Effects of blocked vs. interleaved administration mode on saccade preparatory set revealed using pupillometry

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naila Ayala ◽  
Ewa Niechwiej-Szwedo
Keyword(s):  
Preparatory Set

Cross-modal transfer as a function of preparatory set and distinctiveness of stimulus aspects

1965 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mats Bjorkman ◽  
Jorgen Garvill ◽  
Bo Molander
Keyword(s):  
Preparatory Set

Neurocognitive Constructs Underlying Executive Control in Statistically-Determined Mild Cognitive Impairment

2021 ◽  
Vol 82 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheina Emrani ◽  
Melissa Lamar ◽  
Catherine Price ◽  
Satya Baliga ◽  
Victor Wasserman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Mild Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Inhibitory Control ◽  
Executive Control ◽  
Serial Order ◽  
Temporal Organization ◽  
Executive Attention ◽  
Span Test ◽  
Preparatory Set

Background: The model of executive attention proposes that temporal organization, i.e., the time necessary to bring novel tasks to fruition is an important construct that modulates executive control. Subordinate to temporal organization are the constructs of working memory, preparatory set, and inhibitory control. Objective: The current research operationally-defined the constructs underlying the theory of executive attention using intra-component latencies (i.e., reaction times) from a 5-span backward digit test from patients with suspected mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Methods: An iPad-version of the Backward Digit Span Test (BDT) was administered to memory clinic patients. Patients with (n = 22) and without (n = 36) MCI were classified. Outcome variables included intra-component latencies for all correct 5-span serial order responses. Results: Average total time did not differ. A significant 2-group by 5-serial order latency interaction revealed the existence of distinct time epochs. Non-MCI patients produced slower latencies on initial (position 2-working memory/preparatory set) and latter (position 4-inhibitory control) correct serial order responses. By contrast, patients with MCI produced a slower latency for middle serial order responses (i.e., position 3-preparatory set). No group differences were obtained for incorrect 5-span test trials. Conclusion: The analysis of 5-span BDT serial order latencies found distinct epochs regarding how time was allocated in the context of successful test performance. Intra-component latencies obtained from tests assessing mental re-ordering may constitute useful neurocognitive biomarkers for emergent neurodegenerative illness.

Effects of Different Attentional Strategies and Practice on Motor Efficiency

1990 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-43 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Oña
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Times ◽  
Limited Attention ◽  
Motor Efficiency ◽  
Subject Design ◽  
Preparatory Set ◽  
Actual Movement ◽  
Construct Theory ◽  
Motor Set ◽  
Attentional Strategies ◽  
Attentional Models

The effect of different attentional strategies on motor efficiency, measured by reaction-response time components, has historically been based on memory-drum construct theory, which implied limited attention and motor-response processing. The present study contrasts these principles by using a recording system and automatic analysis of reaction-response parameters. A within-subject design allowed detailed observation of the frequency of each preparatory set within each parameter and with control of the effects of practice. Analysis indicates (a) practice changes the effects of the attentional strategies on the components of reaction response but not the actual movement; (b) the motor-set strategy produces shorter movement times and, inversely, higher motor reaction times; and (c) the motor-sensory set integrated strategy produces improvements on each component of the reaction response. These findings suggest the memory-drum construct theory needs revision and should be based on other attentional models.

Neuronal activity related to visually guided saccades in the frontal eye fields of rhesus monkeys: comparison with supplementary eye fields

1991 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 559-579 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. D. Schall
Keyword(s):  
Rhesus Monkeys ◽  
Time Course ◽  
Receptive Fields ◽  
Peak Level ◽  
Frontal Eye Fields ◽  
Visually Guided ◽  
Visual Cells ◽  
Preparatory Set ◽  
Functional Classes ◽  
Supplementary Eye Fields

1. The purpose of this study was to analyze the response properties of neurons in the frontal eye fields (FEF) of rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) and to compare and contrast the various functional classes with those recorded in the supplementary eye fields (SEF) of the same animals performing the same go/no-go visual tracking task. Three hundred ten cells recorded in FEF provided the data for this investigation. 2. Visual cells in FEF responded to the stimuli that guided the eye movements. The visual cells in FEF responded with a slightly shorter latency and were more consistent and phasic in their activation than their counterparts in SEF. The receptive fields tended to emphasize the contralateral hemifield to the same extent as those observed in SEF visual cells. 3. Preparatory set cells began to discharge after the presentation of the target and ceased firing before the saccade, after the go/no-go cue was given. These neurons comprised a smaller proportion in FEF than in SEF. In contrast to their counterparts in SEF, the preparatory set cells in FEF did not respond preferentially in relation to contralateral movements, even though most responded preferentially for movements in one particular direction. The time course of the discharge of the FEF set cells was similar to that of their SEF counterparts, except that they reached their peak level of activation sooner. The few preparatory set cells in FEF tested with both auditory and visual stimuli tended to respond preferentially to the visual targets, whereas, in contrast, most set cells in SEF were bimodal. 4. Sensory-movement cells represented the largest population of cells recorded in FEF, responding in relation to both the presentation of the targets and the execution of the saccade. Although some of these sensory-movement cells resembled their counterparts in SEF by exhibiting a sustained elevation of activity, most of the FEF sensory-movement cells gave two discrete bursts, one after the presentation of the target and another before and during the saccade. Like their counterparts in SEF, the sensory-movement cells tended to be tuned for saccades into the contralateral hemifield, but this tendency was more pronounced in FEF than in SEF. The FEF sensory-movement cells discharged more briskly, with a shorter latency relative to the presentation of the target, than their counterparts in SEF. In addition, the FEF sensory-movement neurons reached their peak activation sooner than SEF sensory-movement neurons. Most FEF sensory-movement cells exhibited different patterns of activation in response to visual and auditory targets.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Preparatory set (expectancy)--further evidence of its 'central' locus.

1941 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. H. Mowrer
Keyword(s):  
Preparatory Set

Preparatory Set Task

1935 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elsa M. Siipola
Keyword(s):  
Preparatory Set

Neurophysiological Approaches to Brain Mechanisms for Preparatory Set

2019 ◽  
pp. 137-153
Author(s):  
Edward V. Evarts
Keyword(s):  
Preparatory Set

Effects of Age on the Contingent Negative Variation and Preparatory Set in a Reaction-Time Task

1974 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. E. Loveless ◽  
A. J. Sanford
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Contingent Negative Variation ◽  
Reaction Time Task ◽  
Time Task ◽  
Preparatory Set

Preparatory set (expectancy)—an experimental demonstration of its 'central' locus.

1940 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 357-372 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. H. Mowrer ◽  
N. N. Rayman ◽  
E. L. Bliss
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Demonstration ◽  
Preparatory Set

Activation of Right Inferior Frontal Gyrus during Response Inhibition across Response Modalities

2007 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Junichi Chikazoe ◽  
Seiki Konishi ◽  
Tomoki Asari ◽  
Koji Jimura ◽  
Yasushi Miyashita
Keyword(s):  
Response Inhibition ◽  
Inferior Frontal Gyrus ◽  
Imaging Study ◽  
Task Structure ◽  
Antisaccade Task ◽  
Preparatory Set ◽  
Different Response ◽  
The Right ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Modality Difference

The go/no-go task, which effectively taps the ability to inhibit prepotent response tendency, has consistently activated the lateral prefrontal cortex, particularly the right inferior frontal gyrus (rIFG). On the other hand, rIFG activation has rarely been reported in the antisaccade task, seemingly an oculomotor version of the manual go/no-go task. One possible explanation for the variable IFG activation is the modality difference of the two tasks: The go/no-go task is performed manually, whereas the antisaccade task is performed in the oculomotor modality. Another explanation is that these two tasks have different task structures that require different cognitive processes: The traditional antisaccade task requires (i) configuration of a preparatory set prior to antisaccade execution and (ii) response inhibition at the time of antisaccade execution, whereas the go/no-go task requires heightened response inhibition under a minimal preparatory set. To test these possibilities, the traditional antisaccade task was modified in the present functional magnetic resonance imaging study such that it required heightened response inhibition at the time of antisaccade execution under a minimal preparatory set. Prominent activation related to response inhibition was observed in multiple frontoparietal regions, including the rIFG. Moreover, meta-analyses revealed that the rIFG activation in the present study was observed in the go/no-go tasks but not in the traditional antisaccade task, indicating that the rIFG activation was sensitive to the task structure difference, but not to the response modality difference. These results suggest that the rIFG is part of a network active during response inhibition across different response modalities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document