Face perception influences the programming of eye movements

Kauffmann, Louise; Peyrin, Carole; Chauvin, Alan; Entzmann, Lea; Breuil, Camille; Guyader, Nathalie

doi:10.1038/s41598-018-36510-0

Cited by 24 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In line with the findings on externally relevant targets, this is achieved by the same oculomotor signature (Fig. 4 ): reduced saccade latencies (Crouzet et al 2010 ; Kauffmann et al 2019 ; Rothkirch et al 2013 ; Sedaghat-Nejad et al 2019 ), increased peak-velocities (Sedaghat-Nejad et al 2019 ; Xu-Wilson et al 2009 ) and more strongly modulated saccade gain in order to have the target accurately placed on the retina (Meermeier et al 2016 , 2017b ).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 84%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Vision as oculomotor reward: cognitive contributions to the dynamic control of saccadic eye movements

Wolf¹,

Lappe²

2021

Cogn Neurodyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans and other primates are equipped with a foveated visual system. As a consequence, we reorient our fovea to objects and targets in the visual field that are conspicuous or that we consider relevant or worth looking at. These reorientations are achieved by means of saccadic eye movements. Where we saccade to depends on various low-level factors such as a targets’ luminance but also crucially on high-level factors like the expected reward or a targets’ relevance for perception and subsequent behavior. Here, we review recent findings how the control of saccadic eye movements is influenced by higher-level cognitive processes. We first describe the pathways by which cognitive contributions can influence the neural oculomotor circuit. Second, we summarize what saccade parameters reveal about cognitive mechanisms, particularly saccade latencies, saccade kinematics and changes in saccade gain. Finally, we review findings on what renders a saccade target valuable, as reflected in oculomotor behavior. We emphasize that foveal vision of the target after the saccade can constitute an internal reward for the visual system and that this is reflected in oculomotor dynamics that serve to quickly and accurately provide detailed foveal vision of relevant targets in the visual field.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…Certain categories of stimuli are particularly successful in facilitating saccades. Saccadic selection of animals (Kirchner and Thorpe 2006 ) or especially saccadic selection of human faces (Crouzet et al 2010 ; Kauffmann et al 2019 ; Sedaghat-Nejad et al 2019 ) can be extremely rapid (Fig. 4 A).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vision as oculomotor reward: cognitive contributions to the dynamic control of saccadic eye movements

Wolf¹,

Lappe²

2021

Cogn Neurodyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The known influence of face stimuli on saccadic eye movements (Bindemann et al, 2007;Xu-Wilson et al, 2009;Morand et al, 2010;Devue et al, 2012;Boucart et al, 2016;Kauffmann et al, 2019;Buonocore et al, 2020) raises a potential question on our results so far: namely, whether our findings of visual form effects on response times, microsaccade biases, and target selection errors are largely restricted to trials with face images. To test this, we excluded trials with face images and reanalyzed all of our data with only nonface images in both covert and overt tasks.…”

Section: Nonface Visual Forms Still Influence Response Times and Bias Microsaccadesmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Face stimuli alone cannot account for visual form influence on response times Faces are of ecological value, and the influence of faces on goaldirected and free-viewing saccade behaviors is well documented (Bindemann et al, 2007;Xu-Wilson et al, 2009;Morand et al, 2010;Devue et al, 2012;Boucart et al, 2016;Kauffmann et al, 2019;Buonocore et al, 2020). Importantly, there is growing evidence that faces are rapidly processed through a network of subcortical structures, including the SC (Johnson, 2005;Nguyen et al, 2016;Le et al, 2020), which also plays a crucial role in spatial selection (McPeek and Keller, 2004;Lovejoy and Krauzlis, 2010).…”

Section: High-level Cognitive Factors Cannot Explain Visual Form Influence On Response Timesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Task-Irrelevant Visual Forms Facilitate Covert and Overt Spatial Selection

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Covert and overt spatial selection behaviors are guided by both visual saliency maps derived from early visual features as well as priority maps reflecting high-level cognitive factors. However, whether mid-level perceptual processes associated with visual form recognition contribute to covert and overt spatial selection behaviors remains unclear. We hypothesized that if peripheral visual forms contribute to spatial selection behaviors, then they should do so even when the visual forms are taskirrelevant. We tested this hypothesis in male and female human subjects as well as in male macaque monkeys performing a visual detection task. In this task, subjects reported the detection of a suprathreshold target spot presented on top of one of two peripheral images, and they did so with either a speeded manual button press (humans) or a speeded saccadic eye movement response (humans and monkeys). Crucially, the two images, one with a visual form and the other with a partially phase-scrambled visual form, were completely irrelevant to the task. In both manual (covert) and oculomotor (overt) response modalities, and in both humans and monkeys, response times were faster when the target was congruent with a visual form than when it was incongruent. Importantly, incongruent targets were associated with almost all errors, suggesting that forms automatically captured selection behaviors. These findings demonstrate that mid-level perceptual processes associated with visual form recognition contribute to covert and overt spatial selection. This indicates that neural circuits associated with target selection, such as the superior colliculus, may have privileged access to visual form information.

show abstract

“…One of the most salient targets for our gaze is the human face, which tends to attract our attention more than other visual stimuli (Langton et al, 2008;Lavie et al, 2003;Yarbus, 1967;Palermo & Rhodes, 2007, for review). The preferential processing of faces in our periphery has been demonstrated by the significant speed advantage we have when making saccades towards images of faces than to other familiar objects such as vehicles (Crouzet et al, 2010;Guyader et al, 2017;Kauffmann et al, 2019) or houses (Mares et al, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%