{"title":"反扫视任务是一种有效的抑制措施吗?","authors":"Gidon T Frischkorn, Klaus Oberauer","doi":"10.1037/xge0001808","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research on individual differences in executive functions has often used a manual version of the antisaccade task to measure cognitive inhibition. Here, we investigated the validity of antisaccade performance as a measure of inhibition. Success in this task relies on several processes: inhibition of a saccade to the cue location, translating the cue location into the target location, making a saccade to the target location, and rapid identification of the target stimulus. In two experiments (<i>N</i><sub>E1</sub> = 181 and <i>N</i><sub>E2</sub> = 165), we varied whether the task required these processes. We also varied the preparation time before each trial and the cue-target interval to measure the speed of task-relevant processes. We used a theoretically motivated statistical model to dissociate parameters that reflect the contribution of each process to performance. Individual differences in most of these parameters correlated with observed performance, implying that performance reflects a mixture of several processes. Critically, inhibition accounted for a small proportion of variance in performance. Only the efficiency of translating cue information into the target location was credibly correlated with working memory capacity and processing speed. These results question the validity of antisaccade performance as a measure of inhibition. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is the antisaccade task a valid measure of inhibition?\",\"authors\":\"Gidon T Frischkorn, Klaus Oberauer\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xge0001808\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Research on individual differences in executive functions has often used a manual version of the antisaccade task to measure cognitive inhibition. Here, we investigated the validity of antisaccade performance as a measure of inhibition. Success in this task relies on several processes: inhibition of a saccade to the cue location, translating the cue location into the target location, making a saccade to the target location, and rapid identification of the target stimulus. In two experiments (<i>N</i><sub>E1</sub> = 181 and <i>N</i><sub>E2</sub> = 165), we varied whether the task required these processes. We also varied the preparation time before each trial and the cue-target interval to measure the speed of task-relevant processes. We used a theoretically motivated statistical model to dissociate parameters that reflect the contribution of each process to performance. Individual differences in most of these parameters correlated with observed performance, implying that performance reflects a mixture of several processes. Critically, inhibition accounted for a small proportion of variance in performance. Only the efficiency of translating cue information into the target location was credibly correlated with working memory capacity and processing speed. These results question the validity of antisaccade performance as a measure of inhibition. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001808\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001808","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
执行功能的个体差异研究经常使用人工版本的反扫视任务来测量认知抑制。在这里,我们调查了反扫视表现作为抑制措施的有效性。这项任务的成功依赖于几个过程:抑制向线索位置的扫视,将线索位置转换为目标位置,向目标位置进行扫视,以及快速识别目标刺激。在两个实验(NE1 = 181和NE2 = 165)中,我们改变了任务是否需要这些过程。我们还改变了每次试验前的准备时间和提示-目标间隔,以测量任务相关过程的速度。我们使用了一个理论驱动的统计模型来分离反映每个过程对性能的贡献的参数。大多数这些参数的个体差异与观察到的绩效相关,这意味着绩效反映了几个过程的混合。至关重要的是,抑制在表现差异中所占的比例很小。只有将线索信息翻译成目标位置的效率与工作记忆容量和处理速度可信相关。这些结果质疑反扫视表现作为抑制措施的有效性。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
Is the antisaccade task a valid measure of inhibition?
Research on individual differences in executive functions has often used a manual version of the antisaccade task to measure cognitive inhibition. Here, we investigated the validity of antisaccade performance as a measure of inhibition. Success in this task relies on several processes: inhibition of a saccade to the cue location, translating the cue location into the target location, making a saccade to the target location, and rapid identification of the target stimulus. In two experiments (NE1 = 181 and NE2 = 165), we varied whether the task required these processes. We also varied the preparation time before each trial and the cue-target interval to measure the speed of task-relevant processes. We used a theoretically motivated statistical model to dissociate parameters that reflect the contribution of each process to performance. Individual differences in most of these parameters correlated with observed performance, implying that performance reflects a mixture of several processes. Critically, inhibition accounted for a small proportion of variance in performance. Only the efficiency of translating cue information into the target location was credibly correlated with working memory capacity and processing speed. These results question the validity of antisaccade performance as a measure of inhibition. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Experimental Psychology: General publishes articles describing empirical work that bridges the traditional interests of two or more communities of psychology. The work may touch on issues dealt with in JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, JEP: Human Perception and Performance, JEP: Animal Behavior Processes, or JEP: Applied, but may also concern issues in other subdisciplines of psychology, including social processes, developmental processes, psychopathology, neuroscience, or computational modeling. Articles in JEP: General may be longer than the usual journal publication if necessary, but shorter articles that bridge subdisciplines will also be considered.