Literature DB >> 27405998

The visual properties of proximal and remote distractors differentially influence reaching planning times: evidence from pro- and antipointing tasks.

Matthew Heath1,2, Jesse C DeSimone3.   

Abstract

The saccade literature has consistently reported that the presentation of a distractor remote to a target increases reaction time (i.e., the remote distractor effect: RDE). As well, some studies have shown that a proximal distractor facilitates saccade reaction time. The lateral inhibition hypothesis attributes the aforementioned findings to the inhibition/facilitation of target selection mechanisms operating in the intermediate layers of the superior colliculus (SC). Although the impact of remote and proximal distractors has been extensively examined in the saccade literature, a paucity of work has examined whether such findings generalize to reaching responses, and to our knowledge, no work has directly contrasted reaching RTs for remote and proximal distractors. To that end, the present investigation had participants complete reaches in target only trials (i.e., TO) and when distractors were presented at "remote" (i.e., the opposite visual field) and "proximal" (i.e., the same visual field) locations along the same horizontal meridian as the target. As well, participants reached to the target's veridical (i.e., propointing) and mirror-symmetrical (i.e., antipointing) location. The basis for contrasting pro- and antipointing was to determine whether the distractor's visual- or motor-related activity influence reaching RTs. Results demonstrated that remote and proximal distractors, respectively, increased and decreased reaching RTs and the effect was consistent for pro- and antipointing. Accordingly, results evince that the RDE and the facilitatory effects of a proximal distractor are effector independent and provide behavioral support for the contention that the SC serves as a general target selection mechanism. As well, the comparable distractor-related effects for pro- and antipointing trials indicate that the visual properties of remote and proximal distractors respectively inhibit and facilitate target selection.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Antipointing; Distractor; Global effect; Propointing; Remote distractor effect

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27405998     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-016-4723-4

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


  41 in total

1.  Electroencephalographic evidence of vector inversion in antipointing.

Authors:  Matthew Heath; Jon Bell; Clay B Holroyd; Olav Krigolson
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-06-19       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Antipointing: perception-based visual information renders an offline mode of control.

Authors:  Anika Maraj; Matthew Heath
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2009-12-12       Impact factor: 1.972

3.  The Psychophysics Toolbox.

Authors:  D H Brainard
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  1997

4.  Effect of remote distractors on saccade programming: evidence for an extended fixation zone.

Authors:  R Walker; H Deubel; W X Schneider; J M Findlay
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Spatiotemporal structure of visual receptive fields in macaque superior colliculus.

Authors:  Jan Churan; Daniel Guitton; Christopher C Pack
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2012-08-29       Impact factor: 2.714

6.  The unidirectional prosaccade switch-cost: correct and error antisaccades differentially influence the planning times for subsequent prosaccades.

Authors:  Jesse C DeSimone; Jeffrey Weiler; Gabriella S Aber; Matthew Heath
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 1.886

Review 7.  Visual-motor function of the primate superior colliculus.

Authors:  R H Wurtz; J E Albano
Journal:  Annu Rev Neurosci       Date:  1980       Impact factor: 12.449

8.  The unidirectional prosaccade switch-cost: electroencephalographic evidence of task-set inertia in oculomotor control.

Authors:  Jeffrey Weiler; Cameron D Hassall; Olave E Krigolson; Matthew Heath
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  2014-10-22       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  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

10.  The role of right temporal lobe structures in off-line action: evidence from lesion-behavior mapping in stroke patients.

Authors:  Stéphanie Rossit; Paresh Malhotra; Keith Muir; Ian Reeves; George Duncan; Monika Harvey
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2011-04-20       Impact factor: 5.357

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.