PMC:2972690 / 33173-34480 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 prolonged preparation time on antisaccade latency and accuracy\nProlonged preparation time before appearance of the antisaccade target resulted in significantly faster latencies (F(2,53) = 27.505, p \u003c 0.0001). This cue-target interval benefit amounted 31 ms in young adults (F(1,17) = 22.947, p \u003c 0.0001), 24 ms in healthy elderly (F(1,17) = 18.759, p \u003c 0.001), and 33 ms in PD patients (F(1,19) = 45.55, p \u003c 0.0001). Again, no difference in the degree of effect was found between groups (F(2,53) = 0.756, p \u003c 0.475, see Figure 5A). Longer preparation time had no beneficial effect on accuracy in young participants (F = 0.465, p \u003c 0.505) or in elderly (F = 2.560, p \u003c 0.129), but PD patients significantly improved their accuracy (F = 11.604, p \u003c 0.003), which could be ascribed to patients’ low accuracy on trials with shorter cue-target intervals, see Figure 5B.\nFigure 5 Benefits from prolonged preparation time in young healthy participants, healthy elderly, and Parkinson's patients (PD). (A) Average antisaccade onset latency was significantly faster on prolonged preparation trials (red) than on trials with relatively less time (blue) in all groups. (B) Only in PD patients’ average antisaccade accuracy was significantly higher with longer preparation time (red).*P\u003c 0.05; **P \u003c 0.01.\n\nH","divisions":[{"label":"Title","span":{"begin":0,"end":72}},{"label":"Figure caption","span":{"begin":875,"end":1306}}],"tracks":[]}