PMC:2972690 / 29909-31482 JSONTXT

{"target":"https://pubannotation.org/docs/sourcedb/PMC/sourceid/2972690","sourcedb":"PMC","sourceid":"2972690","source_url":"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/2972690","text":"Effect of reward anticipation on antisaccade latency and accuracy\nTo test for the effect of reward anticipation on antisaccade preparation, we examined the effect of a cue signaling a reward trial as opposed to a cue signaling a no-reward trial on antisaccade latency. This reward benefit effect on latency was highly significant (F(2,53) = 35.855, p \u003c 0.0001), amounting 31 ms for young adults (F(1,17) = 13.95, p \u003c 0.002), 30 ms for healthy elderly (F(1,17) = 6.428, p \u003c 0.022), and 28 ms for PD patients (F(1,19) = 15.226, p \u003c 0.001). Importantly, the extent of the improvement was equal in all three groups (F(2,53) = 0.544, p \u003c 0.583, see Figure 3A). There was also a highly significant effect of reward anticipation on accuracy (F(2,53) = 26.119, p \u003c 0.0001), amounting 6.5% for young adults (F = 12.589, p \u003c 0.003), 2,3% for healthy elderly (F = 5.766, p \u003c 0.029), and 3.7% for PD patients (F = 6.568, p \u003c 0.020). Importantly, no between-group differences in the extent of the improvement were evident between elderly and patients (3.7%) (F = 0.723, p \u003c 0.401) or between patients and young (F = 1.627, p \u003c 0.210, see Figure 3B).\nFigure 3 Benefits from reward anticipation in young healthy participants, healthy elderly, and Parkinson's patients (PD). (A) Average antisaccade onset latency was significantly faster on reward anticipation trials (red) than on trials where no reward was expected (blue). (B) Average antisaccade accuracy was significantly higher on reward anticipation trials (red) than when no reward was anticipated (blue). *P\u003c 0.05; **P \u003c 0.01.\n\nE","divisions":[{"label":"Title","span":{"begin":0,"end":65}},{"label":"Figure caption","span":{"begin":1137,"end":1572}}],"tracks":[]}