The fixation point was a red (R255 G0 B0) square (0.67 × 0.67°); the directional cue was a red (R255 G0 B0) arrow (0.67 × 0.67°); targets were white (R255 G255 B255) figure 8s (0.62 × 1°); discrimination symbols were white (R255 G255 B255) Es or 3s (0.62 × 1°);

distractors were white (R255 G255 B255) 2s or 5s (0.62 × 1°). Targets were located at the four corners of an imaginary square, each 5.4° diagonally from the central fixation point. Each block of trials started with a check of the calibration quality and, if required, a two-dimensional 13-point re-calibration procedure covering the display area. At the beginning and end of each recording, a sequence of reflexive saccades was recorded to provide data for post hoc assessment and adjustment of the calibration if required. Stimuli were presented using PsychoPy, an open-source experimental control selleck kinase inhibitor software package (Peirce, 2007, 2008). All participants attended two testing sessions. At the first session, after a 6-m visual acuity test with the Snellen wall chart (each subject was required to have visual PI3K Inhibitor Library cell line acuity of no worse than 6/12 corrected in their best eye), each participant’s vision was checked whilst they were seated in front of the computer screen with the chin supported

by the chinrest of the recording column. At a viewing distance of 600 mm, some participants’ own corrective lenses were not suitable. A range of corrective lenses of various strengths was then tried until the best possible acuity at 600 mm was achieved. Vision was then tested again with an array of symbols at

the size and contrast actually used in the experiments. The actual test and recording started after calibration of the eye movement recording system. At the first session, subjects first performed two blocks of the saccade task ‘without discrimination’, and then two blocks of the saccade task ‘with Venetoclax purchase discrimination’. The saccade task ‘without discrimination’ was always performed at the start of the first session, while participants were not yet aware of the potential relevance of the symbol-changes. Another two blocks of the task ‘with discrimination’ were performed at the second session, 1 week after the first session. In the task ‘with discrimination’, each trial was followed by a visual prompt asking the participant whether E or 3 had appeared. Participants responded E or 3 with a right or left manual button press, respectively. Participants were explicitly told to guess if unsure of the answer. They were also told that on some trials there would be no discrimination symbol, and to push one of the two buttons at random when they thought no discrimination symbol had appeared. In No-change and Distractor trials there was no discrimination symbol, but subjects were not told about the different symbol-change conditions or the likelihood of a discrimination symbol occurring.