Response Inhibition
Antisaccade Task
Also called: anti-saccade task, manual antisaccade task
Measure how well people stop a reflexive glance toward a cue, with a brief masked arrow reported by key press.
10-12 minTimed: desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad
Free to start: 10 free participants per account, then $0.99 per participant for academic research, or any yearly plan. Preview any test free after you sign up.
- Papers, 2021 to 2025
- 557
- Evidence grade
- A
- Registered clinical studies
- 68
What it measures
Measures the ability to stop a reflexive glance toward a sudden cue. A small square flashes on one side, then a brief arrow appears and is covered. In the antisaccade block the arrow appears on the opposite side, so participants must look away from the cue at once to read it. They answer with the arrow keys.
Constructs
- Response inhibition (prepotent response)
- Oculomotor and attentional control
- Goal maintenance
Research uses
- Executive function research
- Within-study group comparison
- Individual-differences and latent-variable studies
How the paradigm works
The antisaccade task measures the ability to stop a reflexive glance toward a sudden cue and look the other way. This version uses key presses, not eye tracking, as adapted by Miyake et al. (2000) from Roberts, Hager and Heron (1994): a brief arrow appears on the side away from the cue and is then covered, so participants can report it only if they looked away from the cue in time.
More about the paradigm
Each trial starts with a central cross for one of nine durations from 1,500 to 3,500 ms in 250 ms steps. A small square flashes on one side for 225 ms, an arrow inside a box appears for 150 ms, and gray cross-hatching then covers it until a response or 3,000 ms. Participants press the left, up or right arrow key for the arrow's direction. In the prosaccade block the arrow appears on the cued side, which gives a baseline; in the antisaccade block it appears on the opposite side. The standard session runs 6 prosaccade practice trials and 30 prosaccade trials, then 22 antisaccade practice trials and 90 antisaccade trials, the counts of Miyake et al. (2000). Practice gives feedback, and every session runs a recorded random order.
Antisaccade accuracy, the proportion of antisaccade trials answered correctly, is the primary score: it was the dependent measure of Miyake et al. (2000) and Friedman et al. (2008). The antisaccade cost is prosaccade minus antisaccade accuracy. Response times are means of correct responses timed from the mask onset.
Scores
- Antisaccade Accuracy%
- Share of antisaccade trials answered with the arrow's direction; a missed response counts as an error.
- Higher is better
- Prosaccade Accuracy%
- Share of prosaccade (cued side) trials answered with the arrow's direction.
- Higher is better
- Antisaccade Cost%
- Prosaccade accuracy minus antisaccade accuracy.
- Larger values mean a bigger drop when the arrow appears opposite the cue
- Antisaccade RTms
- Mean correct response time on antisaccade trials, from the mask onset.
- Lower is faster
- Prosaccade RTms
- Mean correct response time on prosaccade trials, from the mask onset.
- Lower is faster
- Antisaccade RT Costms
- Antisaccade minus prosaccade mean correct response time.
- Larger values mean more slowing when the arrow appears opposite the cue
Use and evidence
557 papers from 2021 to 2025 name this task in their title or abstract, down 8% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 44 of 395 test families in our census. See the counts for every test.
Show the numbers
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 125 |
| 2024 | 118 |
| 2023 | 99 |
| 2022 | 101 |
| 2021 | 114 |
| 2020 | 122 |
| 2019 | 146 |
| 2018 | 103 |
| 2017 | 103 |
| 2016 | 133 |
| 2015 | 102 |
| 2014 | 96 |
| 2013 | 120 |
| 2012 | 97 |
| 2011 | 94 |
| 2010 | 123 |
| 2009 | 82 |
| 2008 | 89 |
| 2007 | 73 |
| 2006 | 72 |
| 2005 | 67 |
| 2004 | 70 |
| 2003 | 46 |
| 2002 | 56 |
| 2001 | 32 |
| 2000 | 60 |
Use grade B
300 to 999 papers from 2021 to 2025.
Evidence grade A
At least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome.
- Papers on test-retest reliability
- 26
- Papers on reliability or validity
- 168
- Registered clinical studies using it as an outcome
- 68
Note on the counts: includes eye-tracking studies.
How the grades work
Use: A is 1,000 or more papers from 2021 to 2025, B 300 to 999, C 100 to 299, D 30 to 99 and E fewer than 30. Evidence: A means at least 25 papers report its test-retest reliability and at least 25 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome; B, at least 8 test-retest papers, and either 5 registered clinical studies or 150 reliability or validity papers; C, at least 2 test-retest papers, 30 reliability or validity papers or 3 registered clinical studies; D, little published measurement evidence found. The counts measure use. They include every paper that names the task in its title or abstract. Grades describe the published research on this task, not ConductCognition's version of it.
Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
Task design
The trial sequence as the test runs in ConductCognition.
- Display
- A central cross; the cue and the arrow appear far to its left or right.
- Fixation
- One of nine durations from 1,500 to 3,500 ms in 250 ms steps.
- Cue
- A small light square on one side for 225 ms.
- Arrow
- An arrow in a box for 150 ms, on the cued side (prosaccade) or the opposite side (antisaccade).
- Mask
- Gray cross-hatching covers the box until a response or 3,000 ms.
- Keys
- Left, up and right arrows for the arrow's direction.
- Blocks
- 30 prosaccade trials (0 to 60), then 90 antisaccade trials (30 to 120).
- Practice
- 6 prosaccade and 22 antisaccade trials with feedback.
Quality checks
Each session is marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason, before you see its scores.
Scored rows: antisaccade_test from the scored run, prosaccade and antisaccade blocks, left, up or right arrow for the arrow's direction (chance 33%, each direction on about a third of the trials of each block) within 3,000 ms of the mask. Below chance invalidates and not above chance is flagged. One key on 90% of answers invalidates when accuracy is not above chance. Missed responses and responses under 100 ms follow the timed-test rule.
Why these rules
Accuracy significantly below chance (one-sided exact test, p < .05) cannot come from guessing; it means the response mapping was reversed or the task was not followed (Slick, Sherman and Iverson 1999 treat below-chance forced-choice performance as definite response bias). Chance-level accuracy can be a real result in impaired participants, so it is only flagged. One option on at least 90% of answered trials, when the correct options are balanced and accuracy is not above chance, means the answers did not depend on the items (the task counterpart of long-string responding in surveys; Curran 2016). Missed responses and responses under 100 ms keep the platform's timed-test rule: more than max(3, 25%) missed responses or more than max(2, 20%) responses under 100 ms invalidate, and any is flagged. A response under 100 ms cannot be a reaction to the stimulus.
Running this test
Settings you can change
| Setting | Standard | Allowed |
|---|---|---|
| Prosaccade trials | 30 | 0 to 60 |
| Antisaccade trials | 90 | 30 to 120 |
Yearly plans can change settings within these limits. Free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Need a setting this test does not have?
Devices and languages
- Timed test: participants need a desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad. Participant devices
- Languages: English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese.
- Available on: Every plan, including the free plan.
- Recruiting online? See the setup guides for Prolific, Sona Systems, CloudResearch Connect and Qualtrics.
Cite and describe
Participants completed the Antisaccade Task in a web browser (ConductCognition task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0; Roberts, Hager and Heron, 1994; Miyake et al., 2000), with the standard settings (prosaccade trials: 30; antisaccade trials: 90). The main score was antisaccade accuracy (share of antisaccade trials answered with the arrow's direction; a missed response counts as an error).
ConductCognition versions: task version 1.0.0, scoring version 1.0.0. Every export records the versions each session used, for a methods section.
- Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex "frontal lobe" tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49-100. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
- Roberts, R. J., Hager, L. D., & Heron, C. (1994). Prefrontal cognitive processes: Working memory and inhibition in the antisaccade task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 123(4), 374-393. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.123.4.374Origin of the manual antisaccade task that Miyake et al. (2000) adapted.
- Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Young, S. E., DeFries, J. C., Corley, R. P., & Hewitt, J. K. (2008). Individual differences in executive functions are almost entirely genetic in origin. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(2), 201-225. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.137.2.201Mask kept on screen until the response.
- Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W. (2001). A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130(2), 169-183. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.169Prosaccade baseline block before the antisaccade block.
Source papers
- Miyake A, Friedman NP, Emerson MJ, Witzki AH, Howerter A, Wager TD (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex "frontal lobe" tasks: a latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1):49-100.Paradigm source, Adults
Questions
How long does the Antisaccade Task take?
About 10 to 12 minutes, as listed in the test library.
What device does a participant need?
Timed test: participants need a desktop or laptop with a mouse or trackpad. The browser must be Chrome, Edge, Firefox or Safari.
What scores does it produce?
Antisaccade Accuracy, Prosaccade Accuracy, Antisaccade Cost, Antisaccade RT, Prosaccade RT and Antisaccade RT Cost. Each session is also marked valid, needs review or invalid, with the reason.
How widely is the Antisaccade Task used in research?
557 papers from 2021 to 2025 name it in their title or abstract, down 8% compared with 2016 to 2020. That ranks it 44 of 395 test families in the ConductCognition test census (use grade B). Source: ConductCognition test census 0.14.0, counted 31 October 2026 from OpenAlex and ClinicalTrials.gov.
How much reliability evidence does the Antisaccade Task have?
In the published research, 26 papers report its test-retest reliability and 68 registered clinical studies use it as an outcome (evidence grade A in the ConductCognition test census).
Which settings can a researcher change?
Prosaccade trials (0 to 60) and antisaccade trials (30 to 120). Settings can be changed on yearly plans; free and pay-as-you-go studies use the standard settings.
Which languages can participants use?
Participants can take this test in English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Simplified) and Japanese. English is on every plan, and the other languages come with yearly plans. Have a native speaker read the machine-translated text before launch.
Is this a clinical test?
No. ConductCognition is for research use only. It runs, scores and exports the test; clinical interpretation is outside the platform.
Every test: the full test list.
Run this test in your next study
Start free with 10 free participants on any test, then use participant credits or a yearly plan.
Related tests