Verbal instructions and top-down saccade control.

Few studies have addressed the interaction between instruction content and saccadic eye movement control. To assess the impact of instructions on top-down control, we instructed 20 healthy volunteers to deliberately delay saccade triggering, to make inaccurate saccades or to redirect saccades--i.e. to glimpse towards and then immediately opposite to the target. Regular pro- and antisaccade tasks were used for comparison. Bottom-up visual input remained unchanged and was a gap paradigm for all instructions. In the inaccuracy and delay tasks, both latencies and accuracies were detrimentally impaired by either type of instruction and the variability of latency and accuracy was increased. The intersaccadic interval (ISI) required to correct erroneous antisaccades was shorter than the ISI for instructed direction changes in the redirection task. The word-by-word instruction content interferes with top-down saccade control. Top-down control is a time consuming process, which may override bottom-up processing only during a limited time period. It is questionable whether parallel processing is possible in top-down control, since the long ISI for instructed direction changes suggests sequential planning.

The impact of absolute importance on prospective memory: Instructions matter

Prospective memory (ProM) is the ability to remember and carry out a planned intention in the future. ProM performance can be improved by instructing participants to prioritize the ProM task over the ongoing task. However, the improvement of ProM performance by emphasizing the relative importance typically restricted to situations in which the overlap between processing requirements of the ProM task and the ongoing task is low. Thus, additional processing resources are allocated to the ProM task and consequently, a cost emerges for the ongoing task. The aim of the present study was to further investigate this relationship. Participants were asked to respond to either semantic or perceptual ProM cues, which were embedded in a complex ongoing short term memory task. We manipulated absolute rather than relative importance by emphasizing the importance of the ProM task to half of the participants (i.e., without instructing them to prioritize it over the ongoing task). The results revealed that importance boosted ProM performance independent of the processing overlap between the ProM task and the ongoing task. Moreover, no additional cost was associated with absolute importance. These results challenge the view that importance always enhances the allocation of resources to the ProM task.