Abstract
The stop-signal task (SST) and anti-saccade tasks are both widely used to explore cognitive inhibitory control. Our previous work on a manual SST showed that subjects’ readiness to respond to the go signal and the extent to which subjects monitor their errors need to be considered in order to attribute impaired performance to deficits in response inhibition. Here we examine whether these same task-related variables similarly influence oculomotor SST and anti-saccade performance. Thirty-six and sixty healthy, adult subjects participated in an oculomotor SST and anti-saccade task, respectively, in which the fore-period (FP) of imperative stimulus varied randomly from trial to trial. We computed a FP effect to index response readiness to the imperative stimulus and a post-error slowing (PES) effect to index error monitoring. Contrary to what we had anticipated, other than a weak but negative association between the FP effect and anti-saccade errors, these behavioral variables did not correlate with SST or anti-saccade performance.
Highlights
The saccade countermanding tasks – including the oculomotor stop signal task (SST) and anti-saccade task – are widely used to explore executive control functions [1,2,3,4,5]
In the oculomotor SST, the stop signal reaction time (SSRT) did not correlate with the FP effect, and in the anti-saccade task, (a) anti-saccade reaction time (RT) gain correlated inversely with the FP effect, though only with marginal significance
Whereas greater response readiness as indexed by the FP effect is associated with decreased inhibitory control in the manual SST, it is associated with greater inhibitory control in the anti-saccade task
Summary
The saccade countermanding tasks – including the oculomotor stop signal task (SST) and anti-saccade task – are widely used to explore executive control functions [1,2,3,4,5]. In order to execute an anti-saccade, one has to inhibit the reflexive tendency to make a pro-saccade elicited by the peripheral target, and engage the oculomotor machinery to make an eye movement in the desired direction. One fails to override the tendency to make a pro-saccade in an anti-saccade trial, resulting in a “directional” error [6]. An index of inhibitory control function can be derived based on the error rate and RT increase of anti-saccade trials. Because these outcome measures are clearly defined, the anti-saccade task is well suited for exploring the neural mechanism of response inhibition and behavioral impulsivity in patients with neurological or psychiatric conditions. Studies in humans with brain lesions have implicated the prefrontal cortex during impaired anti-saccade performance [7,8,9]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
