Cargando…

Probing oculomotor inhibition with the minimally delayed oculomotor response task

The ability to not execute (i.e. to inhibit) actions is important for behavioural flexibility and frees us from being slaves to our immediate sensory environment. The antisaccade task is one of several used to investigate behavioural inhibitory control. However, antisaccades involve a number of impo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Knox, Paul C., Heming De-Allie, Emma, Wolohan, Felicity D. A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6223844/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30062441
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00221-018-5345-9
_version_ 1783369482464395264
author Knox, Paul C.
Heming De-Allie, Emma
Wolohan, Felicity D. A.
author_facet Knox, Paul C.
Heming De-Allie, Emma
Wolohan, Felicity D. A.
author_sort Knox, Paul C.
collection PubMed
description The ability to not execute (i.e. to inhibit) actions is important for behavioural flexibility and frees us from being slaves to our immediate sensory environment. The antisaccade task is one of several used to investigate behavioural inhibitory control. However, antisaccades involve a number of important processes besides inhibition such as attention and working memory. In the minimally delayed oculomotor response (MDOR) task, participants are presented with a simple target step, but instructed to saccade not to the target when it appears (a prosaccade response), but when it disappears (i.e. on target offset). Varying the target display duration prevents offset timing being predictable from the time of target onset, and saccades prior to the offset are counted as errors. Antisaccade error rate and latency are modified by alterations in fixation conditions produced by inserting a gap between fixation target offset and stimulus onset (the gap paradigm; error rate increases, latency decreases) or by leaving the fixation target on when the target appears (overlap paradigm; error rate decreases, latency increases). We investigated the effect of gaps and overlaps on performance in the MDOR task. In Experiment 1 we confirmed that, compared to a control condition in which participants responded to target onsets, in the MDOR task saccade latency was considerably increased (increases of 122–272 ms depending on target display duration and experimental condition). However, there was no difference in error rate or saccade latency between gap and synchronous (fixation target offset followed immediately by saccade target onset) conditions. In Experiment 2, in a different group of participants, we compared overlap and synchronous conditions and again found no statistically significant differences in error rate and saccade latency. The timing distribution of errors suggested that most were responses to target onsets, which we take to be evidence of inhibition failure. We conclude that the MDOR task evokes behaviour that is consistent across different groups of participants. Because it is free of the non-inhibitory processes operative in the antisaccade task, it provides a useful means of investigating behavioural inhibition.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6223844
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62238442018-11-19 Probing oculomotor inhibition with the minimally delayed oculomotor response task Knox, Paul C. Heming De-Allie, Emma Wolohan, Felicity D. A. Exp Brain Res Research Article The ability to not execute (i.e. to inhibit) actions is important for behavioural flexibility and frees us from being slaves to our immediate sensory environment. The antisaccade task is one of several used to investigate behavioural inhibitory control. However, antisaccades involve a number of important processes besides inhibition such as attention and working memory. In the minimally delayed oculomotor response (MDOR) task, participants are presented with a simple target step, but instructed to saccade not to the target when it appears (a prosaccade response), but when it disappears (i.e. on target offset). Varying the target display duration prevents offset timing being predictable from the time of target onset, and saccades prior to the offset are counted as errors. Antisaccade error rate and latency are modified by alterations in fixation conditions produced by inserting a gap between fixation target offset and stimulus onset (the gap paradigm; error rate increases, latency decreases) or by leaving the fixation target on when the target appears (overlap paradigm; error rate decreases, latency increases). We investigated the effect of gaps and overlaps on performance in the MDOR task. In Experiment 1 we confirmed that, compared to a control condition in which participants responded to target onsets, in the MDOR task saccade latency was considerably increased (increases of 122–272 ms depending on target display duration and experimental condition). However, there was no difference in error rate or saccade latency between gap and synchronous (fixation target offset followed immediately by saccade target onset) conditions. In Experiment 2, in a different group of participants, we compared overlap and synchronous conditions and again found no statistically significant differences in error rate and saccade latency. The timing distribution of errors suggested that most were responses to target onsets, which we take to be evidence of inhibition failure. We conclude that the MDOR task evokes behaviour that is consistent across different groups of participants. Because it is free of the non-inhibitory processes operative in the antisaccade task, it provides a useful means of investigating behavioural inhibition. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2018-07-30 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6223844/ /pubmed/30062441 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00221-018-5345-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Research Article
Knox, Paul C.
Heming De-Allie, Emma
Wolohan, Felicity D. A.
Probing oculomotor inhibition with the minimally delayed oculomotor response task
title Probing oculomotor inhibition with the minimally delayed oculomotor response task
title_full Probing oculomotor inhibition with the minimally delayed oculomotor response task
title_fullStr Probing oculomotor inhibition with the minimally delayed oculomotor response task
title_full_unstemmed Probing oculomotor inhibition with the minimally delayed oculomotor response task
title_short Probing oculomotor inhibition with the minimally delayed oculomotor response task
title_sort probing oculomotor inhibition with the minimally delayed oculomotor response task
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6223844/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30062441
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00221-018-5345-9
work_keys_str_mv AT knoxpaulc probingoculomotorinhibitionwiththeminimallydelayedoculomotorresponsetask
AT hemingdeallieemma probingoculomotorinhibitionwiththeminimallydelayedoculomotorresponsetask
AT wolohanfelicityda probingoculomotorinhibitionwiththeminimallydelayedoculomotorresponsetask