Response selection in prosaccades, antisaccades, and other volitional saccades

Saccades made to the opposite side of a visual stimulus (antisaccades) and to central cues (simple volitional saccades) both require active response selection but whether the mechanisms of response selection differ between these tasks is unclear. Response selection can be assessed by increasing the number of response alternatives: this leads to increased reaction times when response selection is more demanding. We compared the reaction times of prosaccades, antisaccades, saccades cued by a central arrow, and saccades cued by a central number, in blocks of either two or six possible responses. In the two-response blocks, reaction times were fastest for prosaccades and antisaccades, and slowest for arrow-cued and number-cued saccades. Increasing response alternatives from two to six caused a paradoxical reduction in reaction times of prosaccades, had no effect on arrow-cued saccades, and led to a large increase in reaction times of number-cued saccades. For antisaccade reaction times, the effect of increasing response alternatives was intermediate, greater than that for arrow-cued saccades but less than that for number-cued saccades. We suggest that this pattern of results may reflect two components of saccadic processing: (a) response triggering, which is more rapid with a peripheral stimulus as in the prosaccade and antisaccade tasks and (b) response selection, which is more demanding for the antisaccade and number-cued saccade tasks, and more automatic when there is direct stimulus–response mapping as with prosaccades, or over-learned symbols as with arrow-cued saccades.