Fixation disengagement and eye-movement latency

We examined eye-movement latencies to a target that appeared during visual fixation of a stationary stimulus, a moving stimulus, or an extrafoveal stimulus. The stimulus at fixation was turned off either before target onset (gap condition) or after target onset (overlap condition). Consistent with previous research, saccadic latencies were shorter in gap conditions than they were in overlap conditions (the gap effect). In Experiment 1, a gap effect was observed for vergence eye movements. In Experiment 2, a gap effect was observed for saccades directed at a target that appeared during visual pursuit of a moving stimulus. In Experiment 3, a gap effect was observed for saccades directed at a target that appeared during extrafoveal fixation. The present results extend reports of the gap effect for saccadic shifts during visual fixation to (a) vergence shifts during visual fixation, (b) saccadic shifts during smooth visual pursuit, and (c) saccadic shifts during extrafoveal fixation. The present findings are discussed with respect to the incompatible goals of fixation-locking and fixation-shifting oculomotor responses.     

Effects of direct and averted gaze on the subsequent saccadic response

The saccadic latency to visual targets is susceptible to the properties of the currently fixated objects. For example, the disappearance of a fixation stimulus prior to presentation of a peripheral target shortens saccadic latencies (the gap effect). In the present study, we investigated the influences of a social signal from a facial fixation stimulus (i.e., gaze direction) on subsequent saccadic responses in the gap paradigm. In Experiment 1, a cartoon face with a direct or averted gaze was used as a fixation stimulus. The pupils of the face were unchanged (overlap), disappeared (gap), or were translated vertically to make or break eye contact (gaze shift). Participants were required to make a saccade toward a target to the left or the right of the fixation stimulus as quickly as possible. The results showed that the gaze direction influenced saccadic latencies only in the gaze shift condition, but not in the gap or overlap condition; the direct-to-averted gaze shift (i.e., breaking eye contact) yielded shorter saccadic latencies than did the averted-to-direct gaze shift (i.e., making eye contact). Further experiments revealed that this effect was eye contact specific (Exp. 2) and that the appearance of an eye gaze immediately before the saccade initiation also influenced the saccadic latency, depending on the gaze direction (Exp. 3). These results suggest that the latency of target-elicited saccades can be modulated not only by physical changes of the fixation stimulus, as has been seen in the conventional gap effect, but also by a social signal from the attended fixation stimulus.     

Inhibition of return in single and dual tasks: examining saccadic, keypress, and pointing responses

Two experiments are reported in which inhibition of return (IOR)was examined wit h single-responsetasks (either manual responses alone or saccadic responses alone) and dual-response tasks (simultaneous manual and saccadic responses). The first experiment-using guided limb movements that require considerable spatial information-showed more IOR for saccades than for pointing responses. In addition, saccadic IOR was reduced with concurrent pointing movements, but manual IOR was not affected by concurrent saccades. Importantly, at the time of saccade initiation, the arm movements did not start yet, indicating that the influence on saccade IOR is due to arm-movement preparation. In the second experiment, using localization keypress responses that required only minimal spatial information, greater IOR was again found for saccadic than for manual responses, but no effect of concurrent movements was found. These findings add further support that there is a dissociation between oculomotor and skeletal-motor IOR. Moreover, the results show that the preparation manual responses tend to mediate saccadic behavior-but only when the manual responses require high levels of spatial accuracy-and that the superior colliculus is the likely neural substrate integrating IOR for eye and arm movements.     

The role of the gap effect in the orienting of attention: Evidence for express attentional shifts

The “gap effect” refers to the finding that saccadic latencies are typically reduced when the fixation point is removed just prior to the presentation of a target. One explanation for this effect is that the removal of the fixation point causes the disengagement of covert attention and allows for extremely rapid movements of attention (express attentional shifts). However, previous research regarding express attentional shifts has yielded equivocal results. The present study used a variation of a peripheral cueing paradigm with a discrimination task (Experiment 1) and a detection task (Experiment 2) to further examine this issue. The results from eye movement and keypress latencies indicated that there were express attentional shifts with the discrimination task but not in the detection task. This pattern of results may have been due to differences in how attention was allocated between the two tasks. Thus, evidence for express attentional shifts was found, but only under certain conditions.     

Control of reflexive and voluntary saccades in the gap effect

In two experiments, we examined whether voluntary and reflexive saccades shared a common fixation disengagement mechanism, Participants were required to perform a variety of tasks, each requiring a different level of information processing of the display prior to execution of the saccade. In Experiment 1, participants executed either a prosaccade or an antisaccade upon detecting a stimulus array. In Experiment 2, participants executed a prosaccade to a stimulus array only if the array contained a target item. The target could be a line (easy search) or a digit (difficult search). The critical manipulation in both experiments was the relative timing between the removal of the fixation stimulus and the onset of the stimulus array. In both experiments, it was found that saccadic latencies were shortest when the fixation stimulus was removed before the onset of the stimulus array—a gap effect. It was concluded that reflexive and voluntary saccades share a common fixation disengagement mechanism that is largely independent of higher level cognitive processes.     

Control' of reflexive and voluntary saccades in the gap effect.

In two experiments, we examined whether voluntary and reflexive saccades shared a common fixation disengagement mechanism. Participants were required to perform a variety of tasks, each requiring a different level of information processing of the display prior to execution of the saccade. In Experiment 1, participants executed either a prosaccade or an antisaccade upon detecting a stimulus array. In Experiment 2, participants executed a prosaccade to a stimulus array only if the array contained a target item. The target could be a line (easy search) or a digit (difficult search). The critical manipulation in both experiments was the relative timing between the removal of the fixation stimulus and the onset of the stimulus array. In both experiments, it was found that saccadic latencies were shortest when the fixation stimulus was removed before the onset of the stimulus array--a gap effect. It was concluded that reflexive and voluntary saccades share a common fixation disengagement mechanism that is largely independent of higher level cognitive processes.     

空间-时间联合编码效应：来自手动和眼动证据

本研究探讨汉语背景下不同反应方式（手动,眼动）、不同方位（水平,垂直）上空间-时间联合编码效应（STEARC效应）存在的可能性。四个实验均采用两类时间词语诱发被试的时间表征,采用2（时间：过去、将来）×2（反应手/眼跳方向：左、右/上、下）的被试内设计。结果表明汉语背景下的人们将过去和身体左边（上）联系在一起,把将来和右边（下）联系在一起,人们存在自左向右和自上而下的STEARC效应,这种效应不存在手动和眼动的分离,人们对时间的表征不仅是一条时间线,更是一个心理时间地图。     

Inhibition of return and manual pointing movements

To examine whether the motor inhibition of return (IOR) postulated by Taylor and Klein (1998, 2000) generalizes to manual guided movements or is restricted to saccadic responses, the following three experiments were conducted. The first experiment combined peripheral cues (which generate IOR) with four types of manual responses made to central targets (central arrow indicating the response location). The responses were made on a touch-screen and were the equivalent of either a detection keypress, a choice keypress, a detection-guided pointing movement, or a choice-guided pointing movement. No IOR was found for any of the responses. The second experiment replicated the main result under eye fixation control. In Experiment 3, peripheral cues and peripheral targets were used, and IOR was present in all responses. Overall, these finding suggest that motor-based IOR is restricted to the oculomotor system. Implications for motor-based IOR and attention-based IOR are discussed.     

What are human express saccades?

When a fixation point is removed 200 msec prior to target onset (the gap condition), human subjects are said to produce eye movements that have a short latency (80–120 msec), that form the early peak of a bimodal latency distribution, and that have been labeled “human express saccades” (see, e.g., Fischer, 1987; Fischer & Breitmeyer, 1987; Fischer & Ramsperger, 1984, 1986). In three experiments, we sought to obtain this express saccade diagnostic pattern in the gap condition, We orthogonally combined target location predictability with the presence versus absence of catch trials (Experiment 1). When target location was fixed and catch trials were not used, we found mostly anticipations. In the remaining conditions, where responses were under stimulus control, bimodality was not frequently observed, and, whether it was or not, latencies were not in the express saccade range. Using random target locations, we then varied stimulus luminance and the mode of stimulus presentation (LEDs vs. oscilloscope) in the gap and overlap (fixation is not removed) conditions (Experiment2). Bimodality was rarely observed, the gap effect (overlap minus gap reaction time) was additive with luminance, and only the brightest targets elicited saccades in the express range. When fixed locations and no catch trials were combined with latency feedback (Experiment 3), we observed many responses in the express saccade range and some evidence for bimodality, but the sudden introduction of catch trials revealed that many early responses were not under stimulus control. Humanscan make stimulus-controlled saccades that are initiated very rapidly (80–120 msec), but unless catch trials or choice reaction time is used, it is not possible to distinguish such saccades from anticipatory responses that are prepared in advance and timed to occur shortly after target onset. Because the express saccade diagnostic pattern is not a characteristic feature of human saccadic performance, we urge investigators to focus their attention on the robustgap effect     

Correspondence effects for objects with opposing left and right protrusions

Choice reactions to a property of an object stimulus are often faster when the location of a graspable part of the object corresponds with the location of a keypress response than when it does not, a phenomenon called the object-based Simon effect. Experiments 1-3 examined this effect for variants of teapot stimuli that were oriented to the left or right. Whether keypress responses were made with fingers within the same hand or between different hands was also manipulated. Experiment 1 showed that, for judgments of stimulus color and upright-inverted orientation, the Simon effect for intact teapots occurred in the direction of the spout location and was larger for within- than between-hand response modes. In Experiments 2 and 3, teapots with the handle or spout removed showed separate contributions of each component to the Simon effect. In Experiment 4, we clarified a discrepancy between our findings of object-based Simon effects and a previously reported absence of effect with color judgments for door-handle stimuli. We obtained an object-based Simon effect with respect to handle position when the bases of the door handles were centered but not when the handles were centered. The findings that object-based Simon effects occur with color judgments and when responses are fingers on the same hand are in closer agreement with a location coding account than with a grasping affordance account.     

The reduction of saccadic latency by prior offset of the fixation point: an analysis of the gap effect

The latency to initiate a saccade (saccadic reaction time) to an eccentric target is reduced by extinguishing the fixation stimulus prior to the target onset. Various accounts have attributed this latency reduction (referred to as the gap effect) to facilitated sensory processing, oculomotor readiness, or attentional processes. Two experiments were performed to explore the relative contributions of these factors to the gap effect. Experiment 1 demonstrates that the reduction in saccadic reaction time (RT) produced by fixation point offset is additive with the effect of target luminance. Experiment 2 indicates that the gap effect is specific for saccades directed toward a peripheral target and does not influence saccades directed away from the target (i.e., antisaccades) or choice-manual RT. The results are consistent with an interpretation of the gap effect in terms of facilitated premotor processing in the superior colliculus.     

Simon-type effects: chronometric evidence for keypress schemata in typewriting

In 4 experiments, chronometric evidence for keypress schemata in typing was sought by presenting stimuli to be typed in positions that were displaced from a central fixation point. Reaction times were shorter when stimulus positions corresponded to keyboard locations of the letters to be typed, suggesting that position was an important part of the internal representation of the response. Experiment 1 presented single letters left and right of fixation. Experiment 2 presented single letters above and below fixation. Experiment 3 presented words left and right of fixation and found evidence of parallel activation of keypress schemata. Experiment 4 found no effect of the eccentricity of the keyboard locations and responding fingers, suggesting that response-location codes are categorical, not metric. The results are consistent with D. E. Rumelhart and D. A. Norman's (1982) theory of typewriting.     

空间-时间关联的中介共同表征结构:来自反转STEARC效应的证据

通过3个双任务实验(诱导任务和特征任务)探讨空间-时间联合编码(STEARC)效应的加工机制。实验1采用时间信息作为诱导任务材料,实验2采用空间信息作为诱导任务材料,在特征任务中都发现映射不一致组被试(看到过去/左侧刺激时按右键反应,看到未来/右侧刺激时按左键反应)出现反转STEARC效应,映射一致组被试表现出常规的STEARC效应,表明从时间信息加工到空间反应过程符合中介共同表征结构。实验3分离两种任务的反应方式(手动和眼动),发现不一致映射规则下,被试仍然表现出常规的STEARC效应,表明这种中介共同表征结构存在特定联结效应,即在不同反应器中出现时间和空间相互独立的表征结构。总体而言,研究支持空间-时间关联符合中介共同表征结构,并且这种关联中存在反应器特定联结效应。     

Focal spatial attention can eliminate inhibition of return

Inhibition of return (IOR) is an orienting phenomenon characterized by slower responses to spatially cued than to uncued targets. In Experiment 1, a physically small digit that required identification was presented immediately following a peripheral cue. The digit could appear in the cued peripheral box or in the central box, thus guaranteeing a saccadic response to the cue in one condition and maintenance of fixation in the other. An IOR effect was observed when a saccadic response to the cue was required, but IOR was not generated by the peripheral cue when fixation was maintained in order to process the central digit. In Experiment 2, IOR effects were observed when participants were instructed to ignore the digits, whether those digits were presented in the periphery or at fixation. These findings suggest that behaviorally manifested, cue-induced IOR effects can be eliminated by focal spatial attentional control settings.     

Inhibition of return in manual and saccadic response systems

When nonpredictive exogenous visual cues are used to reflexively orient covert visual spatial attention, the initial early facilitation for detecting stimuli at cued versus uncued spatial locations develops into inhibition by 300 msec following the cue, a pattern referred to as inhibition of return (IOR). Experiments were carried out comparing the magnitude and time course for development of IOR effects when manual versus saccadic responses were required. The results showed that both manual and saccadic responses result in equivalent amounts of facilitation following initial exposure to a spatial cue. However, IOR developed more quickly for saccadic responses, such that, at certain cue-target SOAs, saccadic responses to targets were inhibited, whereas manual responses were still facilitated. The findings are interpreted in terms of a premotor theory of visual attention.     

An action sequence held in memory can interfere with response selection of a target stimulus,but does not interfere with response activation of noise stimuli

Withholding an action plan in memory for later execution can delay execution of another action if the actions share a similar (compatible) action feature (e.g., response hand). We investigated whether this phenomenon, termed compatibility interference (CI), occurs for responses associated with a target as well as responses associated with distractors in a visual selection task. Participants planned and withheld a sequence of keypress responses (with their right or left hand), according to the identity of a stimulus (A), and then immediately executed a keypress response (with their right or left hand) to a second stimulus (B), according to the identity of a target letter appearing alone or among distractor letters. Distractor letters were either response compatible or incompatible with the target and appeared either simultaneously with the target (Experiments 1A and 2) or 100 msec before the target (Experiment 1B). Also, stimulus-response mapping was either 1:1 (Experiment 1) or 2:1 (Experiment 2). Results showed that the response to the Stimulus B target was delayed when it required the same response hand as Stimulus A, as opposed to a different hand. Also, the target reaction time for Stimulus B was greater when the target was flanked by incompatible distractors than when it was flanked by compatible distractors. Moreover, the degree of CI was consistent across the compatible-, incompatible-, and no-distractor conditions, indicating that CI generalizes to responses associated with a target, but not to those associated with distractors. Thus, CI occurs at a response selection, not at a response activation stage. Implications for the code occupation account for CI (e.g., Stoet & Hommel, 1999, 2002) and an alternative account for CI are discussed.     

Flowers and spiders in spatial stimulus-response compatibility: does affective valence influence selection of task-sets or selection of responses?

The present study examined the effect of stimulus valence on two levels of selection in the cognitive system, selection of a task-set and selection of a response. In the first experiment, participants performed a spatial compatibility task (pressing left and right keys according to the locations of stimuli) in which stimulus-response mappings were determined by stimulus valence. There was a standard spatial stimulus-response compatibility (SRC) effect for positive stimuli (flowers) and a reversed SRC effect for negative stimuli (spiders), but the same data could be interpreted as showing faster responses when positive and negative stimuli were assigned to compatible and incompatible mappings, respectively, than when the assignment was opposite. Experiment 2 disentangled these interpretations, showing that valence did not influence a spatial SRC effect (Simon effect) when task-set retrieval was unnecessary. Experiments 3 and 4 replaced keypress responses with joystick deflections that afforded approach/avoidance action coding. Stimulus valence modulated the Simon effect (but did not reverse it) when the valence was task-relevant (Experiment 3) as well as when it was task-irrelevant (Experiment 4). Therefore, stimulus valence influences task-set selection and response selection, but the influence on the latter is limited to conditions where responses afford approach/avoidance action coding.     

Is direction position? Position- and direction-based correspondence effects in tasks with moving stimuli.

Five experiments were carried out to test whether (task-irrelevant) motion information provided by a stimulus changing its position over time would affect manual left-right responses. So far, some studies reported direction-based Simon effects whereas others did not. In Experiment 1a, a reliable direction-based effect occurred, which was not modulated by the response mode--that is, by whether participants responded by pressing one of two keys or more dynamically by moving a stylus in a certain direction. Experiments 1a, 1b, and 2 lend support to the idea that observers use the starting position of target motion as a reference for spatial coding. That is, observers might process object motion as a shift of position relative to the starting position and not as directional information. The dominance of relative position coding could also be shown in Experiment 3, in which relative position was pitted against motion direction by presenting a static and dynamic stimulus at the same time. Additionally, we explored the role of eye movements in stimulus-response compatibility and showed in Experiments 1b and 3a that the execution or preparation of saccadic eye movements--as proposed by an attention-shifting account--is not necessary for a Simon effect to occur.     

Spatial learners display enhanced oculomotor performance

ABSTRACT

Attention is important during navigation processes that rely on a cognitive map, as spatial relationships between environmental landmarks need to be selected, encoded, and learned. Spatial learners navigate using this process of cognitive map formation, which relies on the hippocampus. Conversely, response learners memorise a series of actions to navigate, which relies on the caudate nucleus. The present study aimed to investigate the relationship between spatial learning and oculomotor performance. We tested 23 response learners and 23 spatial learners, as determined by the 4-on-8 virtual maze, on an antisaccade task with a gap and emotional visual stimulus manipulation. Spatial learners displayed decreased saccadic reaction time latencies compared to response learners. Performance cost from the gap manipulation was significantly higher in response learners. These results could represent an attentional practice effect through the use of spatial strategies during navigation or a more global increase in cognitive function amongst spatial learners.     

Against a role for attentional disengagement in the gap effect: A friendly amendment to Tam and Stelmach (1993)

Saccadic reaction time (RT) is reduced when the fixation point is removed shortly before target onset. Although Tam and Stelmach (1993) argued that thisgap effect could not be explained solely by the idea that fixation offset disengaged visual attention and preferred an explanation based on disengagement of the oculomotor system, they felt that they could not rule out a hybrid model in which both oculomotorand attentional disengagement contribute to the gap effect. Our analysis of the dual response experiment (Experiment 4), upon which this hybrid model was based, shows that manual and saccadic responses were likely compromised by a grouping or delay strategy and that subjects may not have been attending as instructed. On these grounds, we argue that Tam and Stelmach (1993), like Kingstone and Klein (1990; 1993a) provide no evidence that attentional disengagement contributes to the gap effect. An alternative proposal (Klein & Kingstone, 1993), that motor preparation and oculomotor disengagement combine additively to produce the gap effect, is consistent with the data from Tam and Stelmach’s Experiments 1–3, is similar to the explanation that they prefer, and has been strongly supported when directly tested (Kingstone, Klein, & Taylor, 1994).