Contributions of gaze-centered and object-centered coding in a double-step saccade task

Brouwer, Anouk J. de; Medendorp, W. Pieter; Smeets, Jeroen B. J.

doi:10.1167/16.14.12

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A second example of visual contextual effects that were robust for an intervening saccade was obtained by de Brouwer and colleagues 19 . In their study, participants were presented with a Brentano version of the Müller-Lyer illusion and had to make a memory-guided saccade from one endpoint of the illusion to the middle vertex.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…However, a single saccade from the intervening saccade target to the vertex was not influenced by the illusion, suggesting that the perceived direction between the first and second targets of the double-step saccade sequence was not affected by the illusion. de Brouwer and colleagues 19 concluded that the illusion biased the saccade plan made before the start of the saccade sequence and that biased plan was updated across the first saccade.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Target-distractor competition cannot be resolved across a saccade

Arkesteijn

Smeets

Donk

et al. 2018

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When a distractor is presented in close spatial proximity to a target, a saccade tends to land in between the two objects rather than on the target. This robust phenomenon (also referred to as the global effect) is thought to reflect unresolved competition between target and distractor. It is unclear whether this landing bias persists across saccades since a saccade displaces the retinotopic representations of target and distractor. In the present study participants made successive saccades towards two saccadic targets which were presented simultaneously with an irrelevant distractor in close proximity to the second saccade target. The second saccade was either visually-guided or memory-guided. For the memory-guided trials, the second saccade showed a landing bias towards the location of the distractor, despite the disappearance of the distractor after the first saccade. In contrast, for the visually-guided trials, the bias was corrected and the landing bias was eliminated, even for saccades with the shortest intersaccadic intervals. This suggests that the biased saccade plan was remapped across the first saccade. Therefore, we conclude that the target-distractor competition was not resolved across a saccade, but can be resolved based on visual information that is available after a saccade.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Target-distractor competition cannot be resolved across a saccade

Arkesteijn

Smeets

Donk

et al. 2018

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, if the two targets were presented simultaneously instead, the brain could also code the dimensions of the second saccade based on the allocentric information about the location of the second saccade target relative to the first, which should result in an accurate second saccade. But this is not what happened (de Brouwer, Medendorp, & Smeets, 2016). The illusion caused systematic errors in the endpoint of the second saccade, irrespective of whether the targets were presented sequentially or simultaneously.…”

Section: Track the Dotmentioning

confidence: 96%

Dynamic representations of visual space for perception and action

Medendorp

Brouwer

Smeets

2018

Cortex

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The division of labor in visual processing between two anatomically relatively separate cortical pathways, a ventral and a dorsal stream, has been hotly debated in the last decades. One influential model is the What & How pathway model, suggesting that the separation is along ventral perception versus dorsal action, although the degree of functional separation between the two streams is controversial. An implication of this model is that perception and memory-guided movements are highly sensitive to visual contextual illusions, whereas visually-guided movements are largely immune to them. Here, we summarize our recent behavioral and imaging data obtained in single and double saccade paradigms that test this proposal, with a focus on the role of time in visuomotor processing and updating. We describe results showing that presentation time of the illusion affects both saccade amplitude and perceptual judgments in a similar way. We also discuss behavioral findings showing that visuomotor updating is affected by illusory context. Complementary neuroimaging data suggest a neural correlate of these findings in dorsal stream areas. Taken together, these results are suggestive of a dynamic, common visual representation that drives both perception and action, or - at least - that there is no absolute functional specialization of the two visual processing streams.

show abstract

Contributions of gaze-centered and object-centered coding in a double-step saccade task

Cited by 2 publications

References 44 publications

Target-distractor competition cannot be resolved across a saccade

Target-distractor competition cannot be resolved across a saccade

Dynamic representations of visual space for perception and action

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About