Purchase this article with an account.
Revathy Mani, Lisa J Asper, Sieu Khuu; The effect of visual delay cue on saccadic response during an antisaccade task.. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2019;60(9):1813.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
The ability to reorient spatial attention from one task to another requires disengaging attention and reengaging to the second task. Antisaccades is one such task where the ability to disengage attention, inhibit one’s response and then execute a voluntary antisaccade (moving opposite to the test target) either immediately or after a time delay, can be studied. Very few studies have investigated antisaccades overlap effect with various delay intervals. This study aims to investigate the ability to disengage attention using an antisaccade overlap paradigm with several different delay durations in normally sighted adults.
Eight subjects, ((mean age=31 yr±16), six females) participated. At each antisaccade trial, subjects fixated a central target and made an antisaccade in response to a peripherally appearing target, but only made the antisaccade after a time delay, when cued by a central visual cue. The visual delay cue appeared after delay periods of 0, 0.0625, 0.125, 0.250, 0.500 or 1.0s. Eye movements were measured using GazepointGP3 eye tracker with a sampling rate of 150Hz. The antisaccade latency, disinhibitions (eye movements incorrectly made prior to the visual display cue) and directional errors (eye movements incorrectly towards the peripheral target) were determined.
The duration of the delay period had a statistically significant effect on antisaccade latencies (F(5,35) =10.59, p =0.002). Mean saccadic latency was longer for 0 delay (Mean= 488.8±113msec) than for 0.0625 (Mean=391±89msec), 0.500 (Mean =306.67±99msec) and 1s delays (Mean =344±67msec). However, there was no significant difference between 0 delay and 0.125s (Mean=396.9±123msec) and 0.250s (Mean=392.5±83msec) delays. Disinhibition errors (%) showed significant difference between 0.0625s and other delays (Fr=18.47, p =0.001); particularly at 0.500s delay (Post hoc, p= 0.011), there was an increase in disinhibition errors (%) (17 vs 0). Directional errors (%) showed a significant overall decrease with increasing delay (Fr=16.94, p=0.0046), but there was no significant difference between 0 and other individual delay periods.
Our results suggest that the delay period in the antisaccade overlap task provides time to disengage attention, and plan and generate saccades with shorter latency. Hence, delayed antisaccades may be an indirect measure of attention disengagement and response inhibition.
This abstract was presented at the 2019 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Vancouver, Canada, April 28 - May 2, 2019.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only