Response suppression delays the planning of subsequent stimulus-driven saccades.
The completion of an antisaccade selectively increases the reaction tiME (RT) of a subsequent prosaccade: a result that has been interpreted to reflect the residual inhibition of stimulus-driven saccade networks [1], [2]. In the present investigation we sought to determine whether the increase in pr...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2014-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/24466076/pdf/?tool=EBI |
| _version_ | 1818702012859023360 |
|---|---|
| author | Jeffrey Weiler Trina Mitchell Matthew Heath |
| author_facet | Jeffrey Weiler Trina Mitchell Matthew Heath |
| author_sort | Jeffrey Weiler |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The completion of an antisaccade selectively increases the reaction tiME (RT) of a subsequent prosaccade: a result that has been interpreted to reflect the residual inhibition of stimulus-driven saccade networks [1], [2]. In the present investigation we sought to determine whether the increase in prosaccade RT is contingent on the constituent antisaccade planning processes of response suppression and vector inversion or is limited to response suppression. To that end, in one block participants alternated between pro- and antisaccades after every second trial (task-switching block), and in another block participants completed a series of prosaccades that were randomly (and infrequently) interspersed with no-go catch-trials (go/no-go block). Notably, such a design provides a framework for disentangling whether response suppression and/or vector inversion delays the planning of subsequent prosaccades. As expected, results for the task-switching block showed that antisaccades selectively increased the RTs of subsequent prosaccades. In turn, results for the go/no-go block showed that prosaccade RTs were increased when preceded by a no-go catch-trial. Moreover, the magnitude of the RT 'cost' was equivalent across the task-switching and go/no-go blocks. That prosaccades preceded by an antisaccade or a no-go catch-trial produced equivalent RT costs indicates that the conjoint processes of response suppression and vector inversion do not drive the inhibition of saccade planning mechanisms. Rather, the present findings indicate that a general consequence of response suppression is a residual inhibition of stimulus-driven saccade networks. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-17T15:29:58Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-c84de49fe13c444589dd886df8d9badc |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-17T15:29:58Z |
| publishDate | 2014-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj.art-c84de49fe13c444589dd886df8d9badc2022-12-21T21:43:11ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032014-01-0191e8640810.1371/journal.pone.0086408Response suppression delays the planning of subsequent stimulus-driven saccades.Jeffrey WeilerTrina MitchellMatthew HeathThe completion of an antisaccade selectively increases the reaction tiME (RT) of a subsequent prosaccade: a result that has been interpreted to reflect the residual inhibition of stimulus-driven saccade networks [1], [2]. In the present investigation we sought to determine whether the increase in prosaccade RT is contingent on the constituent antisaccade planning processes of response suppression and vector inversion or is limited to response suppression. To that end, in one block participants alternated between pro- and antisaccades after every second trial (task-switching block), and in another block participants completed a series of prosaccades that were randomly (and infrequently) interspersed with no-go catch-trials (go/no-go block). Notably, such a design provides a framework for disentangling whether response suppression and/or vector inversion delays the planning of subsequent prosaccades. As expected, results for the task-switching block showed that antisaccades selectively increased the RTs of subsequent prosaccades. In turn, results for the go/no-go block showed that prosaccade RTs were increased when preceded by a no-go catch-trial. Moreover, the magnitude of the RT 'cost' was equivalent across the task-switching and go/no-go blocks. That prosaccades preceded by an antisaccade or a no-go catch-trial produced equivalent RT costs indicates that the conjoint processes of response suppression and vector inversion do not drive the inhibition of saccade planning mechanisms. Rather, the present findings indicate that a general consequence of response suppression is a residual inhibition of stimulus-driven saccade networks.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/24466076/pdf/?tool=EBI |
| spellingShingle | Jeffrey Weiler Trina Mitchell Matthew Heath Response suppression delays the planning of subsequent stimulus-driven saccades. PLoS ONE |
| title | Response suppression delays the planning of subsequent stimulus-driven saccades. |
| title_full | Response suppression delays the planning of subsequent stimulus-driven saccades. |
| title_fullStr | Response suppression delays the planning of subsequent stimulus-driven saccades. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Response suppression delays the planning of subsequent stimulus-driven saccades. |
| title_short | Response suppression delays the planning of subsequent stimulus-driven saccades. |
| title_sort | response suppression delays the planning of subsequent stimulus driven saccades |
| url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/24466076/pdf/?tool=EBI |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jeffreyweiler responsesuppressiondelaystheplanningofsubsequentstimulusdrivensaccades AT trinamitchell responsesuppressiondelaystheplanningofsubsequentstimulusdrivensaccades AT matthewheath responsesuppressiondelaystheplanningofsubsequentstimulusdrivensaccades |