Task-Switching Effects for Visual and Auditory Pro- and Antisaccades: Evidence for a Task-Set Inertia

Abstract

The completion of an antisaccade delays the reaction time (RT) of a subsequent prosaccade; however, the converse switch does not influence RT. In accounting for this result, the task-set inertia hypothesis contends that antisaccades engender a persistent nonstandard task-set that delays the planning of a subsequent prosaccade. In contrast, the coordinate system transformation hypothesis asserts that the transformation required to construct a mirror-symmetrical target representation persistently inhibits prosaccade planning. The authors tested the latter hypothesis by examining switch-costs for pro- and antisaccades directed to visual (i.e., the stimuli used in previous work) and auditory targets. Notably, auditory cues are specified in a head-centered frame of reference prior to their conversion into the retinocentric coordinates necessary for saccade output. Thus, if the coordinate system transformation hypothesis is correct then auditory pro- and antisaccades should elicit a bidirectional switch-cost because each requires a coordinate transformation. RTs for visual and auditory modalities showed a reliable--and equivalent magnitude--prosaccade switch-cost. Moreover, performance (e.g., movement time) and kinematic (e.g., velocity) variables indicated the switch-cost was restricted to response planning. As such, results are incompatible with the coordinate system transformation hypothesis and therefore provide convergent evidence that a task-set inertia contributes to the prosaccade switch-cost.

Switch costs in inhibitory control and voluntary behaviour: A computational study of the antisaccade task

“…In it, a habitual response – a (pro)saccade to a peripheral stimulus – needs to be overwritten by a non‐habitual, voluntary action, that is, an (anti)saccade in the direction opposite to the stimulus. Behaviourally, switch costs in the mixed antisaccade task, in which pro‐ and antisaccade trials are alternated, have been studied in detail (Ansari, Derakshan, & Richards, ; Barton, Greenzang, Hefter, Edelman, & Manoach, ; Barton, Raoof, Jameel, & Manoach, ; Barton et al., ; Bojko, Kramer, & Peterson, ; Chan, Koval, Johnston, & Everling, ; Cherkasova, Manoach, Intriligator, & Barton, ; DeSimone, Weiler, Aber, & Heath, ; Ethridge, Brahmbhatt, Gao, McDowell, & Clementz, ; Fecteau, Au, Armstrong, & Munoz, ; Franke, Reuter, Breddin, & Kathmann, ; Heath, Gillen, & Samani, ; Heath, Starrs, Macpherson, & Weiler, ; Hunt & Klein, ; Lee, Hamalainen, Dyckman, Barton, & Manoach, ; Manoach, Lindgren, & Barton, ; Manoach et al., , ; Mueller, Swainson, & Jackson, ; Pierce, McCardel, & McDowell, ; Rivaud‐Pechoux, Vidailhet, Brandel, & Gaymard, ; Weiler & Heath, ,, ,). Despite the large number of studies, no unified picture of the cost of switching in this paradigm has emerged.…”

Visually guided saccades and acoustic distractors: no evidence for the remote distractor effect or global effect

“…For 80% 86 of the trials, the target was presented with a visual distractor (i.e., a red LED) in the same (i.e., 87 proximal distractor: P) or the opposite (i.e., remote distractor: R) visual field as the target at 88 eccentricities less than (10.5° from fixation; i.e., P-or R-) or greater than (20.5°; i.e., P+ or R+) 89 the target (for schematic, see Figure 1). Further, although saccades directed to acoustic targets 90 are generally less accurate (i.e., when greater than 10° eccentricity) and/or more variable than 91 visual targets, ample evidence has shown that humans reliablyand accuratelydiscriminate between the visual target and acoustic distractor locations used here (Heath et al 2015;2016;93 Yao and Peck 1997;Zambarbieri et al 1987). The fixation LED remained visible during the 94 foreperiod and was extinguished with the target (i.e., overlap paradigm).…”