The historical context in which saccades are made influences their latency and error rates, but less is known about how context influences their spatial parameters. We recently described a novel spatial bias for antisaccades, in which the endpoints of these responses deviate towards alternative goal locations used in the same experimental block, and showed that expectancy (prior probability) is at least partly responsible for this ‘alternate-goal bias’. In this report we asked whether trial history also plays a role. Subjects performed antisaccades to a stimulus randomly located on the horizontal meridian, on a 40° angle downwards from the horizontal meridian, or on a 40° upward angle, with all three locations equally probable on any given trial. We found that the endpoints of antisaccades were significantly displaced towards the goal location of not only the immediately preceding trial (n − 1) but also the penultimate (n − 2) trial. Furthermore, this bias was mainly present for antisaccades with a short latency of <250 ms and was rapidly corrected by secondary saccades. We conclude that the location of recent antisaccades biases the spatial programming of upcoming antisaccades, that this historical effect persists over many seconds, and that it influences mainly rapidly generated eye movements. Because corrective saccades eliminate the historical bias, we suggest that the bias arises in processes generating the response vector, rather than processes generating the perceptual estimate of goal location.
Antisaccade Global effect Range effect Expectation
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
This work was supported by CIHR operating grant MOP-81270. TR was supported by an AAN-SIGN summer fellowship grant, MA by a grant from the Schweizerische Stiftung für medizinisch-biologische Stipendien, and JB by a Canada Research Chair and a Senior Scholar award from the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research. We thank Meinrad Abegg for his help with statistical analysis, and Wieske van Zoest and Stefan van der Stigchel for informative discussions and suggestions.
Abegg M, Rodriguez AR, Lee H, Barton JJS (2010) ‘Alternate-goal bias’ in antisaccades and the influence of expectation. Exp Brain Res 203:553–562PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton JJS, Manoach D, Goff D (2006) The inter-trial effects of stimulus and saccadic direction on prosaccades and antisaccades, in controls and schizophrenic patients. Exp Brain Res 174:487–498PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorris M, Paré M, Munoz D (2000) Immediate neural plasticity shapes motor performance. J Neurosci 20:RC52PubMedGoogle Scholar
Edelman JA, Keller EL (1998) Dependence on target configuration of express saccade-related activity in the primate superior colliculus. J Neurophysiol 80:1407–1426PubMedGoogle Scholar
Eggert T, Sailer U, Ditterich J, Straube A (2002) Differential effect of a distractor on primary saccades and perceptual localization. Vision Res 42:2969–2984PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ettinger U, Ffytche DH, Kumari V, Kathmann N, Reuter B, Zelaya F, Williams SC (2008) Decomposing the neural correlates of antisaccade eye movements using event-related FMRI. Cereb Cortex 18(5):1148–1159Google Scholar
Evdokimidis I, Constantinidis T, Liakopoulos D, Papageorgiou C (1996) The increased reaction time of antisaccades: what makes the difference? Int J Psychophysiol 22:61–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everling S, Munoz DP (2000) Neuronal correlates for preparatory set associated with pro-saccades and anti-saccades in the primate frontal eye field. J Neuriosci 20:387–400Google Scholar
Everling S, Dorris MC, Klein RM, Munoz DP (1999) Role of primate superior colliculus in preparation and execution of anti-saccades and pro-saccades. J Neurosci 19:2740–2754PubMedGoogle Scholar
Manoach DS, Thakkar KN, Cain MS, Polli FE, Edelman JA, Fischl B, Barton JJ (2007) Neural activity is modulated by trial history: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of the effects of a previous antisaccade. J Neurosci 27:1791–1798PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuter B, Philipp A, Koch I, Kathmann N (2006) Effects of switching between leftward and rightward pro-and antisaccades. Biol Psychol 40:122–130Google Scholar
Trappenberg TP, Dorris MC, Munoz DP, Klein RM (2001) A model of saccade initiation based on the competitive integration of exogenous and endogenous signals in the superior colliculus. J Cogn Neurosci 13:256–271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Stigchel S, Theeuwes J (2005) Relation between saccade trajectories and spatial distractor locations. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 25:579–582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Opstal A, Van Gisbergen JAM (1990) Role of monkey superior colliculus in saccade averaging. Exp Brain Res 79:143–149PubMedGoogle Scholar
Van Zoest W, Donk M, Theeuwes J (2004) The role of stimulus-driven and goal-driven control in saccadic visual selection. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 30:746–759PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Zoest W, Van der Stigchel S, Barton JJS (2008) Distractor effects on saccade trajectories: a comparison of prosaccades, antisaccades, and memory-guided saccades. Exp Brain Res 186:431–442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker R, Deubel H, Schneider WX, Findlay JM (1997) Effect of remote distractor on saccade programming: evidence for an extended fixation zone. J Neurophysiol 78:1108–1119PubMedGoogle Scholar
Weber H, Durr N, Fischer B (1998) Effects of pre-cues on voluntary and reflexive saccade generation. II. Pro-cues for anti-saccades. Exp Brain Res 120:417–431PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar