| |
Abstract:
This study was designed to compare performance on three
measures of inhibition: the Anti-Saccade, Go/No-Go, and Stroop
tasks. Although all three require attention, working memory for
task instructions, and inhibition of prepared/habitual motor
responses, they tap different aspects of inhibition and are
mediated by separable, though overlapping, neurobiological
substrates. The Anti-Saccade task requires a motor response in the
opposite direction of a target. The Go/No-Go task requires active
maintenance of fixation after inhibiting a motor response. The
Stroop requires an incongruent motor response. In the present
study, college students were administered traditional versions of
Pro- and Anti-Saccade tasks and oculomotor versions of Go/No-Go and
Stroop tasks that were comparable to each other and to a Baseline
task. Response times (RTs) and frequency of correct and incorrect
saccades were recorded using a corneal reflection eye-tracking
system. Results replicated previous findings for Anti-Saccades.
Saccadic RTs for correct Stroop trials were higher than Baseline
RTs; however, RTs for go trials on the Go/No-Go task showed only a
modest increase over Baseline. Significant correlations were
obtained between RTs on the Stroop and Go/No-Go tasks, but not
between the Anti-Saccade and other tasks. There was a great deal of
inter-individual variability in frequency of errors. Results
suggest that errors reflect individual differences in inhibitory
control or strategy, whereas saccadic RTs reflect speed and
efficiency of the cognitive processes once they have been
initiated.
|
