Spatial Interactions between Successive Eye and Arm Movements: Signal Type Matters

Cowper-Smith, Christopher D.; Harris, Jonathan; Eskes, Gail A.; Westwood, David A.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0058850

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We found differences in the overall reaction times across the three conditions, with the shortest saccade latencies observed in the PT without placeholders condition and the longest latency observed in the central arrow condition. This difference in saccadic latency across conditions is reasonable as peripheral targets elicit more reflexive saccadic responses, responses that are likely to be faster than those elicited using central arrows (Abrams and Dobkin, 1994 ; Taylor and Klein, 2000 ; Fischer et al, 2003 ; Hilchey et al, 2012 ; Cowper-Smith et al, 2013 ). However, not only did we find differences in the overall reaction times across our three conditions, we also found differences in the patterns of effects of previous saccades on current saccade latency as a function of stimulus condition.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…For example, In the IOR literature, central arrows have been used to distinguish between effects that might arise from sensory vs. motor processes (Abrams and Dobkin, 1994 ; Taylor and Klein, 2000 ; Fischer et al, 2003 ; Hilchey et al, 2012 ; Cowper-Smith et al, 2013 ). It has been suggested that peripheral cues might elicit sensory effects due to repeated stimulation in the same retinal location and motor effects due to eye movement initiation, whereas central arrows are likely to elicit motor-related effects without the confound of repeated retinal stimulation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Spatial and temporal changes in eye movements observed in relation to previous sensory and/or motor events can provide insight into the underlying neural mechanisms associated with both perception and action. A common approach in this regard has been to elicit saccades to targets distributed about a point of central fixation which serves as the starting point for all trials and to which the gaze must return after each target-directed saccade (e.g., Taylor and Klein, 2000 ; Fecteau et al, 2004 ; Reuter et al, 2006 ; Cowper-Smith and Westwood, 2013 ; Cowper-Smith et al, 2013 ). However, it is possible that any effects observed while employing such methodology may be influenced (or even contingent upon) the task structure requiring the participant to return their gaze to a central fixation point, because of the predictability that it introduces.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Directional interactions between current and prior saccades

Jones

Cowper-Smith

Westwood

2014

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One way to explore how prior sensory and motor events impact eye movements is to ask someone to look to targets located about a central point, returning gaze to the central point after each eye movement. Concerned about the contribution of this return to center movement, Anderson et al. (2008) used a sequential saccade paradigm in which participants made a continuous series of saccades to peripheral targets that appeared to the left or right of the currently fixated location in a random sequence (the next eye movement began from the last target location). Examining the effects of previous saccades (n−x) on current saccade latency (n), they found that saccadic reaction times (RT) were reduced when the direction of the current saccade matched that of a preceding saccade (e.g., two left saccades), even when the two saccades in question were separated by multiple saccades in any direction. We examined if this pattern extends to conditions in which targets appear inside continuously marked locations that provide stable visual features (i.e., target “placeholders”) and when saccades are prompted by central arrows. Participants completed 3 conditions: peripheral targets (PT; continuous, sequential saccades to peripherally presented targets) without placeholders; PT with placeholders; and centrally presented arrows (CA; left or right pointing arrows at the currently fixated location instructing participants to saccade to the left or right). We found reduced saccadic RT when the immediately preceding saccade (n−1) was in the same (vs. opposite) direction in the PT without placeholders and CA conditions. This effect varied when considering the effect of the previous 2–5 (n−x) saccades on current saccade latency (n). The effects of previous eye movements on current saccade latency may be determined by multiple, time-varying mechanisms related to sensory (i.e., retinotopic location), motor (i.e., saccade direction), and environmental (i.e., persistent visual objects) factors.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Directional interactions between current and prior saccades

Jones

Cowper-Smith

Westwood

2014

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…IOR seems to be readily encoded in an object-based reference when manual responses are required (Tipper, Driver & Weaver, 1991;Tipper, Weaver, Jerreat, & Burak, 1994;Weaver, Lupianez & Watson, 1998;Tipper, Jordan & Weaver, 1999;Theeuwes, Mathot & Grainger, 2014;Smith, Ball, Swalwell & Schenk, 2016), but when saccadic responses are required, IOR may (Abrams & Dobkin, 1994;Tas, Dodd & Hollingworth, 2012;Swalwell, 2019) or may not (Abrams & Pratt, 2000;Senturk, Greenberg & Liu, 2016;Redden, Hilchey & Klein, 2018) be object-based. Contrary to Cowper- Smith et al (2013), Pratt and Neggers (2008) argue that separate inhibitory mechanisms influence pointing and oculomotor responses. Hunt and Kingstone (2003) asked their participants to make manual or saccadic localization responses to targets in alternate blocks while orthogonally manipulating target luminance and whether or not the fixation stimulus was removed at the time of the target.…”

Section: -A Phenomenon Without Consensus On Definition or Theoreticalmentioning

confidence: 83%

Inhibition of return: An information processing theory of its natures and significance

Redden

MacInnes

Klein

2021

Cortex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inhibition of return (IOR) is an inhibitory aftereffect of visuospatial orienting, typically resulting in slower responses to targets presented in an area that has been recently attended. Since its discovery, myriad research has sought to explain the causes and effects underlying this phenomenon. Here, we briefly summarize the history of the phenomenon, and describe the early work supporting the functional significance of IOR as a foraging facilitator. We then shine a light on the discordance in the literature with respect to mechanism-in particular the lack of theoretical constructs that can consistently explain innumerable dissociations. We then describe three diagnostics (central arrow targets, locus of slack logic and the Psychological Refractory Period, and performance in speed-accuracy space) used to support our theory that there are two forms of inhibition of return-the form which is manifest being contingent upon the activation state of the reflexive oculomotor system. The input form, which operates to decrease the salience of inputs, is generated when the reflexive oculomotor system is suppressed; the output form, which operates to bias responding, is generated when the reflexive oculomotor system is not suppressed, Then, we subjected a published data set, wherein inhibitory effects had been generated while the reflexive oculomotor system was either active or suppressed, to diffusion modelling. As we hypothesized, based on the aforementioned theory, the effects of the two forms of IOR were best accounted for by different drift diffusion parameters. The paper ends with a variety of suggestions for further research.

show abstract

Spatial interactions between consecutive manual responses

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We have shown that the latency to initiate a reaching movement is increased if its direction is the same as a previous movement compared to movements that differ by 90° or 180° (Cowper-Smith and Westwood in Atten Percept Psychophys 75:1914-1922, 2013). An influential study (Taylor and Klein in J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 26:1639-1656, 2000), however, reported the opposite spatial pattern for manual keypress responses: repeated responses on the same side had reduced reaction time compared to responses on opposite sides. In order to determine whether there are fundamental differences in the patterns of spatial interactions between button-pressing responses and reaching movements, we compared both types of manual responses using common methods. Reaching movements and manual keypress responses were performed in separate blocks of trials using consecutive central arrow stimuli that directed participants to respond to left or right targets. Reaction times were greater for manual responses made to the same target as a previous response (M = 390 ms) as compared to the opposite target (M = 365 ms; similarity main effect: p < 0.001) regardless of whether the response was a reaching movement or a keypress response. This finding is broadly consistent with an inhibitory mechanism operating at the level of motor output that discourages movements that achieve the same spatial goal as a recent action.

show abstract

Spatial Interactions between Successive Eye and Arm Movements: Signal Type Matters

Cited by 4 publications

References 41 publications

Directional interactions between current and prior saccades

Directional interactions between current and prior saccades

Inhibition of return: An information processing theory of its natures and significance

Spatial interactions between consecutive manual responses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About