Why do humans make antisaccade errors?

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.