Spatial attention during saccade decisions

Abstract

Behavioral measures of decision making are usually limited to observations of decision outcomes. In the present study, we made use of the fact that oculomotor and sensory selection are closely linked to track oculomotor decision making before oculomotor responses are made. We asked participants to make a saccadic eye movement to one of two memorized target locations and observed that visual sensitivity increased at both the chosen and the nonchosen saccade target locations, with a clear bias toward the chosen target. The time course of changes in visual sensitivity was related to saccadic latency, with the competition between the chosen and nonchosen targets resolved faster before short-latency saccades. On error trials, we observed an increased competition between the chosen and nonchosen targets. Moreover, oculomotor selection and visual sensitivity were influenced by top-down and bottom-up factors as well as by selection history and predicted the direction of saccades. Our findings demonstrate that saccade decisions have direct visual consequences and show that decision making can be traced in the human oculomotor system well before choices are made. Our results also indicate a strong association between decision making, saccade target selection, and visual sensitivity. We show that saccadic decisions can be tracked by measuring spatial attention. Spatial attention is allocated in parallel to the two competing saccade targets, and the time course of spatial attention differs for fast-slow and for correct-erroneous decisions. Saccade decisions take the form of a competition between potential saccade goals, which is associated with spatial attention allocation to those locations.

Pre-saccadic remapping relies on dynamics of spatial attention

“…Our study has eliminated this potential criticism, and our observed deployment of attention in the opposite direction of the saccade and of the cue speaks in favor of the forward remapping effects. Consistent with previous behavioral studies (Baldauf and Deubel, 2008; Deubel and Schneider, 1996; Jonikaitis et al, 2017) and contrary to the convergent remapping effects, our results show that spatial attention is allocated to the saccade target and does not broadly spread around it. Additionally, convergent remapping cannot account for a number of earlier behavioral findings (Jonikaitis et al, 2013; Rolfs et al, 2011; Szinte et al, 2015; Szinte et al, 2016), as such spread of attention would have to be asymmetric and not spread towards the several control positions tested in these earlier studies.…”

Pre-saccadic remapping relies on dynamics of spatial attention

“…Our study has eliminated this potential criticism, and our results provide an unequivocal support for the forward remapping effects. Consistent with previous behavioral studies [31][32][33] and contrary to the convergent remapping effects, our results show that spatial attention is allocated to the saccade target and does not spread around it. Additionally, convergent remapping cannot account for a number of earlier behavioral findings [6][7][8][9] , as such spread of attention would have to be asymmetric and not spread towards the several control positions tested in these earlier studies.…”

Saccade selection and inhibition: motor and attentional components

“…Such pattern of results likely reflects competing selection between two parallel saccade targets, without observed inhibition. Indeed, a similar pattern of attentional selection is also observed in saccadic free-choice tasks that do not require any saccadic inhibition (Jonikaitis et al 2017). In our task, in contrast, we observed clear inhibition of saccades and attention.…”