Cargando…
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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3899250/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24466076 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086408 |
_version_ | 1782300542588944384 |
---|---|
author | Weiler, Jeffrey Mitchell, Trina Heath, Matthew |
author_facet | Weiler, Jeffrey Mitchell, Trina Heath, Matthew |
author_sort | Weiler, Jeffrey |
collection | PubMed |
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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3899250 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-38992502014-01-24 Response Suppression Delays the Planning of Subsequent Stimulus-Driven Saccades Weiler, Jeffrey Mitchell, Trina Heath, Matthew PLoS One Research Article 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. Public Library of Science 2014-01-22 /pmc/articles/PMC3899250/ /pubmed/24466076 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086408 Text en © 2014 Weiler et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Weiler, Jeffrey Mitchell, Trina Heath, Matthew Response Suppression Delays the Planning of Subsequent Stimulus-Driven Saccades |
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 |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3899250/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24466076 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086408 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT weilerjeffrey responsesuppressiondelaystheplanningofsubsequentstimulusdrivensaccades AT mitchelltrina responsesuppressiondelaystheplanningofsubsequentstimulusdrivensaccades AT heathmatthew responsesuppressiondelaystheplanningofsubsequentstimulusdrivensaccades |