The "pip-and-pop effect" refers to the facilitation of search for a visual target (a horizontal or vertical bar whose color changes frequently) among multiple visual distractors (tilted bars also changing color unpredictably) by the presentation of a spatially uninformative auditory cue synchronized with the color change of the visual target. In the present study, the visual stimuli in the search display changed brightness instead of color, and the crossmodal congruency between the pitch of the auditory cue and the brightness of the visual target was manipulated. When cue presence and cue congruency were randomly varied between trials (Experiment 1), both congruent cues (low-frequency tones synchronized with dark target states or highfrequency tones synchronized with bright target states) and incongruent cues (the reversed mapping) facilitated visual search performance equally, relative to a no-cue baseline condition. However, when cue congruency was blocked and the participants were informed about the pitch-brightness mapping in the cue-present blocks (Experiment 2), performance was significantly enhanced when the cue and target were crossmodally congruent as compared to when they were incongruent. These results therefore suggest that the crossmodal congruency between auditory pitch and visual brightness can influence performance in the pip-and-pop task by means of top-down facilitation.

No abstract

In the present study, we investigated the distribution of attention before antisaccades. We used a dual task paradigm, in which participants made prosaccades or antisaccades and discriminated the orientation of a visual probe shown at the saccade goal, the visual cue location (antisaccade condition), or a neutral location. Moreover, participants indicated whether they had made a correct antisaccade or an erroneous prosaccade. We observed that, while spatial attention in the prosaccade task was allocated only to the saccade goal, attention in the antisaccade task was allocated both to the cued location and to the antisaccade goal. This suggests parallel attentional selection of the cued and antisaccade locations. We further observed that in error trials--in which participants made an incorrect prosaccade instead of an antisaccade--spatial attention was biased towards the prosaccade goal. These erroneous prosaccades were mostly unnoticed and were often followed by corrective antisaccades with very short latencies (<100 ms). Data from error trials therefore provide further evidence for the parallel programming of the reflexive prosaccade to the cue and the antisaccade to the intended location. Taken together, our results suggest that attention allocation and saccade goal selection in the antisaccade task are mediated by a common competitive process.

Behavioral measures of decision making are usually limited to observations of decision outcomes. In the present study, we made use of the fact that oculomotor and sensory selection are closely linked to track oculomotor decision making before oculomotor responses are made. We asked participants to make a saccadic eye movement to one of two memorized target locations and observed that visual sensitivity increased at both the chosen and the nonchosen saccade target locations, with a clear bias toward the chosen target. The time course of changes in visual sensitivity was related to saccadic latency, with the competition between the chosen and nonchosen targets resolved faster before short-latency saccades. On error trials, we observed an increased competition between the chosen and nonchosen targets. Moreover, oculomotor selection and visual sensitivity were influenced by top-down and bottom-up factors as well as by selection history and predicted the direction of saccades. Our findings demonstrate that saccade decisions have direct visual consequences and show that decision making can be traced in the human oculomotor system well before choices are made. Our results also indicate a strong association between decision making, saccade target selection, and visual sensitivity. We show that saccadic decisions can be tracked by measuring spatial attention. Spatial attention is allocated in parallel to the two competing saccade targets, and the time course of spatial attention differs for fast-slow and for correct-erroneous decisions. Saccade decisions take the form of a competition between potential saccade goals, which is associated with spatial attention allocation to those locations.