Target-distractor competition cannot be resolved across a saccade

The inhibitory effect of a recent distractor: singleton vs. multiple distractors

In the complex interplay between sensory and cognitive processes, the brain must sift through a flood of sensory data to pinpoint relevant signals. This selective mechanism is crucial for the effective control of behaviour, by allowing organisms to focus on important tasks and blocking out distractions. The Inhibition of a Recent Distractor (IRD) Task examines this selection process by exploring how inhibiting distractors influences subsequent eye movements towards an object in the visual environment. In a series of experiments, research by Crawford et al. (2005a) demonstrated a delayed response to a target appearing at the location that was previously occupied by a distractor, demonstrating a legacy inhibition exerted by the distractor on the spatial location of the upcoming target. This study aimed to replicate this effect and to investigate any potential constraints when multiple distractors are presented. Exploring whether the effect is observed in more ecologically relevant scenarios with multiple distractors is crucial for assessing the extent to which it can be applied to a broader range of environments. Experiment 1 successfully replicated the effect, showing a significant IRD effect only with a single distractor. Experiments 2-5 explored a number of possible explanations for this phenomenon.

Vision as oculomotor reward: cognitive contributions to the dynamic control of saccadic eye movements

Humans and other primates are equipped with a foveated visual system. As a consequence, we reorient our fovea to objects and targets in the visual field that are conspicuous or that we consider relevant or worth looking at. These reorientations are achieved by means of saccadic eye movements. Where we saccade to depends on various low-level factors such as a targets' luminance but also crucially on high-level factors like the expected reward or a targets' relevance for perception and subsequent behavior. Here, we review recent findings how the control of saccadic eye movements is influenced by higher-level cognitive processes. We first describe the pathways by which cognitive contributions can influence the neural oculomotor circuit. Second, we summarize what saccade parameters reveal about cognitive mechanisms, particularly saccade latencies, saccade kinematics and changes in saccade gain. Finally, we review findings on what renders a saccade target valuable, as reflected in oculomotor behavior. We emphasize that foveal vision of the target after the saccade can constitute an internal reward for the visual system and that this is reflected in oculomotor dynamics that serve to quickly and accurately provide detailed foveal vision of relevant targets in the visual field.

A nearby distractor does not influence hand movements

When interacting with the environment, our manual actions are often preceded by an eye movement. This suggests that the processes underlying target selection in hand and eye movements may be coupled. It is known that when a distractor is presented close to a target, the endpoint of an eye movement will be biased towards the distractor. The size of this so-called global effect decreases when more viewing time is available. Here we investigate whether a similar effect is also present in hand movements. If the processes underlying target selection for hand and eye movements are indeed coupled, a similar bias should be present in hand movements as well. To test this, we adopted a classic global effect paradigm but applied it to goal-directed hand movements. We show that the endpoints of hand movements are unbiased for all but one participant, irrespective of the viewing time. These results suggest that the processes underlying target selection for hand movements operate independently from those for eye movements.

Inhibition of saccade initiation improves saccade accuracy: The role of local and remote visual distractors in the control of saccadic eye movements

When a distractor appears close to the target location, saccades are less accurate. However, the presence of a further distractor, remote from those stimuli, increases the saccade response latency and improves accuracy. Explanations for this are either that the second, remote distractor impacts directly on target selection processes or that the remote distractor merely impairs the ability to initiate a saccade and changes the time at which unaffected target selection processes are accessed. In order to tease these two explanations apart, here we examine the relationship between latency and accuracy of saccades to a target and close distractor pair while a remote distractor appears at variable distance. Accuracy improvements are found to follow a similar pattern, regardless of the presence of the remote distractor, which suggests that the effect of the remote distractor is not the result of a direct impact on the target selection process. Our findings support the proposal that a remote distractor impairs the ability to initiate a saccade, meaning the competition between target and close distractor is accessed at a later time, thus resulting in more accurate saccades.

Visual information is required to reduce the global effect

When a distractor appears in close proximity to a saccade target, the saccadic end point is biased towards the distractor. This so-called global effect reduces with the latency of the saccade if the saccade is visually guided. We recently reported that the global effect does not reduce with the latency of a double-step memory-guided saccade. The aim of this study was to investigate why the global effect in memory-guided saccades does not show the typically observed reduction with saccadic latency. One possibility is that reduction of the global effect requires continuous access to visual information about target and distractor locations, which is lacking in the case of a memory-guided saccade. Alternatively, participants may be inclined to routinely preprogram a memory-guided saccade at the moment the visual information disappears, with the result that a memory-guided saccade is typically programmed on the basis of an earlier representation than necessary. To distinguish between these alternatives, two potential targets were presented, and participants were asked to make a saccade to one of them after a delay. In one condition, the target identity was precued, allowing preprogramming of the saccade, while in another condition, it was revealed by a retro cue after the delay. The global effect remained present in both conditions. Increasing visual exposure of target and distractor led to a reduction of the global effect, irrespective of whether participants could preprogram a saccade or not. The results suggest that continuous access to visual information is required in order to eliminate the global effect.

Updating spatial working memory in a dynamic visual environment

The present review describes recent developments regarding the role of the eye movement system in representing spatial information and keeping track of locations of relevant objects. First, we discuss the active vision perspective and why eye movements are considered crucial for perception and attention. The second part focuses on the question of how the oculomotor system is used to represent spatial attentional priority, and the role of the oculomotor system in maintenance of this spatial information. Lastly, we discuss recent findings demonstrating rapid updating of information across saccadic eye movements. We argue that the eye movement system plays a key role in maintaining and rapidly updating spatial information. Furthermore, we suggest that rapid updating emerges primarily to make sure actions are minimally affected by intervening eye movements, allowing us to efficiently interact with the world around us.

The Limits of Predictive Remapping of Attention Across Eye Movements

With every eye movement, visual input projected onto our retina changes drastically. The fundamental question of how we keep track of relevant objects and movement targets has puzzled scientists for more than a century. Recent advances suggested that this can be accomplished through the process of predictive remapping of visual attention to the future post-saccadic locations of relevant objects. Evidence for the existence of predictive remapping of attention was first provided by Rolfs et al. (2011) (Nature Neuroscience, 14, 252–256). However, they used a single distant control location away from the task-relevant locations, which could have biased the allocation of visual attention. In this study we used a similar experimental paradigm as Rolfs et al. (2011), but probed attention equally likely at all possible locations. Our results showed that discrimination performance was higher at the remapped location than at a distant control location, but not compared to the other two control locations. A re-analysis of the results obtained by Rolfs et al. (2011) revealed a similar pattern. Together, these findings suggest that it is likely that previous reports of the predictive remapping of attention were due to a diffuse spread of attention to the task-relevant locations rather than to a specific shift toward the target’s future retinotopic location.