Search

Oculomotor decision making can be investigated by a simple step task, where a person decides whether a target has jumped to the left or the right. More complex tasks include the countermanding task (look at the jumped target, except when a subsequent signal instructs you not to) and the Wheeless task (where the jumped target sometimes then quickly jumps to a new location). Different instantiations of the LATER (Linear Approach to Threshold with Ergodic Rate) model have been shown to explain the saccadic latency data arising from these tasks, despite it being almost inconceivable that completely separate decision-making mechanisms exist for each. However, these models have an identical construction with regards to predicting prosaccadic responses (all step task trials, and control trials in countermanding and Wheeless tasks, where no countermanding signal is given or when the target does not make a second jump). We measured saccadic latencies for 23 human observers each performing the three tasks, and modelled prosaccade latencies with LATER to see if model parameters were usefully preserved across tasks. We found no significant difference in reaction times and model parameters between the step and Wheeless tasks (mean 175 and 177 ms, respectively; standard deviation, SD 22 and 24 ms). In contrast, we identified prolonged latencies in the countermanding tasks (236 ms; SD 37 ms) explained by a slower rise and an elevated threshold of the decision making signal, suggesting elevated participant caution. Our findings support the idea that common machinery exists for oculomotor decision-making, which can be flexibly deployed depending upon task demands. © 2020 IBRO

Detailed measurements of saccadic latency - the time taken to make an eye movement to a suddenly-presented visual target - have proved a valuable source of detailed and quantitative information in a wide range of neurological conditions, as well as shedding light on the mechanisms of decision, currently of intense interest to cognitive neuroscientists. However, there is no doubt that more complex oculomotor tasks, and in particular the antisaccade task in which a participant must make a saccade in the opposite direction to the target, are potentially more sensitive indicators of neurological dysfunction, particularly in neurodegenerative conditions. But two obstacles currently hinder their widespread adoption for this purpose. First, that much of the potential information from antisaccade experiments, notably about latency distribution and amplitude, is typically thrown away. Second, that there is no standardised protocol for carrying out antisaccade experiments, so that results from one laboratory cannot easily be compared with those from another. This paper, the outcome of a recent international meeting of oculomotor scientists and clinicians with an unusually wide experience of such measurements, sets out a proposed protocol for clinical antisaccade trials: its adoption will greatly enhance the clinical and scientific benefits of making these kinds of measurements. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd.

Many factors influence how long it takes to respond to a visual stimulus. The lowest-level factors, such as luminance and contrast, determine how easily different elements of a target can be detected. Higher-level factors are to do with whether these elements constitute a stimulus requiring a response; they include prior probability and urgency. It is natural to think of these two processes, detection and decision, as occurring in series, so that overall reaction time is essentially the sum of the contributions of each stage. Here, measurements of saccadic latency to visual targets whose contrast and prior probability are systematically manipulated demonstrate that there are indeed separable stages of detection and decision. Both can be quantitatively described by rise-to-threshold mechanisms; the average rate of rise of the first is a simple logarithmic function of target contrast, whereas the second shows the linear rise characteristic of the LATER model of neural decision making. The implication is that under normal, high-contrast conditions, in which detection is very fast, the random variability that is characteristic of all reaction times is not caused by sensory noise but is gratuitously introduced by the brain itself; paradoxically, by conferring unpredictability it may aid an organism's survival.