GIVE me your attention: Differentiating goal identification and goal execution components of the anti-saccade effect

Do the eyes have it? A comparison of eye-movement and attentional-probe-based approaches to indexing attentional control within the antisaccade paradigm

Individual differences in the ability to control visual attention, often termed "attentional control," have been of particular interest to cognitive researchers. This has led to the development of numerous tasks intended to measure attentional control, including the antisaccade task. While attentional performance on the antisaccade task is typically indexed through the recording of eye movements, increasingly researchers are reporting the use of probe-based methods of indexing attentional performance on the task. Critically, no research has yet determined the convergence of measures yielded by each of these assessment methods, nor compared the reliability of these measures. The purpose of the present study was to examine whether antisaccade cost measures yielded by a probe-based adaptation of the task converge with antisaccade cost measures yielded by an eye movement task in the sample of individuals, and whether these alternative approaches have comparable levels of psychometric reliability. Ninety-three individuals completed an eye movement task and a probe-based task at two assessment times, and an index of antisaccade cost was computed from each task at each assessment time. Analyses revealed that the antisaccade cost index yielded by each task demonstrated high internal reliability (eye-movement, r_SB = .92; probe-based, r_SB = .80-.84) and high test-retest reliability (eye-movement, r_SB = .82; probe-based, r_SB = .72), but modest measurement convergence (r = .21-.35). Findings suggest that probe-based and eye-movement based antisaccade tasks measure shared variance in attentional control, although their measures do not converge strongly enough to be considered equivalent measures of attentional control.

Attentional control moderates the relationship between pain catastrophizing and selective attention to pain faces on the antisaccade task

Cognitive models of chronic pain emphasize the critical role of pain catastrophizing in attentional bias to pain-related stimuli. The aim of this study was (a) to investigate the relationship between pain catastrophizing and the ability to inhibit selective attention to pain-related faces (attentional bias); and (b) to determine whether attentional control moderated this relationship. One hundred and ten pain-free participants completed the anti-saccade task with dynamic facial expressions, specifically painful, angry, happy, and neutral facial expressions and questionnaires including a measure of pain catastrophizing. As predicted, participants with high pain catastrophizing had significantly higher error rates for antisaccade trials with pain faces relative to other facial expressions, indicating a difficulty disinhibiting attention towards painful faces. In moderation analyses, data showed that attentional control moderated the relationship between attentional bias to pain faces and pain catastrophizing. Post-hoc analyses demonstrated that it was shifting attention (not focusing) that accounted for this effect. Only for those with high self-reported ability to shift attention was there a significant relationship between catastrophizing and attentional bias to pain. These findings confirm that attentional control is necessary for an association between attentional bias and catastrophizing to be observed, which may explain the lack of relationships between attentional bias and individual characteristics, such as catastrophizing, in prior research.