The Role of Attention in the Preparation of Visually Guided Saccadic Eye Movements in Man

Mayfrank, L.; Kimmig, H.; Fischer, Burkhart

doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-70113-8.50008-4

Cited by 66 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With the stimuli present for 100 msec at the longest SOA, an eye movement would have to be completed in under 250 msec in order to fixate a potential target before it disappeared. With a fixation point present, the average saccade latency is about 250 msec, with few saccades occurring earlier than 200 msec (e.g., Mayfrank, Kimmig, & Fischer, 1987). This compares reasonably with other consensus estimates of the latency to initiate small eye movements (e.g., Fuchs, 1971;Russo, 1978).…”

Section: Notessupporting

confidence: 71%

Voluntary allocation versus automatic capture of visual attention

Warner

Juola

Koshino

1990

Perception & Psychophysics

176

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is there a difference in the kind of attention elicited by an abrupt-onset peripheral cue and that elicited by an instruction (e.g., a central arrow cue) to move attention to a peripherallocation? In Experiment 1, we found that peripheral cues are no more effective in orienting attention than are central cues. No evidence was found for separable attentional systems consisting of a volitional response to central cues and an automatic response triggered only by peripheral cues. Rather, an identical or similar attentional process seems to be activated by either type of cue, although perhaps in different ways. Peripheral cues seem to have an automatic component, however, in that once attention is engaged by a peripheral cue, it cannot easily be disengaged for refocus elsewhere. In Experiment 2, after several sessions of practice, subjects were able to circumvent automatic attentional capture by an abrupt-onset peripheral cue and to volitionally redirect the focus of attention. Thus, attentional capture by abrupt-onset stimuli is not strongly automatic.

show abstract

Section: Notessupporting

confidence: 71%

Voluntary allocation versus automatic capture of visual attention

Warner

Juola

Koshino

1990

Perception & Psychophysics

176

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, as is evident in Table 1, there was no consistent difference in the peak eccentricities of these different cues. In fact, in all three experiments, performance with Cue Sizes 6-15 and with the noninformative cue peaked at around 6º of eccentricity, which is in line with transient attention to optimally adjust its operation on spatial resolution, in the present experiment we doubled the length of this interval, such that the cue would still be effective (Cheal & Lyon, 1992;Nakayama & Mackeben, 1989) yet eye movements still could not take place (Mayfrank et al, 1987).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…After the ISI, the texture was displayed for an average of 41 msec. The duration of the texture presentation was set individually to avoid floor or ceiling effects, but it did not exceed 82 msec, to ensure that eye movements could not take place between cue onset and texture offset (e.g., Mayfrank, Kimmig, & Fischer, 1987). Immediately following the texture, a 200-msec mask was presented.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of transient attention on spatial resolution and the size of the attentional cue

Yeshurun

Carrasco

2008

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Furthermore, the 160-msec interval between cue onset and stimulus offset was chosen to preclude eye movements (Mayfrank, Kimmig, & Fischer, 1987), thus ensuring that the observers performed the task under the conditions of covert attention.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%