Fixation disengagement and eye-movement latency

Tam, Wa James; Ono, Hiroshi

doi:10.3758/bf03209759

Cited by 55 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More recently, there have been a number of studies on control of voluntary saccades (Abrams, Oonk, & Pratt, 1998;Forbes & Klein, 1996;Reuter-Lorenz et al, 1991;Reuter-Lorenz et al, 1995). The goal of the present research is to continue this investigation of saccadic control and to explore differences and similarities in the control of reflexive and voluntary saccades.A ubiquitous finding with reflexive saccades has been that their latency is reduced by removing a fixation stim- Ross, 1980;Tam & Ono, 1994;Tam & Stelmach, 1993).General agreement exists in the literature that the gap effect can be attributed to fixation disengagement (Fischer & Weber, 1993; Kingstone & Klein, 1993aKlein et al, 1995; Reuter-Lorenz et a1., 1991;Reuter-Lorenz et al, 1995;L. E. Ross & S. M. Ross, 1980;Saslow, 1967;Tam & Ono, 1994;Tam & Stelmach, 1993;Weber et al, 1992;Weber et al, 1995).…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…A ubiquitous finding with reflexive saccades has been that their latency is reduced by removing a fixation stim- Ross, 1980;Tam & Ono, 1994;Tam & Stelmach, 1993).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These can be voluntary, planned by the viewer to examine stimuli of interest, or reflexive, executed in response to novel or abrupt stimuli. Research on saccadic control has focused primarily on reflexive saccades (Fischer, 1987;Fischer & Ramsperger, 1986;Fischer & Weber, 1993;Kingstone & Klein, 1993aKlein, Taylor, & Kingstone, 1995;Reuter-Lorenz, Hughes, & Fendrich, 1991;ReuterLorenz, Oonk, Barnes, & Hughes, 1995;Saslow, 1967;Tam & Ono, 1994;Tam & Stelmach, 1993;Weban-Smith & Findlay, 1991;Weber, Aiple, Fischer, & Latanov, 1992;Weber, Biscaldi, & Fischer, 1995). More recently, there have been a number of studies on control of voluntary saccades (Abrams, Oonk, & Pratt, 1998;Forbes & Klein, 1996;Reuter-Lorenz et al, 1991;Reuter-Lorenz et al, 1995).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Control of reflexive and voluntary saccades in the gap effect

Craig

Stelmach

Tam

1999

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two experiments, we examined whether voluntary and reflexive saccades shared a common fixation disengagement mechanism, Participants were required to perform a variety of tasks, each requiring a different level of information processing of the display prior to execution of the saccade. In Experiment 1, participants executed either a prosaccade or an antisaccade upon detecting a stimulus array. In Experiment 2, participants executed a prosaccade to a stimulus array only if the array contained a target item. The target could be a line (easy search) or a digit (difficult search). The critical manipulation in both experiments was the relative timing between the removal of the fixation stimulus and the onset of the stimulus array. In both experiments, it was found that saccadic latencies were shortest when the fixation stimulus was removed before the onset of the stimulus array-a gap effect. It was concluded that reflexive and voluntary saccades share a common fixation disengagement mechanism that is largely independent of higher level cognitive processes.During the average workday, a person typically makes between 100,000 and 200,000 saccadic eye movements (Irwin & Carlson-Radvansky, 1996). These can be voluntary, planned by the viewer to examine stimuli of interest, or reflexive, executed in response to novel or abrupt stimuli. Research on saccadic control has focused primarily on reflexive saccades (Fischer, 1987;Fischer & Ramsperger, 1986;Fischer & Weber, 1993; Kingstone & Klein, 1993aKlein, Taylor, & Kingstone, 1995;Reuter-Lorenz, Hughes, & Fendrich, 1991; ReuterLorenz, Oonk, Barnes, & Hughes, 1995;Saslow, 1967;Tam & Ono, 1994;Tam & Stelmach, 1993;Weban-Smith & Findlay, 1991;Weber, Aiple, Fischer, & Latanov, 1992;Weber, Biscaldi, & Fischer, 1995). More recently, there have been a number of studies on control of voluntary saccades (Abrams, Oonk, & Pratt, 1998;Forbes & Klein, 1996;Reuter-Lorenz et al., 1991;Reuter-Lorenz et al., 1995). The goal of the present research is to continue this investigation of saccadic control and to explore differences and similarities in the control of reflexive and voluntary saccades.A ubiquitous finding with reflexive saccades has been that their latency is reduced by removing a fixation stim- Ross, 1980;Tam & Ono, 1994;Tam & Stelmach, 1993).General agreement exists in the literature that the gap effect can be attributed to fixation disengagement (Fischer & Weber, 1993; Kingstone & Klein, 1993aKlein et al., 1995; Reuter-Lorenz et a1., 1991;Reuter-Lorenz et al., 1995;L. E. Ross & S. M. Ross, 1980;Saslow, 1967;Tam & Ono, 1994;Tam & Stelmach, 1993;Weber et al., 1992;Weber et al., 1995). Reflexive saccades can be executed more rapidly in gap conditions because the offset of the fixation stimulus leads to deactivation of the system responsible for maintaining fixation. Without competition from the fixation system, the saccade system can respond faster to a peripheral stimulus (Forbes & Klein, 1996;Munoz & Wurtz, 1992Tam & Ono, 1994).Fischer (1987) has proposed a three-loop model to...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…A ubiquitous finding with reflexive saccades has been that their latency is reduced by removing a fixation stim- Ross, 1980;Tam & Ono, 1994;Tam & Stelmach, 1993).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Control of reflexive and voluntary saccades in the gap effect

Craig

Stelmach

Tam

1999

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A class of pretarget processes reduces SRTs to all target locations due to a general disinhibition of the oculomotor system. This includes reductions in SRTs afforded by variations in the general state of oculomotor readiness (Juttner and Wolf 1992;Paré and Munoz 1996), warning signals Ross 1980, 1981;Walter 1964), and fixation disengagement (Dorris and Munoz 1995;Kingstone and Klein 1993;Reuter-Lorenz et al 1991;Tam and Ono 1994), all of which occur before target presentation. Another class of processes reduces SRTs only to specific target locations by using task-dependent information before target presentation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Previous Visual Stimulus or Saccade on Saccadic Reaction Times in Monkey

Dorris

Taylor

Klein

et al. 1999

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. Influence of previous visual stimulus or saccade on saccadic reaction times in monkey. J. Neurophysiol. 81: 2429Neurophysiol. 81: -2436Neurophysiol. 81: , 1999. Saccadic reaction times (SRTs) to suddenly appearing targets are influenced by neural processes that occur before and after target presentation. The majority of previous studies have focused on how posttarget factors, such as target attributes or changes in task complexity, affect SRTs. Studies of pretarget factors have focused on how prior knowledge of the timing or location of the impending target, gathered through cueing or probabilistic information, affects SRTs. Our goal was to investigate additional pretarget factors to determine whether SRTs can also be influenced by the history of saccadic and visual activity even when these factors are spatially unpredictive as to the location of impending saccadic targets. Monkeys were trained on two paradigms. In the saccade-saccade paradigm, monkeys were required to follow a saccadic target that stepped from a central location, to an eccentric location, back to center, and finally to a second eccentric location. The stimulussaccade paradigm was similar, except the central fixation target remained illuminated during presentation of the first eccentric stimulus; the monkey was required to maintain central fixation and to make a saccade to the second eccentric stimulus only on disappearance of the fixation point. In both paradigms, the first eccentric stimulus was presented at the same, opposite, or orthogonal location with respect to the final target location in a given trial. We measured SRTs to the final target under conditions in which all parameters were identical except for the location of the first eccentric stimulus. In the saccade-saccade paradigm, we found that the SRT to the final target was slowest when it was presented opposite to the initial saccadic target, whereas in the stimulus-saccade paradigm the SRT to the final target was slowest when it was presented at the same location as the initial stimulus. In both paradigms, these increases in SRTs were greatest during the shortest intervals between presentation of successive eccentric stimuli, yet these effects remained present for the longest intervals employed in this study. SRTs became faster as the direction and eccentricity of the two successive stimuli became increasingly misaligned from that which produced the maximal SRT slowing in each paradigm. The results of the stimulus-saccade paradigm are similar to the phenomenon of inhibition of return (IOR) in which human subjects are slower to respond to stimuli that are presented at previously cued locations. We interpret these findings in terms of overlapping representations of visuospatial and oculomotor activity in the same neural structures.

show abstract

“…One possible source of motoric influence-eye movements-can be safely discounted because of timing considerations. In the short CTOA condition, the SOA between cue and target was only 100 msec, which is too short a time to allow for an eye movement (see, e.g., Tam & Ono, 1994). Even when DUR c is added to the SOA, the interval falls considerably below 200 msec in the cued conditions.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The time required for perceptual (nonmotoric) processing in IOR

Spalek¹,

Lollo²

2007

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual search is something we do routinely every day. We select a coin for the parking meter from a handful of coins, or we single out an icon from among a crowd of other icons on our computer desktop. Laboratory studies have been aimed at discovering the rules that govern the efficiency of visual search. One such rule, known as inhibition of return (IOR;Posner & Cohen, 1984), is held to be effective in preventing observers from reexamining locations that have already been searched. A rule such as this would promote the examination of novel locations, thereby improving search efficiency.In a typical IOR experiment, the initial display consists of a central fixation point and two placeholders, one on either side of fixation. A cue stimulus appears briefly in one of the peripheral locations and then reappears briefly at fixation. A target stimulus is then presented, and the observer is required to respond to it as quickly as possible. IOR describes the finding that the observer's reaction time (RT) to a target presented at the previously cued location is slower than it is to a target presented at an uncued location (Posner & Cohen, 1984).In the predominant view, this increased latency is attributed to some form of inhibitory mechanism acting at either the perceptual (see, e.g., Abrams & Dobkin, 1994) or the motor (see, e.g., Taylor & Klein, 1998) level. However, a determination of whether the locus of IOR is perceptual or motor (or both) has been hampered by the common practice of using RT as the dependent measure. Because motor factors are inherently involved in RT, an uncontaminated estimate of the involvement of perceptual factors has been difficult to obtain (see, e.g., Müller & von Mühlenen, 1996).The perceptual and motor components of IOR were decoupled in a study by Handy, Jha, and Mangun (1999), who used identification of a masked target, rather than RT, as the primary response measure. By employing signaldetection methodology, a measure of perceptual sensitivity (d ) was obtained that was independent of motor factors. Handy et al.'s results revealed both classes of effects typically found in exogenous cuing studies: facilitation (larger d at the cued relative to the uncued location) at a short cue-target onset asynchrony (CTOA) and IOR (relatively smaller d at the cued location) at a long CTOA. On the basis of these results, Handy et al. concluded that the mechanism underlying IOR affects the perceptual quality of a target stimulus independently of motoric factors.Although the signal-detection methodology (d measure) employed by Handy et al. (1999) did provide evidence for a perceptual component of IOR and for reduced sensitivity at the cued location, it did not provide evidence regarding the period of time required for the perceptual processing of the target at the cued and uncued locations. The present need is for estimates of the speed of the perceptual system at the cued relative to the uncued target locations in the absence of motoric factors. If it is the case that IOR reflects a modulation of perce...

show abstract

Fixation disengagement and eye-movement latency

Cited by 55 publications

References 30 publications

Control of reflexive and voluntary saccades in the gap effect

Control of reflexive and voluntary saccades in the gap effect

Influence of Previous Visual Stimulus or Saccade on Saccadic Reaction Times in Monkey

The time required for perceptual (nonmotoric) processing in IOR

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About