‘Alternate-goal bias’ in antisaccades and the influence of expectation

Abstract

Saccadic performance depends on the requirements of the current trial, but also may be inXuenced by other trials in the same experiment. This eVect of trial context has been investigated most for saccadic error rate and reaction time but seldom for the positional accuracy of saccadic landing points. We investigated whether the direction of saccades towards one goal is aVected by the location of a second goal used in other trials in the same experimental block. In our Wrst experiment, landing points (‘endpoints’) of antisaccades but not prosaccades were shifted towards the location of the alternate goal. This spatial bias decreased with increasing angular separation between the current and alternative goals. In a second experiment, we explored whether expectancy about the goal location was responsible for the biasing of the saccadic endpoint. For this, we used a condition where the saccadic goal randomly changed from one trial to the next between locations on, above or below the horizontal meridian. We modulated the prior probability of the alternate-goal location by showing cues prior to stimulus onset. The results showed that expectation about the possible positions of the saccadic goal is suYcient to bias saccadic endpoints and can account for at least part of this phenomenon of ‘alternate-goal bias’. Keywords Antisaccade · Prosaccade · Direction · Global eVect · History · Probability