HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 100/2/587    most recent 90268.2008v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Koehn, J. D. Articles by Barton, J. J. S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Koehn, J. D. Articles by Barton, J. J. S.

The "Diagonal Effect": a Systematic Error in Oblique Antisaccades

Human Vision and Eye Movement Laboratory, Departments of Medicine (Neurology), Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

Submitted 13 February 2008; accepted in final form 17 May 2008

Antisaccades are known to show greater variable error and also a systematic hypometria in their amplitude compared with visually guided prosaccades. In this study, we examined whether their accuracy in direction (as opposed to amplitude) also showed a systematic error. We had human subjects perform prosaccades and antisaccades to goals located at a variety of polar angles. In the first experiment, subjects made prosaccades or antisaccades to one of eight equidistant locations in each block, whereas in the second, they made saccades to one of two equidistant locations per block. In the third, they made antisaccades to one of two locations at different distances but with the same polar angle in each block. Regardless of block design, the results consistently showed a saccadic systematic error, in that oblique antisaccades (but not prosaccades) requiring unequal vertical and horizontal vector components were deviated toward the 45° diagonal meridians. This finding could not be attributed to range effects in either Cartesian or polar coordinates. A perceptual origin of the diagonal effect is suggested by similar systematic errors in other studies of memory-guided manual reaching or perceptual estimation of direction, and may indicate a common spatial bias when there is uncertain information about spatial location.