Table 2.
Oculomotor Task Results*
| Task | Preterm | Full Term | F or t | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | |||
| Prosaccade | (n=69) | (n=43) | ||
| Proportion of Errors | .017 ± .022 | .018 ± .025 | .040 | .841 |
| Latency (msec) | 216 ± 36.1 | 204 ± 36.9 | 2.83 | .095 |
| Accuracy (degrees of visual angle) |
3.25 ± 1.99 | 3.53 ± 1.91 | .522 | .472 |
| Fixation | (n=66) | (n=41) | ||
| Proportion of Errors | .24 ± .23 | .13 ± .15 | 7.23 | .008** |
| Antisaccade | (n=69) | (n=43) | ||
| Proportion of Errors | .55 ± .22 | .48 ± .22 | 2.23 | .138 |
| Latency (msec)*** | 4.90 | .003** (group by response preparation period interaction) |
||
| 0.5s | 351 ± 72 | 347 ± 71 | ||
| 2s | 350 ± 73 | 312 ± 53 | ||
| 4s | 384 ± 77 | 327 ± 46 | ||
| 6s | 337 ± 76 | 316 ± 51 | ||
|
Memory-Guided
Saccade |
(n=66) | (n=43) | ||
| Proportion of Errors | .47 ± .27 | .39 ± .19 | 3.1 | .079+ |
| Latency (msec)++ | 13.6 | <.001 (main effect of location) |
||
| Far Location | 513 ± 147 | 496 ± 145 | 4.6 | .034** (group by location interaction) |
| Near Location | 563 ± 141 | 513 ± 147 | ||
| Latency++ | 12.5 | .001** (main effect of delay) |
||
| Short Delay | 558 ± 143 | 526 ± 153 | ||
| Long Delay | 500 ± 138 | 483 ± 137 | ||
| Accuracy (degrees of visual angle) |
||||
| Initial Saccade | 4.65 ± 2.0 | 4.68 ± 2.0 | .003 | .959 |
| Resting Saccade | 4.50 ± 2.1 | 4.54 ± 2.0 | .013 | .909 |
Data analyzed using t-test or ANOVA
p significant at < .05
trend for significance
Antisaccade latency: Repeated-measures ANOVA with response preparation period as repeated factor and group as between-subjects variable showed main effect of group, F(1, 109) = 7.6, p = .007, response preparation period, F(3, 107) = 10.4, p < .001, and group by response preparation period interaction. Post-hoc comparisons showed that preterm differed from full term at 2s, t(110) = −3.1, p = .003) and 4s, t(110) = −4.3, p < .001, (bold).
Memory-guided saccade latency: Repeated-measures ANOVA with location and delay as repeated factors and group as between-subjects variable showed a significant interaction between group and location. Post-hoc comparisons showed that the interaction was driven by preterm children, t(130) = 1.99, p < .05, who had slower latency for near locations (bold). There was a main effect of delay on latency for both groups, F(1, 110) = 12.5, p = .001 (bold).