The inter-trial effect of prepared but not executed antisaccades

A preceding antisaccade increases the latency of the saccade in the next trial. Whether this inter-trial effect is generated by the preparation or the execution of the antisaccade is not certain. Our goal was to examine the inter-trial effects from trials on which subjects prepared an antisaccade but did not make one. We tested 15 subjects on blocks of randomly ordered prosaccades and antisaccades. An instructional cue at fixation indicated whether a prosaccade or antisaccade was required, with the target appearing 2 s later. On 20 % of antisaccade trials, the target did not appear (prepared-only antisaccade trials). We analyzed the latencies of all correct prosaccades or antisaccades preceded by correctly executed trials. The latencies of prosaccade trials were 15 ms shorter if they were preceded by prosaccades than if the prior trial was an antisaccade. Prosaccades preceded by trials on which antisaccades were cued but not executed also showed prolonged latencies that were equivalent to those preceded by executed antisaccades. We conclude that the inter-trial effects from a prior antisaccade are generated by its preparation rather than its execution. This may reflect persistence of pre-target preparatory activity from the prior trial to affect that of the next trial in structures like the superior colliculus and frontal eye field.