Target selection biases from recent experience transfer across effectors

The visual search and target-target cueing literatures have reached opposite conclusions about whether a shift of attention is biased toward or away from, respectively, previously attended target locations. In this article, we aimed to figure out why. The main differences between the two experimental approaches concern (1) the stimulus-response translation rules (Bwhat^identification keypresses vs. Bwhere^localization responses), (2) the amount of attention required in order to identify the target, and (3) distractor presence or absence. Experiment 1 tested the role of stimulus-response translation rules by requiring both an eye movement Bwhere^response and a keypress Bwhat^response to each target, in a typical search paradigm. Eye movements showed a bias away from the vicinity of the previous target, whereas keypresses showed a bias toward the previous target location, but only when the keypress response repeated. Experiment 2 removed the keypress identification requirement, to test whether reducing the amount of attention to the target would alter the eye movement bias; it did not. Experiment 3 removed the distractors, to test whether eliminating the potential for distractor location effects would alter the eye movement bias; it did, by accentuating the eye movement bias against the last target location. Collectively, the findings revealed that different stimulusresponse translation rules and distractor-processing requirements are the main reasons for the discrepancy, while demonstrating that shifts of attention intrinsically tend away from prior target locations. The findings are generally consistent with episodicretrieval and inhibited spatial-reorienting theories.

show abstract

“…As a secondary point, the MRTs and SRTs both reveal bias toward the last target color, consistent with other research (e.g., Moher & Song, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Is attention really biased toward the last target location in visual search? Attention, response rules, distractors, and eye movements

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, target selection biases observed in priming of popout or distractor-previewing effect can transfer across different types of actions (i.e. from an eye movement to a hand movement) [59,60]. These results suggest that selection biases are represented in memory largely independently from their associated actions.…”

Section: How Do Recent History and Future Anticipation Bias A Competition Of Action Plans?mentioning

confidence: 77%

“…Conversely, responses were faster if the distractors matched the previewed colour. This distractor-previewing effect has been also extended to saccades and reach target selection [58,59]. Furthermore, target selection biases observed in priming of popout or distractor-previewing effect can transfer across different types of actions (i.e.…”

Section: How Do Recent History and Future Anticipation Bias A Competimentioning

confidence: 88%

Abandoning and modifying one action plan for alternatives

Song¹

2017

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual scenes are often complex and crowded with many different objects. To interact effectively, we must choose one object at a time as a goal for action. Certain cues can act as a stop signal, quickly cancelling an ongoing action. Less recognized are signals. These can come from recent experience, anticipated action outcomes, cognitive states, and when attention is captured by a salient object. These signals elevate one action plan over alternatives and can quickly modify an initial choice. Here, we focus on these internal processes responsible for selecting, abandoning and modifying action plans. We first highlight how the brain resolves competition among multiple action plans. Critical is the existence of parallel motor planning processes, which allow efficient and timely changes. Then, we discuss how the action system interplays with perception, attention and memory processes to bias action selection and suppress or modify erroneous selections. Subsequently, we show how tracking the continuous modification of action trajectories can provide a tool to read out changes in internal cognitive states. Taken together, we shed light on a broader view that sensorimotor networks can continuously modify actions through simultaneous evaluation of alternative activities in concert with widely distributed perceptual and cognitive networks.This article is part of the themed issue 'Movement suppression: brain mechanisms for stopping and stillness'.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, it has been suggested that movement goals for saccades and reaches are represented in separate brain areas of the posterior parietal cortex (Dickinson et al 2003). Other studies have reported a tight coupling between selection of targets for eye and hand movements (Gorbet and Sergio 2009;Moher and Song 2016; van Donkelaar 1997; see also Gopal and Murthy 2015). Moreover, overlapping brain activation has been observed in areas of the parietal and prefrontal cortex for eye and hand movement planning (Beurze et al 2009;Levy et al 2007), arguing against separate attentional systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Saccades and reaches curve away from the other effector’s target in simultaneous eye and hand movements

Nissens

Fiehler

2018

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simultaneous eye and hand movements are highly coordinated and tightly coupled. This raises the question whether the selection of eye and hand targets relies on a shared attentional mechanism or separate attentional systems. Previous studies have revealed conflicting results by reporting evidence for both a shared as well as separate systems. Movement properties such as movement curvature can provide novel insights into this question as they provide a sensitive measure for attentional allocation during target selection. In the current study, participants performed simultaneous eye and hand movements to the same or different visual target locations. We show that both saccade and reaching movements curve away from the other effector's target location when they are simultaneously performed to spatially distinct locations. We argue that there is a shared attentional mechanism involved in selecting eye and hand targets that may be found on the level of effector-independent priority maps. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Movement properties such as movement curvature have been widely neglected as important sources of information in investigating whether the attentional systems underlying target selection for eye and hand movements are separate or shared. We convincingly show that movement curvature is influenced by the other effector's target location in simultaneous eye and hand movements to spatially distinct locations. Our results provide evidence for shared attentional systems involved in the selection of saccade and reach targets.

show abstract

Target selection biases from recent experience transfer across effectors

Cited by 11 publications

References 45 publications

Is attention really biased toward the last target location in visual search? Attention, response rules, distractors, and eye movements

Is attention really biased toward the last target location in visual search? Attention, response rules, distractors, and eye movements

Abandoning and modifying one action plan for alternatives

Saccades and reaches curve away from the other effector’s target in simultaneous eye and hand movements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About