Task-switching effects for visual and auditory pro- and antisaccades: evidence for a task-set inertia

Visually guided saccades and acoustic distractors: no evidence for the remote distractor effect or global effect

A remote visual distractor increases saccade reaction time (RT) to a visual target and may reflect the time required to resolve conflict between target- and distractor-related information within a common retinotopic representation in the superior colliculus (SC) (i.e., the remote distractor effect: RDE). Notably, because the SC serves as a sensorimotor interface it is possible that the RDE may be associated with the pairing of an acoustic distractor with a visual target; that is, the conflict related to saccade generation signals may be sensory-independent. To address that issue, we employed a traditional RDE experiment involving a visual target and visual proximal and remote distractors (Experiment 1) and an experiment wherein a visual target was presented with acoustic proximal and remote distractors (Experiment 2). As well, Experiments 1 and 2 employed no-distractor trials. Experiment 1 RTs elicited a reliable RDE, whereas Experiment 2 RTs for proximal and remote distractors were shorter than their no distractor counterparts. Accordingly, findings demonstrate that the RDE is sensory specific and arises from conflicting visual signals within a common retinotopic map. As well, Experiment 2 findings indicate that an acoustic distractor supports an intersensory facilitation that optimizes oculomotor planning.

Switch costs in inhibitory control and voluntary behaviour: A computational study of the antisaccade task

An integral aspect of human cognition is the ability to inhibit stimulus-driven, habitual responses, in favour of complex, voluntary actions. In addition, humans can also alternate between different tasks. This comes at the cost of degraded performance when compared to repeating the same task, a phenomenon called the "task-switch cost." While task switching and inhibitory control have been studied extensively, the interaction between them has received relatively little attention. Here, we used the SERIA model, a computational model of antisaccade behaviour, to draw a bridge between them. We investigated task switching in two versions of the mixed antisaccade task, in which participants are cued to saccade either in the same or in the opposite direction to a peripheral stimulus. SERIA revealed that stopping a habitual action leads to increased inhibitory control that persists onto the next trial, independently of the upcoming trial type. Moreover, switching between tasks induces slower and less accurate voluntary responses compared to repeat trials. However, this only occurs when participants lack the time to prepare the correct response. Altogether, SERIA demonstrates that there is a reconfiguration cost associated with switching between voluntary actions. In addition, the enhanced inhibition that follows antisaccade but not prosaccade trials explains asymmetric switch costs. In conclusion, SERIA offers a novel model of task switching that unifies previous theoretical accounts by distinguishing between inhibitory control and voluntary action generation and could help explain similar phenomena in paradigms beyond the antisaccade task.

Alternating between pro- and antisaccades: switch-costs manifest via decoupling the spatial relations between stimulus and response

Antisaccades are a nonstandard task requiring a response mirror-symmetrical to the location of a target. The completion of an antisaccade has been shown to delay the reaction time (RT) of a subsequent prosaccade, whereas the converse switch elicits a null RT cost (i.e., the unidirectional prosaccade switch-cost). The present study sought to determine whether the prosaccade switch-cost arises from low-level interference specific to the sensory features of a target (i.e., modality-dependent) or manifests via the high-level demands of dissociating the spatial relations between stimulus and response (i.e., modality-independent). Participants alternated between pro- and antisaccades wherein the target associated with the response alternated between visual and auditory modalities. Thus, the present design involved task-switch (i.e., switching from a pro- to antisaccade and vice versa) and modality-switch (i.e., switching from a visual to auditory target and vice versa) trials as well as their task- and modality-repetition counterparts. RTs were longer for modality-switch than modality-repetition trials. Notably, however, modality-switch trials did not nullify or lessen the unidirectional prosaccade switch-cost; that is, the magnitude of the RT cost for task-switch prosaccades was equivalent across modality-switch and modality-repetition trials. Thus, competitive interference within a sensory modality does not contribute to the unidirectional prosaccade switch-cost. Instead, the modality-independent findings evince that dissociating the spatial relations between stimulus and response instantiates a high-level and inertially persistent nonstandard task-set that impedes the planning of a subsequent prosaccade.