Reaching affects saccade trajectories

Tipper, Steven P.; Howard, Louise A.; Paul, Matthew A.

doi:10.1007/s002210000577

Cited by 116 publications

(94 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with these results, we recently proposed a competitive integration model (Godijn & Theeuwes, 2002a, 2002b; see also Tipper et al, 2000Tipper et al, , 2001, in which saccade trajectory deviations are achieved by inhibition applied within the oculomotor system. According to the competitive integration model, saccades are programmed in a common saccade map in which information from different sources (e.g., exogenous and endogenous) is integrated.…”

supporting

confidence: 70%

The Relationship Between Inhibition of Return and Saccade Trajectory Deviations.

Godijn¹,

Theeuwes²

2004

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After presentation of a peripheral cue, a subsequent saccade to the cued location is delayed (inhibition of return; IOR). Furthermore, saccades typically deviate away from the cued location. The present study examined the relationship between these inhibitory effects. IOR and saccade trajectory deviations were found after central (endogenous) and peripheral (exogenous) cuing of attention, and both effects were larger with an onset cue than with a color singleton cue. However, a dissociation in time course was found between IOR and saccade trajectory deviations. Saccade trajectory deviations occurred at short delays between the cue and the saccade, but IOR was found at longer delays. A model is proposed in which IOR is caused by inhibition applied to a preoculomotor attentional map, whereas saccade trajectory deviations are caused by inhibition applied to the saccade map, in which the final stage of oculomotor programming takes place.When observers view a visual scene, they typically make rapid eye movements (saccades) to stimuli in the visual scene that are of interest while avoiding saccades to irrelevant stimuli. Inhibitory mechanisms play an important role in the control of saccades. That is, to avoid executing a saccade to an irrelevant stimulus, a saccade to its location must be inhibited.One well-documented effect in the literature that has been associated with inhibitory control is inhibition of return (IOR; Posner & Cohen, 1984). In a typical IOR study, a cue, such as a task-irrelevant luminance increment, is presented in the periphery and after a varying stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA), a target is presented at the cued or uncued location. IOR is measured as slower response times (manual or oculomotor) when the target is presented at the cued location than when it is presented at an uncued location. When examining IOR it is important to distinguish between its cause and its effect (see , 2000. The cause is associated with the processes occurring on presentation of the cue, whereas its effects are measured by responses to a target, presented at the cued location or at an uncued location. A great deal of research has shown that after IOR has been generated, it affects both manual keypress responses (e.g., Lupiáñez, Milán, Tornay, Madrid, & Tudela, 1997;Posner & Cohen, 1984;Pratt, Kingstone, & Khoe, 1997;Rafal, Calabresi, Brennan, & Sciolto, 1989) and oculomotor responses (e.g., Abrams & Dobkin, 1994;Godijn & Theeuwes, 2002a;Klein & MacInnes, 1999;Rafal, Egly, & Rhodes, 1994).Although the cause of IOR is still under debate, there is converging evidence from behavioral and neuropsychological studies suggesting that the cause of IOR is related to eye movement programming. Rafal et al. (1989) were the first to provide clear evidence for the critical role of the oculomotor system in the generation of IOR. In their study IOR was examined under conditions of peripheral (exogenous) and central (endogenous) cuing and with varying instructions associated with the cue. Peripheral cues were luminance increments of on...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 70%

The Relationship Between Inhibition of Return and Saccade Trajectory Deviations.

Godijn¹,

Theeuwes²

2004

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Location-specific inhibition has been proposed by others (e.g., Godijn and Theeuwes 2002;Tipper et al 2001), but has not yet been implemented in a computational model. Trappenberg et al do assume a negative exogenous input at stimulus offset, but this is quite different from the inhibition proposed here.…”

Section: Novelties and Predictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A competitive integration model of exogenous and endogenous eye movements

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a model of the eye movement system in which the programming of an eye movement is the result of the competitive integration of information in the superior colliculi (SC). This brain area receives input from occipital cortex, the frontal eye fields, and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, on the basis of which it computes the location of the next saccadic target. Two critical assumptions in the model are that cortical inputs are not only excitatory, but can also inhibit saccades to specific locations, and that the SC continue to influence the trajectory of a saccade while it is being executed. With these assumptions, we account for many neurophysiological and behavioral findings from eye movement research. Interactions within the saccade map are shown to account for effects of distractors on saccadic reaction time (SRT) and saccade trajectory, including the global effect and oculomotor capture. In addition, the model accounts for express saccades, the gap effect, saccadic reaction times for antisaccades, and recorded responses from neurons in the SC and frontal eye fields in these tasks.

show abstract

“…Several authors have proposed that a weighted average of the activity in the motor map determines the direction of saccades (e.g., Tipper et al 2001; . If so, resolution of unwanted competition between multiple active locations is an important pre-requisite of accurate saccade programming.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If so, resolution of unwanted competition between multiple active locations is an important pre-requisite of accurate saccade programming. For example, activity generated by an irrelevant distractor requires inhibition at its location to preserve saccade accuracy (e.g., Godijn and Theeuwes 2002;McSorley et al 2004;Sheliga et al 1994;Tipper et al 2001). As a result, the weighted average of neural populations coding diVerent locations may incorporate both facilitation at the target location and inhibition at the distractor location.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Distractor effects on saccade trajectories: a comparison of prosaccades, antisaccades, and memory-guided saccades

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigated the contribution of the presence of a visual signal at the saccade goal on saccade trajectory deviations and measured distractor-related inhibition as indicated by deviation away from an irrelevant distractor. Performance in a prosaccade task where a visual target was present at the saccade goal was compared to performance in an anti-and memory-guided saccade task. In the latter two tasks no visual signal is present at the location of the saccade goal. It was hypothesized that if saccade deviation can be ultimately explained in terms of relative activation levels between the saccade goal location and distractor locations, the absence of a visual stimulus at the goal location will increase the competition evoked by the distractor and aVect saccade deviations. The results of Experiment 1 showed that saccade deviation away from a distractor varied signiWcantly depending on whether a visual target was presented at the saccade goal or not: when no visual target was presented, saccade deviation away from a distractor was increased compared to when the visual target was present. The results of Experiments 2-4 showed that saccade deviation did not systematically change as a function of time since the oVset of the target.Moreover, Experiments 3 and 4 revealed that the disappearance of the target immediately increased the eVect of a distractor on saccade deviations, suggesting that activation at the target location decays very rapidly once the visual signal has disappeared from the display.

show abstract

Reaching affects saccade trajectories

Cited by 116 publications

References 28 publications

The Relationship Between Inhibition of Return and Saccade Trajectory Deviations.

The Relationship Between Inhibition of Return and Saccade Trajectory Deviations.

A competitive integration model of exogenous and endogenous eye movements

Distractor effects on saccade trajectories: a comparison of prosaccades, antisaccades, and memory-guided saccades

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About