Saccade latency indexes exogenous and endogenous object-based attention

Abstract

Classic studies of object-based attention have utilized keypress responses as the main dependent measure. However, people typically make saccades to fixate important objects. Recent work has shown that attention may act differently when deployed covertly versus in advance of a saccade. We further investigated the link between saccades and attention by examining whether object-based effects can be observed for saccades. We adapted the classical double-rectangle cueing paradigm of Egly et al., (1994), and measured both the first saccade latency and keypress reaction time (RT) to a target that appeared at the end of one of the two rectangles. Our results showed that saccade latency exhibited higher sensitivity than RT in detecting effects of attention. We also assessed the generality of the attention effects by testing three types of cues: hybrid (predictive and peripheral), exogenous (non-predictive and peripheral), and endogenous (predictive and central). We found that both RT and saccade latency exhibited effects of both space-based and object-based attentional selection. However, saccade latency showed a more robust attentional modulation than RTs. For the exogenous cue, we observed a spatial inhibition-of-return along with an object-based effect, implying that object-based attention is independent of space-based attention. Overall, our results reveal an oculomotor correlate of object-based attention, suggesting that, in addition to spatial priority, object-level priority also affects saccade planning.

Impairment in Attention Focus During the Posner Cognitive Task in Children With ADHD: An Eye Tracker Study

“…The modified Posner's task that we used in our study is a neuropsychological test in which two major types of cues are commonly applied to analyze attention shift based on the distinct visual inputs. The task paradigm relies on the hypothesis that exogenous attention is more driven by peripheral inputs and endogenous attention by central inputs: peripheral signals directly indicate the location of the target and solicit reflective attention, whereas the central signals, before being used, need be interpreted cognitively in order to voluntarily engage attention ( 29 ). Previous findings in the literature supported that attention shift related to both sources of tasks (endogenous vs. exogenous) did not share the same cerebral networks ( 30 ).…”

Object-based attention shifts are driven by target location, not object placement

“…If this was indeed the case, it would be reasonable to implicate the role of eye movements and differences in saccade velocity as likely sources of the SDA. Counter to this explanation, however, previous research has found that (1) saccades made to targets in the cardinal directions had statistically equivalent peak velocities (Becker & Jürgens, 1990) and (2) eye movements made during the double-rectangle cueing paradigm produced qualitatively similar effects to those produced by manual button press responses (Şentürk, Greenberg, & Liu, 2016), suggesting that both processes are affected similarly during object-based attentional selection.…”

Target–object integration, attention distribution, and object orientation interactively modulate object-based selection

“…Object-based selection is commonly attributed to an attentional prioritization mechanism or strategy (Shomstein & Yantis, 2002, whereby priority maps guide participants' search for a target (Drummond & Shomstein, 2010;Sentürk, Greenberg, & Liu, 2016). This proposal posits that the same-object advantage emerges because unattended regions of an attended object are assigned higher priority than unattended regions of an unattended object.…”