English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The present study was designed to evaluate whether fixation point offsets have the same effects on the average latencies of prosaccades (responses towards target) and antisaccades (responses away from target). Gap and overlap conditions were run with and without an acoustic warning signal. The 'gap effect' was taken to be the difference in mean reaction time between gap and overlap trials. This effect was dramatically reduced by the presentation of the warning signal. Without this signal, fixation offsets can serve as warning signals themselves, which artifactually inflates the magnitude of the gap effect. The warning effect of fixation offsets was equivalent for pro and antisaccades. A significant gap effect is still evident with the acoustic warning signal; however, in this case it is associated primarily with prosaccades. These results replicate and extend our previous work demonstrating that, if their warning effects are controlled, the facilitatory effects of fixation point offsets are response dependent, and suggesting the existence of a component process (fixation release) which is closely linked with the processing architecture underlying target-directed saccades.

experimental brain research

Effects of warning signals and fixation point offsets on the latencies of pro- versus antisaccades: implications for an interpretation of the gap effect