Visual information is required to reduce the global effect

Abstract

When a distractor appears in close proximity to a saccade target, the saccadic end point is biased towards the distractor. This socalled global effect reduces with the latency of the saccade if the saccade is visually guided. We recently reported that the global effect does not reduce with the latency of a double-step memory-guided saccade. The aim of this study was to investigate why the global effect in memory-guided saccades does not show the typically observed reduction with saccadic latency. One possibility is that reduction of the global effect requires continuous access to visual information about target and distractor locations, which is lacking in the case of a memory-guided saccade. Alternatively, participants may be inclined to routinely preprogram a memoryguided saccade at the moment the visual information disappears, with the result that a memory-guided saccade is typically programmed on the basis of an earlier representation than necessary. To distinguish between these alternatives, two potential targets were presented, and participants were asked to make a saccade to one of them after a delay. In one condition, the target identity was precued, allowing preprogramming of the saccade, while in another condition, it was revealed by a retro cue after the delay. The global effect remained present in both conditions. Increasing visual exposure of target and distractor led to a reduction of the global effect, irrespective of whether participants could preprogram a saccade or not. The results suggest that continuous access to visual information is required in order to eliminate the global effect.

Visual attention and eye movement control during oculomotor competition

“…Indeed, the saccade endpoint distributions obtained in the different spatial predictability conditions for a go-signal delay of 100 ms approached each other, which suggests that already a short prolongation of visual processing time can compensate for the adverse effect of spatial uncertainty on saccade accuracy. Such a dependency of top-down oculomotor control on exposure to task-relevant visual input is in line with recent evidence from a study on memory guided saccades (Arkesteijn, Donk, Smeets, & Belopolsky, 2020), which showed that sufficient target and distractor presentation time reduces saccade averaging.…”

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

“…This time course might rely on the same oculomotor inhibition responsible for the dynamic changes observed in saccade curvature (van der Stigchel 2010 ). Second, the global effect can be reduced by the presence of visual information (Arkesteijn et al 2020 , 2018 ). Third, it occurs independent of whether a saccade is preprogrammed or not (Arkesteijn et al 2020 ).…”

“…Second, the global effect can be reduced by the presence of visual information (Arkesteijn et al 2020 , 2018 ). Third, it occurs independent of whether a saccade is preprogrammed or not (Arkesteijn et al 2020 ).…”

“…In contrast, the encoding of reward-related distractors was reduced although their presence increased reaction times, highlighting that reward does not per se enhance the representation of reward-related objects, but that they need to be actively suppressed (Gaspelin et al 2015 ; Hickey and Peelen 2015 ). This active suppression of salient or reward-related distractors was related to dopaminergic midbrain activity (Hickey and Peelen 2015 ) and is presumably also reflected in the time course of saccade endpoints when a distractor and a target compete for overt visual selection (Arkesteijn et al 2020 ; Coëffé and O’Regan 1987 ; Ottes et al 1985 ; Wolf and Lappe 2020 ).…”

Inhibition of saccade initiation improves saccade accuracy: The role of local and remote visual distractors in the control of saccadic eye movements

“…Saccade trajectories have been found to curve toward distractors before finally landing somewhere between a target and distractor (McSorley et al, 2006;Mulckhuyse, Van der Stigchel, & Theeuwes, 2010). The actual trajectory and landing position depends on a number of factors such as separation, saliency, discriminability, the continuous availability of visual information, and saccade latency (Arkesteijn, Donk, Smeets, & Belopolsky, 2020;Arkesteijn, Smeets, Donk, & Belopolsky, 2018;Chou, Sommer, & Schiller, 1999;Coëffé & O'Regan, 1987;Deubel, Wolf, & Hauske, 1984;Findlay, 1981Findlay, , 1982Glimcher & Sparks, 1993;Heeman, Theeuwes, & van der Stigchel, 2014;Lee, Rohrer, & Sparks, 1998;McIlwain, 1986McIlwain, , 1991McSorley, Cruickshank, & Inman, 2009;McSorley & Findlay, 2003;Ottes, van Gisbergen, & Eggermont, 1984van Opstal & van Gisbergen, 1989;Walker & McSorley, 2008;Walker et al, 1997). The effect on landing position is known as the global effect or the center of gravity effect (Findlay, 1981;Findlay & Brown, 2006a, 2006bHe & Kowler, 1989).…”