Skip to main content
. 2018 Sep 21;8:14163. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-32224-5

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Interruptions in motor planning due to targets and distracters. (a) The double-step paradigm used by Buonocore et al.39. Participants were instructed to make a saccade (blue arrow) to the target (filled circle) as soon as it appeared. In one half of the trials the target did not change (not shown); in the other half it stepped to the opposite location after a delay (SOA). The PT in each trial is equal to RT − SOA. (b) Performance of one participant in the double-step task. Saccade landing points are arranged by PT (black dots, 240 trials, right y axis; data redrawn from ref.39, experiment 1, participant 3). Targets were located at ±6°. The direction transition function (blue trace, left y axis) is a running histogram (bin size = 81 ms) of the proportion of correct saccades toward the stepped target as a function of PT. We computed it based on the shown saccade landing points. (c) PT distributions in double-step (black trace) and distracter-step (pink trace) blocks performed by the same participant (data redrawn from ref.39, experiment 1, participant 3). In distracter-step blocks, participants were instructed to always make a saccade to the first target, ignoring the step. (d) Motor plans toward initial (black traces) and stepped (blue traces) target locations in 3 simulated double-step trials. A fast error (left), a correct saccade (middle), and a slow error or lapse (right) are shown. Shades indicate mean interruption interval. Triangles mark saccade onset. (e) Simulated double-step responses (black dots; similar number of trials as in (b)) and direction transition function (blue trace; based on 20,000 trials). Correct and incorrect simulated saccades were assigned to ±6° landing points with additional random scatter. (f) PT distributions in double-step (black trace) and distracter-step (pink trace) simulated trials. For all data the SOA was constant at 120 ms.