaccade latency. The remaining difference is attributed to the reallocation of covert attention from the target location towards the opposite antisaccade location. Copyright 2003 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12544848     DOI: 10.1097/00001756-200301200-00028

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroreport        ISSN: 0959-4965            Impact factor:   1.837


  43 in total

1.  Improving antisaccade performance in adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Authors:  Canan Karatekin
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-04-25       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Predictiveness of a visual distractor modulates saccadic responses to auditory targets.

Authors:  Holle Kirchner; Hans Colonius
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2004-01-28       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Measuring the allocation of attention in the Stroop task: evidence from eye movement patterns.

Authors:  Bettina Olk
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2011-12-29

4.  Electroencephalographic evidence of vector inversion in antipointing.

Authors:  Matthew Heath; Jon Bell; Clay B Holroyd; Olav Krigolson
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-06-19       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Event-related potentials before saccades and antisaccades and their relation to reaction time.

Authors:  Marianna Papadopoulou; Ioannis Evdokimidis; Evangelos Tsoukas; Asimakis Mantas; Nikolaos Smyrnis
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-08-14       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Is the relationship of prosaccade reaction times and antisaccade errors mediated by working memory?

Authors:  Trevor J Crawford; Elisabeth Parker; Ivonne Solis-Trapala; Jenny Mayes
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-11-25       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Vector inversion diminishes the online control of antisaccades.

Authors:  Matthew Heath; Jeffrey Weiler; Kendall Marriott; Timothy N Welsh
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-01-06       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Greater disruption to control of voluntary saccades in autistic disorder than Asperger's disorder: evidence for greater cerebellar involvement in autism?

Authors:  Chloe Stanley-Cary; Nicole Rinehart; Bruce Tonge; Owen White; Joanne Fielding
Journal:  Cerebellum       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 3.847

9.  Alternating between pro- and antisaccades: switch-costs manifest via decoupling the spatial relations between stimulus and response.

Authors:  Matthew Heath; Caitlin Gillen; Ashna Samani
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2015-12-12       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Looking away: distractor influences on saccadic trajectory and endpoint in prosaccade and antisaccade tasks.

Authors:  Kaitlin E W Laidlaw; Mona J H Zhu; Alan Kingstone
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2016-02-02       Impact factor: 1.972

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.