Oculomotor task switching: alternating from a nonstandard to a standard response yields the unidirectional prosaccade switch-cost.

The completion of an antisaccade (i.e., a nonstandard task) lengthens the reaction time (RT) of a subsequent prosaccade: a behavioral phenomenon termed the unidirectional prosaccade switch-cost. One explanation for the unidirectional prosaccade switch-cost is suppressing a stimulus-driven prosaccade during the preceding antisaccade trial engenders a residual inhibition of the oculomotor networks that support prosaccade planning (i.e., the oculomotor inhibition hypothesis). Alternatively, the unidirectional prosaccade switch-cost may reflect the persistent activation of the antisaccade's nonstandard task rules (i.e., task set), which delays the planning of the next prosaccade (i.e., task-set inertia hypothesis). To determine which hypothesis provides the most parsimonious account for the unidirectional prosaccade switch-cost, participants alternated between pro- and antisaccades wherein task instructions (i.e., pro- and antisaccade) were provided before (i.e., classic cuing) or concurrent (i.e., delayed cuing) with response cuing. Importantly, pro- and antisaccades elicited via the delayed cuing condition required the suppression of a stimulus-driven prosaccade at response cuing (i.e., response suppression) to discern the appropriate to-be-performed task. Results showed that classic and delayed antisaccades, but not delayed prosaccades, lengthened the RT of subsequent prosaccades. That delayed prosaccades, which require response suppression for their successful execution, did not lengthen the RT of subsequent prosaccades indicates that the oculomotor inhibition hypothesis does not account for the unidirectional prosaccade switch-cost. Instead, the current findings are in line with the assertion that the task set associated with a nonstandard antisaccade persists inertially and delays the planning of a subsequent prosaccade (i.e., task-set inertia hypothesis).