Looking away: distractor influences on saccadic trajectory and endpoint in prosaccade and antisaccade tasks

Laidlaw, Kaitlin; Zhu, Mona; Kingstone, Alan

doi:10.1007/s00221-016-4551-6

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The cueing effect was, therefore, expected to be less pronounced or maybe even reversed in the anti-saccade task compared to the pro-saccade if saccade activation by the cue was involved (cf. Laidlaw et al 2016 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That is, attentional capture by the valid cue, with the resulting facilitation of target processing at the cue’s location, would lead to a cueing effect (facilitation relative to invalid cues), and so would also the cue-elicited activation of a saccade because the valid cue appears at the goal location of the required response saccade (cf. Laidlaw et al 2016 ; Weber et al 1998 ). Here, we studied under similar conditions how attentional capture by the subliminal abrupt onsets cues related to saccade activation: We adapted the experimental setup of Mulckhuyse and Theeuwes ( 2010 ) and compared the performance with anti-saccades and with pro-saccades as described above.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dissociating the capture of attention from saccade activation by subliminal abrupt onsets

Schoeberl

Ansorge

2017

Exp Brain Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attentional capture and effects on saccade metrics by subliminal abrupt onset cues have been studied with peripheral cues at one out of several (two to four) display locations, swiftly followed by additional onsets at the other display locations. The lead time of the cue was too short to be seen. Here, we were interested in whether such subliminal onset cues influenced saccades primarily by way of attention or by way of direct saccade activation. In separate blocks, participants made speeded pro-saccades towards a black target or anti-saccades away from the target. Prior to the targets, an abrupt onset cue was presented either at the same side as the target (valid condition) or at the opposite side (invalid condition). If cues influenced performance by way of attentional capture, we expected facilitation of target processing in valid compared to invalid conditions (cueing effect) in the pro- as well as in the anti-saccade task. If the cues activated saccades in their direction, we expected the cueing effect to drop in the anti-saccade task compared to the pro-saccade task because in the anti-saccade task the invalid cue would activate the finally required response, whereas the valid cue would activate the alternative response, leading to interference. Results were in line with the former of these possibilities suggesting that subliminal abrupt onsets influenced saccades by way of attention with no or little direct activation of saccades.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%