Oculomotor inhibition reflects temporal expectations

Amit, Roy; Abeles, Dekel; Carrasco, Marisa; Yuval-Greenberg, Shlomit

doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.09.026

Cited by 74 publications

(217 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

168

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The magnitude of the rate reduction was ϳ1.5 Hz. This is larger than the reductions of ϳ0.4 to 1 Hz found previously (Betta and Turatto, 2006;Pastukhov and Braun, 2010;Hafed et al, 2011;Fried et al, 2014;Dankner et al, 2017;Amit et al, 2019). Individual observer variability could contribute to rate reduction differences across studies.…”

Section: Temporal Attention and Expectationmentioning

confidence: 63%

“…The frontal eye field projects to SC and contributes to the voluntary control of eye position and the left intraparietal sulcus has been implicated in voluntary temporal attention (Coull and Nobre, 1998;Cotti et al, 2011;Davranche et al, 2011). Another candidate neural substrate is the striatal dopaminergic system, which has been suggested to mediate the effects of temporal expectations on oculomotor inhibition (Amit et al, 2019).…”

Section: Microsaccades Reveal Anticipatory Mechanisms Of Temporal Attmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They also improve vision by positioning stimuli at the highest-acuity region within the fovea (Poletti et al, 2013;Rucci and Poletti, 2015). However, microsaccades impair perception of brief stimuli that occur around the time of a microsaccade onset, a phenomenon known as microsaccadic suppression (Zuber and Stark, 1966;Beeler, 1967;Hafed and Krauzlis, 2010;Hafed et al, 2011;Amit et al, 2019). Corresponding neural response reductions just after microsaccades have been found in multiple visual areas (Herrington et al, 2009;Hafed and Krauzlis, 2010;Chen et al, 2015;Chen and Hafed, 2017;Loughnane et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Humans and monkeys actively inhibit microsaccades before a predictably timed, brief stimulus, which helps to avoid microsaccadic suppression during the stimulus presentation (Findlay, 1974;Betta and Turatto, 2006;Pastukhov and Braun, 2010;Hafed et al, 2011;Fried et al, 2014;Dankner et al, 2017;Olmos-Solis et al, 2017;Amit et al, 2019). Recent studies have linked temporal predictability, pretarget microsaccade inhibition, and performance improvement.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Directing Voluntary Temporal Attention Increases Fixational Stability

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our visual input is constantly changing, but not all moments are equally relevant. Visual temporal attention, the prioritization of visual information at specific points in time, increases perceptual sensitivity at behaviorally relevant times. The dynamic processes underlying this increase are unclear. During fixation, humans make small eye movements called microsaccades, and inhibiting microsaccades improves perception of brief stimuli. Here, we investigated whether temporal attention changes the pattern of microsaccades in anticipation of brief stimuli. Human observers (female and male) judged stimuli presented within a short sequence. Observers were given either an informative precue to attend to one of the stimuli, which was likely to be probed, or an uninformative (neutral) precue. We found strong microsaccadic inhibition before the stimulus sequence, likely due to its predictable onset. Critically, this anticipatory inhibition was stronger when the first target in the sequence (T1) was precued (task-relevant) than when the precue was uninformative. Moreover, the timing of the last microsaccade before T1 and the first microsaccade after T1 shifted such that both occurred earlier when T1 was precued than when the precue was uninformative. Finally, the timing of the nearest pre-and post-T1 microsaccades affected task performance. Directing voluntary temporal attention therefore affects microsaccades, helping to stabilize fixation at the most relevant moments over and above the effect of predictability. Just as saccading to a relevant stimulus can be an overt correlate of the allocation of spatial attention, precisely timed gaze stabilization can be an overt correlate of the allocation of temporal attention.

show abstract

Section: Temporal Attention and Expectationmentioning

confidence: 63%

Section: Microsaccades Reveal Anticipatory Mechanisms Of Temporal Attmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Directing Voluntary Temporal Attention Increases Fixational Stability

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since blink events are sparse and last longer, the blink 561 rate time series was smoothed using a sliding window of 100 ms and averaged across a longer 562 window of -500-0 ms relative to target onset and multiplied by the sampling rate to convert to 563 Hz. Saccade rate slope was calculated as the difference between saccade rate at the pre-target 564 window (-100-0 ms relative to target onset) and the post cue window (400-500 ms post cue 565 onset, after the saccade rate returns to baseline following the cue presentation, a microsaccade-566 rate signature 5 ) divided by the time difference in seconds between the two windows (which 567 22 was different for each foreperiod duration; as in Amit et al, 2019). 568 569…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Oculomotor inhibition precedes temporally expected auditory targets

Abeles

Amit

Tal

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

28Eye movements are inhibited prior to the onset of temporally-predictable visual targets. This 29 oculomotor inhibition effect could be considered a marker for the formation of temporal 30 expectations and the allocation of temporal attention in the visual domain. Here we show 31 that eye movements are also inhibited before predictable auditory targets. In two 32 experiments, we manipulate the period between a cue and an auditory target to be either 33 predictable or unpredictable. The findings show that although there is no perceptual gain 34 from avoiding gaze-shifts in this procedure, saccades and blinks are inhibited prior to 35 predictable relative to unpredictable auditory targets. These findings show that oculomotor 36 inhibition occurs prior auditory targets. This link between auditory expectation and 37 oculomotor behavior, in combination with the results of our parallel study in the tactile 38 domain, reveals a multimodal perception action coupling, which has a central role in temporal 39 expectations. 40 41 100 asked to perform a 2-alternative forced choice (2AFC) discrimination task: report whether the chirp was 101 ascending or descending by pressing one of two buttons. Participants were instructed to be as accurate as 102 possible and to respond within the 4 seconds response window. Following the response, or after 4 s without 103 one, the fixation-cross changed color to gray for 200 ms to signal the end of the trial. B) The foreperiod was 104 either constant throughout the block (predictable condition) or changed randomly in different trials within the 105 same block (unpredictable condition). Thus, the cue acted as a 100% valid temporal cue in the predictable 106 condition but was uninformative regarding target timing in the unpredictable condition. The stimuli were 107 identical in the two conditions, and differed only in the validity of the temporal cue in predicting the time of the 108 target. Participants were not informed as to any predictability; therefore, all temporal expectations were 109 4 learned incidentally. 110 111 Results 112Behavioral performance: accuracy-rates and reaction times 113Accuracy-rates and reaction times (RT) were calculated separately for each participant, 114 condition and foreperiod. A two-way repeated measures ANOVA with factors Predictability 115 (predictable/unpredictable) and Foreperiod (1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3 s) revealed no evidence for 116 differences in accuracy-rates between predictability conditions (F(1,19) = 1.62, p = 0.22) or 117 foreperiods (F(4,76) = 0.81, p = 0.52), and no significant interaction between these two factors 118 (F(4,76) = 0.39, p = 0.746). The same analysis performed on RT of correct trials (secondary 119 variable) revealed a significant main effect of foreperiod (F(4,76) = 4.83, p = 0.006, ε = 0.708, 120 130 (blue bars) conditions. Error bars denote ± one standard error of the mean, corrected for within subjects 131 variability 13 . Source data are provided as a Source Data file. 133Saccades 134

show abstract