Self-bias modulates saccadic control

Abstract

We present novel data on the role of attention in eliciting enhanced processing of stimuli associated with self. Participants were required to make pro-or anti-saccades according to whether learned shape-label pairings matched or mismatched. When stimuli matched participants were required to make an anti-saccade and when the stimuli mismatched a pro-saccade was required. We found that anti-saccades were difficult to make to stimuli associated with self when compared to stimuli associated with a friend and a stranger. In contrast, anti-saccades to friend-stimuli were easier to make than antisaccades to stranger-stimuli. In addition, a correct anti-saccade to a self-associated stimulus disrupted subsequent pro-saccade trials, relative to when the preceding anti-saccade was made to other stimuli. The data indicate that self-associated stimuli provide a strong cue for explicit shifts of attention to them, and that correct anti-saccades to such stimuli demand high levels of inhibition (which carries over to subsequent pro-saccade trials). The self exerts an automatic draw on attention.4

Self-related shapes can hold the eyes

“…According to Sui et al (2012, 2015), this self-prioritisation effect would rely on visuo-perceptual mechanisms similar to those underlying perceptual salience, and recent studies have been carried out with the aim to explore its potential impact on both perception and attention (Macrae et al, 2017; Siebold et al, 2016; Stein et al, 2016; Yankouskaya et al, 2017). Here, we conducted two experiments with the aim to investigate whether a self-related shape can modulate attention holding.…”

“…Based on the two studies that explored the possible interplay between the self and eye movement dynamics ( n = 12-24 in Siebold et al, 2016; n = 34 in Yankouskaya et al, 2017), we aimed to test approximately 30 naïve undergraduates with normal or corrected-to-normal vision. Data collection was ended at n = 36 ( M age = 22 years, SD = 5.68, 15 males), when a booked testing session was terminated.…”

“…However, it is important to note that -similarly to Stein et al (2016) -also Siebold et al (2016) deviated from the original paradigm of Sui et al (2012) by asking participants to associate the self and a stranger with the same black line shown with two different orientations, rather than with two different geometrical shapes. A second study (Yankouskaya, Palmer, Stolte, Sui, & Humphreys, 2017) employed an anti-saccade task in which participants were asked to move their eyes towards a peripheral shape (i.e., pro-saccade) or towards the opposite location as that occupied by the shape (i.e., anti-saccade). The shape could be associated with either the self, a friend or a stranger.…”

“…The main results showed that, when both the shape and the target referred to the self (and thus an anti-saccade was required), a greater number of directional errors emerged as compared to when stimuli did not refer to the self, thus suggesting a tight coupling between the processing of self-related stimuli and the saccadic generation system. Siebold et al (2016) and in Yankouskaya et al (2017), participants were asked to remove the eyes from a central fixation spot and to shift their eyes towards a stimulusvarying in relevance -placed in a peripheral location, thus allowing to investigate attentional capture effects. However, several social situations also require the opposite oculomotor behaviour, that is when a relevant stimulus is presented at fixation and we have to remove the eyes from it.…”

“…Crucially, both in Siebold et al (2016) and in Yankouskaya et al (2017), participants were asked to remove the eyes from a central fixation spot and to shift their eyes towards a stimulus—varying in relevance—placed in a peripheral location, thus allowing to investigate attentional capture effects. However, several social situations also require the opposite oculomotor behaviour, that is when a relevant stimulus is presented at fixation and we have to remove the eyes from it.…”