*********************************
There is now a CONTENT FREEZE for Mercury while we switch to a new platform. It began on Friday, March 10 at 6pm and will end on Wednesday, March 15 at noon. No new content can be created during this time, but all material in the system as of the beginning of the freeze will be migrated to the new platform, including users and groups. Functionally the new site is identical to the old one. webteam@gatech.edu
*********************************
Name: Cody A. Mashburn
Master's Thesis Defense Meeting
Date: Friday, February 3, 2023
Time: 4:00 p.m.
Location: J.S. Coon bldg. room 150 and on Zoom (click here)
Advisor: Randall W. Engle, Ph.D. (Georgia Tech)
Thesis Committee Members:
Randall W. Engle, Ph.D. (Georgia Tech)
James S. Roberts, Ph.D. (Georgia Tech)
Rick P. Thomas, Ph.D. (Georgia Tech)
Title: Are prosaccades always automatic?: Validating the antisaccade task as a measure of controlled attention
Abstract: Recently, mainstream cognitive psychology has become aware of difficulties in measuring individual differences in the ability to direct attention in a goal-direct manner. Such difficulties may suggest that attention control is not a measurable general cognitive ability but may instead be highly task-specific. Accuracy rates from the antisaccade task are a notable exception to the measurement difficulties often seen in other tasks, but the measure’s construct validity has been questioned. Some researchers have argued that antisaccade accuracy is a function of individual differences in general processing speed (e.g., Rey-Mermet et al., 2019). The present study evaluated this position in a combined differential-experimental study. I assessed whether the adaptive procedures adopted by previous studies in non-attention-demanding tasks increased attention control demands, leading to inaccurate estimates of criterion-related validity. I compared two versions of the prosaccade task (a non-attention-demanding variant of the antisaccade task), a non-adaptive version and an adaptive version which adjusted the presentation duration of a target stimulus on a trial-by-trial basis. I also attempted to eliminate the relationship between antisaccade accuracy and working memory capacity/fluid intelligence by accounting for speed measures from both prosaccade tasks. Mean pupil size was larger in the pre-target period of the adaptive prosaccade task than in the non-adaptive prosaccade task, suggesting the adaptive procedure made the task more effortful. Crucially, however, no matter how I attempted to control for processing speed, I could not eliminate the relationship between antisaccade accuracy and cognitive abilities, implying that antisaccade accuracy is not merely a proxy measure for general speed.
