Literature DB >> 14747887

Predictiveness of a visual distractor modulates saccadic responses to auditory targets.

Holle Kirchner1, Hans Colonius.   

Abstract

We are faster to orient our eyes toward a visual target that also produces a sound. Conversely, the response to an auditory target is prolonged if a visual distractor is presented at a spatially incongruent position. Here, participants exhibited faster saccadic reaction times when an auditory target was more likely to be presented opposite to a visual distractor than when the stimuli only rarely occurred in spatial disparity. In contrast to experiments with visual targets and an auditory distractor, a spatially congruent visual distractor did not facilitate the response to an auditory target. We interpret the results in terms of an ocular inhibition process to suppress an automatic orienting response to the location of the visual distractor. This process is shown to be modulated by the predictability of target location.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14747887     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-003-1818-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  12 in total

1.  Human eye-head gaze shifts in a distractor task. I. Truncated gaze shifts.

Authors:  B D Corneil; C A Hing; D V Bautista; D P Munoz
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 2.714

2.  Less attention is more in the preparation of antisaccades, but not prosaccades.

Authors:  A Kristjánsson; Y Chen; K Nakayama
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 24.884

3.  Auditory-visual interactions subserving goal-directed saccades in a complex scene.

Authors:  B D Corneil; M Van Wanrooij; D P Munoz; A J Van Opstal
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Why are antisaccades slower than prosaccades? A novel finding using a new paradigm.

Authors:  Bettina Olk; Alan Kingstone
Journal:  Neuroreport       Date:  2003-01-20       Impact factor: 1.837

5.  Intentional versus unintentional use of contingencies between perceptual events.

Authors:  K A Carlson; J H Flowers
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1996-04

6.  Reflex suppression in the anti-saccade task is dependent on prestimulus neural processes.

Authors:  S Everling; M C Dorris; D P Munoz
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 2.714

7.  Spatial and temporal factors determine auditory-visual interactions in human saccadic eye movements.

Authors:  M A Frens; A J Van Opstal; R F Van der Willigen
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1995-08

8.  Saccade latency and warning signals: effects of auditory and visual stimulus onset and offset.

Authors:  S M Ross; L E Ross
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1981-05

9.  Auditory-visual interaction in the generation of saccades in man.

Authors:  C J Lueck; T J Crawford; C J Savage; C Kennard
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  The influence of auditory and visual distractors on human orienting gaze shifts.

Authors:  B D Corneil; D P Munoz
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  1996-12-15       Impact factor: 6.167

View more
  2 in total

1.  Are somatosensory saccades voluntary or reflexive?

Authors:  Richard Amlôt; Robin Walker
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-11-05       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Cognitive control can modulate intersensory facilitation: speeding up visual antisaccades with an auditory distractor.

Authors:  Holle Kirchner; Hans Colonius
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-07-21       Impact factor: 1.972

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.