Literature DB >> 15341745

Contrast, probability, and saccadic latency; evidence for independence of detection and decision.

R H S Carpenter1.   

Abstract

Many factors influence how long it takes to respond to a visual stimulus. The lowest-level factors, such as luminance and contrast, determine how easily different elements of a target can be detected. Higher-level factors are to do with whether these elements constitute a stimulus requiring a response; they include prior probability and urgency. It is natural to think of these two processes, detection and decision, as occurring in series, so that overall reaction time is essentially the sum of the contributions of each stage. Here, measurements of saccadic latency to visual targets whose contrast and prior probability are systematically manipulated demonstrate that there are indeed separable stages of detection and decision. Both can be quantitatively described by rise-to-threshold mechanisms; the average rate of rise of the first is a simple logarithmic function of target contrast, whereas the second shows the linear rise characteristic of the LATER model of neural decision making. The implication is that under normal, high-contrast conditions, in which detection is very fast, the random variability that is characteristic of all reaction times is not caused by sensory noise but is gratuitously introduced by the brain itself; paradoxically, by conferring unpredictability it may aid an organism's survival.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15341745     DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2004.08.058

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Biol        ISSN: 0960-9822            Impact factor:   10.834


  48 in total

1.  'Alternate-goal bias' in antisaccades and the influence of expectation.

Authors:  Mathias Abegg; Amadeo R Rodriguez; Hyung Lee; Jason J S Barton
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-05-04       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Ultrafast initiation of a neural race by impending errors.

Authors:  Imran Noorani; R H S Carpenter
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2015-08-19       Impact factor: 5.182

3.  Fixation offset and stop signal intensity effects on saccadic countermanding: a crossmodal investigation.

Authors:  Sharon Morein-Zamir; Alan Kingstone
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-06-17       Impact factor: 1.972

4.  A noisy transform predicts saccadic and manual reaction times to changes in contrast.

Authors:  M J Taylor; R H S Carpenter; A J Anderson
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2006-04-13       Impact factor: 5.182

5.  Strategies optimize the detection of motion transients.

Authors:  Geoffrey M Ghose
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2006-05-10       Impact factor: 2.240

6.  LATER predicts saccade latency distributions in reading.

Authors:  R H S Carpenter; Scott A McDonald
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2006-09-15       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Optimal temporal decoding of neural population responses in a reaction-time visual detection task.

Authors:  Yuzhi Chen; Wilson S Geisler; Eyal Seidemann
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2008-01-16       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  The effects of bottom-up target luminance and top-down spatial target predictability on saccadic reaction times.

Authors:  Robert A Marino; Douglas Perry Munoz
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-07-04       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  A simple two-stage model predicts response time distributions.

Authors:  R H S Carpenter; B A J Reddi; A J Anderson
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  2009-06-29       Impact factor: 5.182

Review 10.  Neuroimaging of cognition: past, present, and future.

Authors:  R J Dolan
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2008-11-06       Impact factor: 17.173

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.