Saccadic inhibition and the remote distractor effect: One mechanism or two?

Bompas, Aline; Sumner, Petroc

doi:10.1167/15.6.15

Cited by 12 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(35 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, our data cannot reveal if onsets increased or decreased saccade latencies, especially since we lack an informative control condition. Sudden distractor onsets can also give rise to saccadic inhibition that is characterized by a dip in the latency distribution around 70-100 ms after distractor onset (Bompas, Campbell, & Sumner, 2020;Bompas & Sumner, 2015;Buonocore & McIntosh, 2008;Edelman & Xu, 2009;Reingold & Stampe, 1999. Saccadic inhibition is thought to arise from competing activation in saccade planning areas like the superior collicus (SC; Dorris, Olivier, & Munoz, 2007;Meeter, Van der Stigchel, & Theeuwes, 2010;White et al, 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Top-down control of saccades requires inhibition of suddenly appearing stimuli

Wolf¹,

Lappe²

2020

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans scan their visual environment using saccade eye movements. Where we look is influenced by bottom-up salience and top-down factors, like value. For reactive saccades in response to suddenly appearing stimuli, it has been shown that short-latency saccades are biased towards salience, and that top-down control increases with increasing latency. Here, we show, in a series of six experiments, that this transition towards top-down control is not determined by the time it takes to integrate value information into the saccade plan, but by the time it takes to inhibit suddenly appearing salient stimuli. Participants made consecutive saccades to three fixation crosses and a vertical bar consisting of a high-salient and a rewarded low-salient region. Endpoints on the bar were biased towards salience whenever it appeared or reappeared shortly before the last saccade was initiated. This was also true when the eye movement was already planned. When the location of the suddenly appearing salient region was predictable, saccades were aimed in the opposite direction to nullify this sudden onset effect. Successfully inhibiting salience, however, could only be achieved by previewing the target. These findings highlight the importance of inhibition for top-down eye-movement control.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Top-down control of saccades requires inhibition of suddenly appearing stimuli

Wolf¹,

Lappe²

2020

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, a large peripheral distractor presented shortly after the target strongly reduces the probability of triggering a saccade around 100 ms after the distractor appearance, a phenomenon called saccadic inhibition (SI) which results in a dip in the saccade latency distributions [43]. It has been proposed that these are one and the same phenomenon, where SI would be the underlying mechanism of the RDE [44,45]. In our experiment, when adding a full screen visual flash shortly after the target onset we create the condition where SI takes place.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Irrelevant auditory and tactile signals, but not visual signals, interact with the target onset and modulate saccade latencies

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Saccadic eye movements bring events of interest to the center of the retina, enabling detailed visual analysis. This study explored whether irrelevant auditory (experiments A, B & F), visual (C & D) or tactile signals (E & F) delivered around the onset of a visual target modulates saccade latency. Participants were instructed to execute a quick saccade toward a target stepping left or right from a fixation position. We observed an interaction between auditory beeps or tactile vibrations and the oculomotor reaction that included two components: a warning effect resulting in faster saccades when the signal and the target were presented simultaneously; and a modulation effect with shorter-or longer-latencies when auditory and tactile signals were delivered before-or after-the target onset. Combining both modalities only increased the modulation effect to a limited extent, pointing to a saturation of the multisensory interaction with the motor control. Interestingly, irrelevant visual stimuli (black background or isoluminant noise strips in peripheral vision, flashed for 10 ms) increased saccade latency whether they were presented just before or after target onset. The lack of latency reduction with visual signals suggests that the modulation observed in the auditory and tactile experiments was not related to priming effects but rather to low-level audio-and tactile-visual integration. The increase in saccade latency observed with irrelevant visual stimuli is discussed in relation to saccadic inhibition. Our results demonstrate that signals conveying no information regarding where and when a visual target would appear modulate saccadic reactivity, much like in multisensory temporal binding, but only when these signals come from a different modality.

show abstract

“…Dorris, Olivier, and Munoz (2007) subsequently confirmed that preparatory activity for an expected saccade target is decreased transiently by the onset of a distractor elsewhere in the visual field (nearby distractors can conversely facilitate build-up activity). Recently, a physiologically inspired model, incorporating long-range inhibition and local facilitation, has been found to simulate empirical patterns of saccadic inhibition with impressive accuracy (Bompas & Sumner, 2011, 2015.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Saccade Reorienting Is Facilitated by Pausing the Oculomotor Program

Buonocore

Purokayastha

McIntosh

2017

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As we look around the world, selecting our targets, competing events may occur at other locations. Depending on current goals, the viewer must decide whether to look at new events or to ignore them. Two experimental paradigms formalize these response options: double-step saccades and saccadic inhibition. In the first, the viewer must reorient to a newly appearing target; in the second, they must ignore it. Until now, the relationship between reorienting and inhibition has been unexplored. In three experiments, we found saccadic inhibition ∼100 msec after a new target onset, regardless of the task instruction. Moreover, if this automatic inhibition is boosted by an irrelevant flash, reorienting is facilitated, suggesting that saccadic inhibition plays a crucial role in visual behavior, as a bottom-up brake that buys the time needed for decisional processes to act. Saccadic inhibition may be a ubiquitous pause signal that provides the flexibility for voluntary behavior to emerge.

show abstract

Saccadic inhibition and the remote distractor effect: One mechanism or two?

Cited by 12 publications

References 15 publications

Top-down control of saccades requires inhibition of suddenly appearing stimuli

Top-down control of saccades requires inhibition of suddenly appearing stimuli

Irrelevant auditory and tactile signals, but not visual signals, interact with the target onset and modulate saccade latencies

Saccade Reorienting Is Facilitated by Pausing the Oculomotor Program

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About