This article explored the extent to which stimulus-driven control over visual selection is modulated by goal-driven factors. Observers searched for a no-onset color target among 3 distractors and signaled its location either manually or with a saccade. Additional distractors appeared either with or without an abrupt onset and were either similar or dissimilar to the target. Abrupt onsets disrupted saccades to the target, especially when they shared the target color. Irrelevant onsets also interfered with the manual responses, but this interference was dependent on the particular type of manual response. Stimulus-driven and contingent capture can occur within a single paradigm, but the extent and nature of these effects depend on the specific response required.

Detailed measurements of saccadic latency--the time taken to make an eye movement to a suddenly-presented visual target--have proved a valuable source of detailed and quantitative information in a wide range of neurological conditions, as well as shedding light on the mechanisms of decision, currently of intense interest to cognitive neuroscientists. However, there is no doubt that more complex oculomotor tasks, and in particular the antisaccade task in which a participant must make a saccade in the opposite direction to the target, are potentially more sensitive indicators of neurological dysfunction, particularly in neurodegenerative conditions. But two obstacles currently hinder their widespread adoption for this purpose. First, that much of the potential information from antisaccade experiments, notably about latency distribution and amplitude, is typically thrown away. Second, that there is no standardised protocol for carrying out antisaccade experiments, so that results from one laboratory cannot easily be compared with those from another. This paper, the outcome of a recent international meeting of oculomotor scientists and clinicians with an unusually wide experience of such measurements, sets out a proposed protocol for clinical antisaccade trials: its adoption will greatly enhance the clinical and scientific benefits of making these kinds of measurements.

No abstract

Preattentive grouping is supported by 2 systems, a brightness system that is contrast polarity sensitive and an edge system that is relatively insensitive to contrast polarity. Search was spatially parallel for pairs of same contrast polarity vertically aligned circles, among horizontal pairs, and serial for pairs of circles that had the opposite contrast polarity (Experiments 1-3). By replacing the circles with squares, the authors investigated the effect of adding collinear edge information. When collinear edges were present, the polarity difference between paired items did not disrupt grouping (Experiments 4-6). These results support models of grouping in which brightness and edge information are processed separately (e.g., S. Grossberg & E. Mingolla, 1985) and models of visual search in which complex relations between stimuli can be computed in parallel across the display.

Gibson, Li, Skow, Brown, and Cooke (Psychological Science, 11, 324-327, 2000) had participants carry out a search task in which they were required to detect the presence of one or two targets. In order to successfully perform such a multiple-target visual search task, participants had to remember the location of the first target while searching for the second target. In two experiments we investigated the cost of remembering this target location. In Experiment 1, we compared performance on the Gibson et al. task with performance on a more conventional present-absent search task. The comparison suggests a substantial performance cost as measured by reaction time, number of fixations and slope of the search functions. In Experiment 2, we looked in detail at refixations of distractors, which are a direct measure of attentional deployment. We demonstrated that the cost in this multiple-target visual search task was due to an increased number of refixations on previously visited distractors. Such refixations were present right from the start of the search. This change in search behaviour may be caused by the necessity of having to remember a target-allocating memory for the upcoming target may consume memory capacity that may otherwise be available for the tagging of distractors. These results support the notion of limited capacity memory processes in search.