The search for the neural mechanisms of the set size effect

Saccade eye movement in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Objects: This study aims to investigate the saccade/anti-saccade eye movement in children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).Methods: Twelve children (8.8 ± 0.8 years) diagnosed with ADHD (DSM-V) and 12 control (9.1 ± 0.3 years) were invited to participate in the experiment where the iView Hi-SPEED eyetracker, with the sample rate at 500 Hz Binocular, was employed. The visual guided saccade (VGS) task was used to collect saccade latency and accuracy values. The anti-saccade task was used to collect saccade latency and accuracy values as well as the percentage of direction errors (PDE).Results: Children with ADHD showed a significant difference in latency in the 7.5° target and imprecision in both targets (7.5° and 15°) during the VGS task. Moreover, the ADHD group exhibited shorter latency (15° target) and significantly higher numbers in the Percentage of Direction Errors in the anti-saccade tasks than the control group.Conclusions: The results suggest that children with ADHD have the following difficulties: precise oculomotor control, oculomotor response inhibition function and basic visual attention.

Reconsidering Visual Search

The visual search paradigm has had an enormous impact in many fields. A theme running through this literature has been the distinction between preattentive and attentive processing, which I refer to as the two-stage assumption. Under this assumption, slopes of set-size and response time are used to determine whether attention is needed for a given task or not. Even though a lot of findings question this two-stage assumption, it still has enormous influence, determining decisions on whether papers are published or research funded. The results described here show that the two-stage assumption leads to very different conclusions about the operation of attention for identical search tasks based only on changes in response (presence/absence versus Go/No-go responses). Slopes are therefore an ambiguous measure of attentional involvement. Overall, the results suggest that the two-stage model cannot explain all findings on visual search, and they highlight how slopes of response time and set-size should only be used with caution.

Allocation of attention during pursuit of large objects is no different than during fixation

Attention allocation during pursuit of a spot is usually characterized as asymmetric with more attention placed ahead of the target than behind it. However, attention is symmetrically allocated across larger pursuit stimuli. An unresolved issue is how tightly attention is constrained on large stimuli during pursuit. Although some work shows it is tightly locked to the fovea, other work shows it is allocated flexibly. To investigate this, we had observers perform a character identification task on large pursuit stimuli composed of arrays of five, nine, or 15 characters spaced between 0.6° and 4.0° apart. Initially, the characters were identical, but at a random time, they all changed briefly, rendering one of them unique. Observers identified the unique character. Consistent with previous literature, attention appeared narrow and symmetric around the pursuit target for tightly spaced (0.6°) characters. Increasing spacing dramatically expanded the attention scope, presumably by mitigating crowding. However, when we controlled for crowding, performance was limited by set size, suffering more for eccentric targets. Interestingly, the same limitations on attention allocation were observed with stationary and pursued stimuli-evidence that attention operates similarly during fixation and pursuit of a stimulus that extends into the periphery. The results suggest that attention is flexibly allocated during pursuit, but performance is limited by crowding and set size. In addition, performing the identification task did not hurt pursuit performance, further evidence that pursuit of large stimuli is relatively inattentive.