Do the eyes have it? A comparison of eye-movement and attentional-probe-based approaches to indexing attentional control within the antisaccade paradigm

Basanovic, Julian; Myles, Owen; MacLeod, Colin · 2022 · Crossref

DOI: 10.1177/17470218221083556

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This registered report addresses the methodological validity of using probe-based adaptations of the anti-saccade task to measure individual differences in attentional control. While the traditional anti-saccade task indexes attentional control by measuring the latency of eye movements (the "anti-saccade cost"), researchers increasingly use probe discrimination latencies to avoid the need for specialized eye-tracking equipment. However, it remains unverified whether these two methods converge in their assessment of attentional control or possess comparable psychometric reliability. The study aims to determine if the probe-based index reflects the same underlying construct as the eye-movement index and to compare their internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The experimental design involves 92 undergraduate participants recruited from The University of Western Australia, a sample size determined by power analysis to detect a correlation of at least r = .30 with 90% power. Participants complete two tasks in counterbalanced order across two phases separated by a ten-minute break, allowing for test-retest reliability assessment. The first task is a traditional eye-movement latency assessment where participants execute saccades toward (prosaccade) or away from (anti-saccade) an abrupt stimulus, with latencies recorded via an EyeLink 1000 eye tracker. The second task is a probe discrimination latency assessment where participants identify the orientation of an arrow probe presented at the location of attention (proximal for prosaccade trials, distal for anti-saccade trials) without recording eye movements. Both tasks consist of 96 experimental trials. Anti-saccade cost is computed for each task by subtracting mean prosaccade latency from mean anti-saccade latency. The planned statistical analyses focus on convergent validity and reliability. Convergence will be assessed by calculating Pearson correlation coefficients between the anti-saccade cost indices of the two tasks, both in their observed form and after correcting for imperfect internal consistency to estimate the "true" correlation. Internal consistency will be evaluated using a Monte Carlo re-sampled split-half correlation approach, while test-retest reliability will be determined by correlating indices from the two experimental phases. Participants with error rates or valid trial counts more than 2.58 standard deviations below the mean will be excluded. The significance of this study lies in its potential to validate a more accessible, cost-effective method for assessing attentional control. If the probe-based method demonstrates strong convergence and comparable reliability to the eye-movement method, it would support its widespread use in research settings lacking eye-tracking hardware. Conversely, if the methods diverge, it would indicate that they capture distinct aspects of cognitive processing, necessitating careful interpretation when comparing findings across studies using different assessment paradigms. As a registered report, the study ensures that the analysis is strictly bound to the pre-registered methods, enhancing the credibility of the conclusions regarding the psychometric properties of these attentional control indices.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-26; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• workload measurement