Aponte Eduardo A, Tschan Dominic G, Stephan Klaas E, Heinzle Jakob
Translational Neuromodeling Unit, Institute for Biomedical Engineering, University of Zurich and ETH Zurich . Zurich , Switzerland.
Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, University College London . London , United Kingdom.
J Neurophysiol. 2018 Dec 1;120(6):3001-3016. doi: 10.1152/jn.00240.2018. Epub 2018 Aug 15.
In the antisaccade task participants are required to saccade in the opposite direction of a peripheral visual cue (PVC). This paradigm is often used to investigate inhibition of reflexive responses as well as voluntary response generation. However, it is not clear to what extent different versions of this task probe the same underlying processes. Here, we explored with the Stochastic Early Reaction, Inhibition, and late Action (SERIA) model how the delay between task cue and PVC affects reaction time (RT) and error rate (ER) when pro- and antisaccade trials are randomly interleaved. Specifically, we contrasted a condition in which the task cue was presented before the PVC with a condition in which the PVC served also as task cue. Summary statistics indicate that ERs and RTs are reduced and contextual effects largely removed when the task is signaled before the PVC appears. The SERIA model accounts for RT and ER in both conditions and better so than other candidate models. Modeling demonstrates that voluntary pro- and antisaccades are frequent in both conditions. Moreover, early task cue presentation results in better control of reflexive saccades, leading to fewer fast antisaccade errors and more rapid correct prosaccades. Finally, high-latency errors are shown to be prevalent in both conditions. In summary, SERIA provides an explanation for the differences in the delayed and nondelayed antisaccade task. NEW & NOTEWORTHY In this article, we use a computational model to study the mixed antisaccade task. We contrast two conditions in which the task cue is presented either before or concurrently with the saccadic target. Modeling provides a highly accurate account of participants' behavior and demonstrates that a significant number of prosaccades are voluntary actions. Moreover, we provide a detailed quantitative analysis of the types of error that occur in pro- and antisaccade trials.
在反扫视任务中,参与者需要朝着与外周视觉线索(PVC)相反的方向进行扫视。该范式常用于研究对反射性反应的抑制以及自主反应的产生。然而,尚不清楚此任务的不同版本在多大程度上探究相同的潜在过程。在此,我们使用随机早期反应、抑制和晚期动作(SERIA)模型来探究当正扫视和反扫视试验随机交错时,任务线索与PVC之间的延迟如何影响反应时间(RT)和错误率(ER)。具体而言,我们对比了任务线索在PVC之前呈现的情况与PVC也用作任务线索的情况。汇总统计表明,当在PVC出现之前发出任务信号时,错误率和反应时间会降低,且情境效应在很大程度上得以消除。SERIA模型在两种情况下都能解释反应时间和错误率,并且比其他候选模型解释得更好。建模表明,在两种情况下,自主的正扫视和反扫视都很常见。此外,早期呈现任务线索可更好地控制反射性扫视,从而减少快速反扫视错误并加快正确正扫视的速度。最后,高延迟错误在两种情况下都很普遍。总之,SERIA为延迟和非延迟反扫视任务中的差异提供了解释。新内容与值得注意之处:在本文中,我们使用计算模型来研究混合反扫视任务。我们对比了任务线索在扫视目标之前或与扫视目标同时呈现的两种情况。建模对参与者的行为提供了高度准确的描述,并表明大量的正扫视是自主行为。此外,我们对正扫视和反扫视试验中出现的错误类型进行了详细的定量分析。