Fig 6. The main panels depict mean reaction time (ms) (i.e., upper panel) and saccade amplitude (°) (i.e., lower panel) for the supplemental experiment wherein prosaccades across TO, ID, MD, CPD, CDD trial-types were completed with target- or target and distractor vision throughout response execution.

Results for RT showed that TO and ID conditions produced equivalent RTs, t(9) = 0.85, p = 0.42, whereas RTs for MD, CPD, and CDD conditions were greater than the TO condition, ts(9) > 7.57, ps < 0.001. Error bars for these panels represent within-participant 95% confidence intervals [28] and were computed based on the mean-squared error term for trial-type. The right offset panels show the mean reaction time and saccade amplitude difference scores. Error bars represent between-participant 95% confidence intervals [29, 30]. The absence of overlap between error bars and zero (i.e., horizontal axis) provides a graphical depiction of a reliable difference that can be interpreted inclusive to a test of the null hypothesis. Further, we note that Benson [37] employed a RDE paradigm wherein target and distractor vision was available throughout response execution and the target direction was randomized between left and right visual space. In contrast to Walker et al. [2], Benson reported a larger RDE magnitude for contralateral—compared to central—distractors. In line with Benson, prosaccade RT difference scores associated with the remote distractor conditions in the supplemental experiment yielded a significant main effect, F(1,9) = 7.09, p < 0.01, such that the contralateral distractors (i.e., CPD: 53 ms; SD = 22, CPD: 49 ms; SD = 15) produced a larger magnitude RDE than the midline distractor (i.e, MD condition: 37 ms; SD = 9), ts(9) > 2.79, ps < 0.05.