Literature DB >> 22842403

Modulation of saccadic inhibition by distractor size and location.

Antimo Buonocore1, Robert D McIntosh.   

Abstract

Distractors presented contralateral to a visual target inhibit the generation of saccades within a precise temporal window (Buonocore & McIntosh, 2008; Reingold & Stampe, 2002; Walker, Kentridge, & Findlay, 1995). The greatest 'dip' of saccadic inhibition typically occurs at about 90 ms after distractor onset, with a subsequent recovery period showing an elevated frequency of saccades. It is not yet known how the spatial properties of the distractor stimulus influence the saccadic inhibition signature. To study this, we manipulated the size and the field of presentation of the distractor in four experiments. Experiment 1 demonstrated that the size of a distractor in the contralateral field is logarithmically related to the magnitude of the saccadic inhibition dip. This implies that the probability of a planned saccade being inhibited increases logarithmically with the size of the distractor. Experiment 2 showed a qualitatively similar but more pronounced effect of size for distractors in the ipsilateral field. Experiment 3 compared the effects of contralateral and ipsilateral distractors directly using a within-subjects design, confirming the more pronounced impact of ipsilateral distractors. Experiment 4 replicated the more pronounced effect of ipsilateral distractors in a task in which target side was unpredictable, confirming that the effect does not result merely from participants preparing in advance to ignore events on one side. We suggest that participants are more able to resist contralateral distraction during target selection, as they can more effectively withdraw attention from locations remote from the target than from locations close to it. 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22842403     DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2012.07.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vision Res        ISSN: 0042-6989            Impact factor:   1.886


  12 in total

1.  Motor selection dynamics in FEF explain the reaction time variance of saccades to single targets.

Authors:  Christopher K Hauser; Dantong Zhu; Terrence R Stanford; Emilio Salinas
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2018-04-13       Impact factor: 8.140

2.  Disrupting saccadic updating: visual interference prior to the first saccade elicits spatial errors in the secondary saccade in a double-step task.

Authors:  Antimo Buonocore; David Melcher
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2015-04-02       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  Alteration of the microsaccadic velocity-amplitude main sequence relationship after visual transients: implications for models of saccade control.

Authors:  Antimo Buonocore; Chih-Yang Chen; Xiaoguang Tian; Saad Idrees; Thomas A Münch; Ziad M Hafed
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-02-15       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Cognitive control and automatic interference in mind and brain: A unified model of saccadic inhibition and countermanding.

Authors:  Aline Bompas; Anne Eileen Campbell; Petroc Sumner
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2020-01-30       Impact factor: 8.934

5.  The countermanding task revisited: fast stimulus detection is a key determinant of psychophysical performance.

Authors:  Emilio Salinas; Terrence R Stanford
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  Vacillation, indecision and hesitation in moment-by-moment decoding of monkey motor cortex.

Authors:  Matthew T Kaufman; Mark M Churchland; Stephen I Ryu; Krishna V Shenoy
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2015-05-05       Impact factor: 8.140

Review 7.  Decoupling speed and accuracy in an urgent decision-making task reveals multiple contributions to their trade-off.

Authors:  Emilio Salinas; Veronica E Scerra; Christopher K Hauser; M Gabriela Costello; Terrence R Stanford
Journal:  Front Neurosci       Date:  2014-04-23       Impact factor: 4.677

8.  Speeded saccadic and manual visuo-motor decisions: Distinct processes but same principles.

Authors:  Aline Bompas; Craig Hedge; Petroc Sumner
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 3.468

9.  Time-dependent inhibition of covert shifts of attention.

Authors:  Antimo Buonocore; Niklas Dietze; Robert D McIntosh
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2021-07-03       Impact factor: 1.972

10.  Effects of a pretarget distractor on saccade reaction times across space and time in monkeys and humans.

Authors:  Aarlenne Z Khan; Douglas P Munoz; Naomi Takahashi; Gunnar Blohm; Robert M McPeek
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2016-05-01       Impact factor: 2.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.