Inst. of Cognitive Neuroscience, National Central Univ., No.300, Jhongda Rd., Jhongli City 320, Taiwan.
J Neurophysiol. 2010 Mar;103(3):1438-47. doi: 10.1152/jn.00815.2009. Epub 2009 Dec 23.
It is well known that pro- and antisaccades may deploy different cognitive processes. However, the specific reason why antisaccades have longer latencies than prosaccades is still under debate. In three experiments, we studied the factors contributing to the antisaccade cost by taking attentional orienting and target location probabilities into account. In experiment 1, using a new antisaccade paradigm, we directly tested Olk and Kingstone's hypothesis, which attributes longer antisaccade latency to the time it takes to reorient from the visual target to the opposite saccadic target. By eliminating the reorienting component in our paradigm, we found no significant difference between the latencies of the two saccade types. In experiment 2, we varied the proportion of prosaccades made to certain locations and found that latencies in the high location-probability (75%) condition were faster than those in the low location-probability condition. Moreover, antisaccade latencies were significantly longer when location probability was high. This pattern can be explained by the notion of competing pathways for pro- and antisaccades in findings of others. In experiment 3, we further explored the degrees of modulation of location probability by decreasing the magnitude of high probability from 75 to 65%. We again observed a pattern similar to that seen in experiment 2 but with smaller modulation effects. Together, these experiments indicate that the reorienting process is a critical factor in producing the antisaccade cost. Furthermore, the antisaccade cost can be modulated by probabilistic contextual information such as location probabilities.
众所周知,正、反扫视可能会运用不同的认知过程。然而,反扫视的潜伏期比正扫视长的具体原因仍存在争议。在三个实验中,我们考虑了注意定向和目标位置概率的因素,研究了导致反扫视成本的因素。在实验 1 中,我们使用了一种新的反扫视范式,直接检验了 Olk 和 Kingstone 的假设,该假设认为反扫视的潜伏期较长是因为需要将注意力从视觉目标重新定向到相反的扫视目标。通过消除我们范式中的重新定向成分,我们发现两种扫视类型的潜伏期没有显著差异。在实验 2 中,我们改变了特定位置的正扫视比例,发现高位置概率(75%)条件下的潜伏期比低位置概率条件下的潜伏期快。此外,当位置概率较高时,反扫视的潜伏期明显较长。这种模式可以用其他人的研究中关于正、反扫视的竞争途径的观点来解释。在实验 3 中,我们进一步通过将高概率从 75%降低到 65%来探索位置概率的调制程度。我们再次观察到与实验 2 相似的模式,但调制效果较小。总之,这些实验表明,重新定向过程是产生反扫视成本的关键因素。此外,反扫视成本可以通过位置概率等概率上下文信息进行调节。