Literature DB >> 24879862

Saccadic inhibition can cause the remote distractor effect, but the remote distractor effect may not be a useful concept.

Robert D McIntosh1, Antimo Buonocore2.   

Abstract

We have suggested that the remote distractor effect (RDE), the elevation of average saccadic reaction time (SRT) induced by a task-irrelevant distractor, may be explained as a statistical consequence of a characteristic reshaping of the SRT distribution known as saccadic inhibition (SI; Buonocore & McIntosh, 2008). In a recent paper, Walker and Benson (2013) argue against this idea and claim that the RDE and SI are partly dissociable. Here, we examine this claim, taking the opportunity to clarify potential ambiguities about how SI affects average SRT, and how the presence of SI can be inferred from SRT distributions.We highlight what we consider to be the most interesting aspects of Walker and Benson’s data, and suggest that a more flexible and nuanced view of SI can account for them. In considering the relation between SI and the RDE, we conclude that the RDE may no longer be a useful concept for eye movement researchers.
© 2014 ARVO.

Keywords:  remote distractor effect; saccade latency; saccadic inhibition; superior colliculus; target selection

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24879862     DOI: 10.1167/14.5.15

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vis        ISSN: 1534-7362            Impact factor:   2.240


  5 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Attention modulates trans-saccadic integration.

Authors:  Emma E M Stewart; Alexander C Schütz
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 1.886

4.  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

5.  The Influence of Metacognitive Strategies on the Improvement of Reaction Inhibition Processes in Children with ADHD.

Authors:  Natalia Kajka; Agnieszka Kulik
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-01-20       Impact factor: 3.390

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.