Instructions and practice trials were repeated until the participant and the experimenter were confident the task requirements CX-5461 clinical trial were understood. Trials were excluded when the saccade was masked by a blink; when no saccade was made; when saccades were made at latencies shorter than 80 ms (i.e. anticipations), or longer than 700 ms; or when saccades had a primary gain of less than 0.3 or more than 1.3. The proportion of excluded trials was similar in the control and the PD groups (both 20%). Trials with saccades initiated at latencies longer than 80 ms, but with directional errors (i.e. the primary saccade was not directed at

the cued target location), were analysed separately. The proportion of correct discriminations in the saccade tasks ‘with discrimination’ was calculated from

the total number of valid trials without directional errors. Effects of the discrimination task and the symbol-changes on saccade latency and gain were analysed with multi-level models. These have the advantage that all observations contribute Alectinib research buy to the model, and the data are not reduced to mean values per condition for each participant, as occurs in traditional anova. The function lme from the R package nlme (Pinheiro et al., 2009) was used to fit the models. Latency and gain values of voluntary saccades were analysed with a linear multi-level model. Proportions of errors Gemcitabine manufacturer and discrimination judgments were compared with multi-level binomial models. Associations between variables were assessed with Pearson’s product-moment correlations. In the text, predicted group means are shown followed by 95%

CI in parentheses. The saccade task without discrimination was performed only in the first session. The saccade task with discrimination was performed in both the first and the second session. There was no significant practice effect and the mean latencies and gain in the discrimination trials were similar in the two sessions in both groups, so the results from the two sessions were pooled (see Table 2). Saccades were performed in trials without peripheral symbol-changes (in the No-change trials) and in trials with peripheral symbol-changes (in the Target, Distractor and Target/Distractor trials). Within each group, the mean latency and gain values in the three trial types with symbol-changes were similar (see Table 3). Therefore, the results from these three trial types were pooled for comparison with the No-change trials: the model included Group (Control or PD), Trial type (trials with or without peripheral symbol-change) and Task (with or without discrimination task) as predictors. The factor Trial type was nested inside the factor Task, which was nested within Subject. Due to the collapsing of the data across SOAs there were more trials with symbol-changes than trials without symbol-changes.