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 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.

[1]  J. Pekar,et al.  fMRI evidence that the neural basis of response inhibition is task-dependent. , 2003, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[2]  Paul R. Schrater,et al.  Effects of visual uncertainty on grasping movements , 2007, Experimental Brain Research.

[3]  Matthew Heath,et al.  Task-switching in oculomotor control: Unidirectional switch-cost when alternating between pro- and antisaccades , 2012, Neuroscience Letters.

[4]  P. E. Hallett,et al.  Primary and secondary saccades to goals defined by instructions , 1978, Vision Research.

[5]  C. Curtis,et al.  Success and Failure Suppressing Reflexive Behavior , 2003, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[6]  M. Masson,et al.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[7]  D. Munoz,et al.  Look away: the anti-saccade task and the voluntary control of eye movement , 2004, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[8]  Jason L. Chan,et al.  The effects of attentional load on saccadic task switching , 2013, Experimental Brain Research.

[9]  J. E. Albano,et al.  Visual-motor function of the primate superior colliculus. , 1980, Annual review of neuroscience.

[10]  John J. Foxe,et al.  Prefrontal‐subcortical dissociations underlying inhibitory control revealed by event‐related fMRI , 2004, The European journal of neuroscience.

[11]  M. Goodale,et al.  Perceptual illusion and the real-time control of action. , 2003, Spatial vision.

[12]  René Müri,et al.  Cortical control of saccades , 1995, Annals of neurology.

[13]  Burkhart Fischer,et al.  Effects of procues on error rate and reaction times of antisaccades in human subjects , 1996, Experimental Brain Research.

[14]  D. Munoz,et al.  Reflex suppression in the anti-saccade task is dependent on prestimulus neural processes. , 1998, Journal of neurophysiology.

[15]  M. Heath,et al.  Repetitive antisaccade execution does not increase the unidirectional prosaccade switch-cost. , 2014, Acta psychologica.

[16]  Matthew R. G. Brown,et al.  Neural processes associated with antisaccade task performance investigated with event-related FMRI. , 2005, Journal of neurophysiology.

[17]  Leanne Boucher,et al.  Neural Basis of Adaptive Response Time Adjustment during Saccade Countermanding , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[18]  M. Heath,et al.  Antisaccades exhibit diminished online control relative to prosaccades , 2010, Experimental Brain Research.

[19]  Leanne Boucher,et al.  Influence of history on saccade countermanding performance in humans and macaque monkeys , 2007, Vision Research.

[20]  D P Munoz,et al.  Role of Primate Superior Colliculus in Preparation and Execution of Anti-Saccades and Pro-Saccades , 1999, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[21]  Paul Cisek,et al.  Cortical mechanisms of action selection: the affordance competition hypothesis , 2007, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[22]  M. Heath,et al.  The prior-antisaccade effect influences the planning and online control of prosaccades , 2012, Experimental Brain Research.

[23]  C. Pierrot-Deseilligny,et al.  Cortical control of saccades , 1998, Experimental Brain Research.

[24]  Kristen A. Ford,et al.  Inhibition and generation of saccades: Rapid event-related fMRI of prosaccades, antisaccades, and nogo trials , 2006, NeuroImage.

[25]  Ravi S. Menon,et al.  Preparatory set associated with pro-saccades and anti-saccades in humans investigated with event-related FMRI. , 2003, Journal of neurophysiology.

[26]  Matthew Heath,et al.  Vector inversion diminishes the online control of antisaccades , 2011, Experimental Brain Research.

[27]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[28]  Stefan Everling,et al.  Frontoparietal activation with preparation for antisaccades. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.