Cargando…
The influence of onsets and offsets on saccade programming
When making a saccadic eye movement to a peripheral target, a simultaneous stimulus onset at central fixation generally increases saccadic latency, while offsets reduce latency (‘gap effect’). Visual onsets remote from fixation also increase latency (‘remote distractor effect’); however, the influen...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Pion
2010
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3563056/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23397028 http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/i0392 |
_version_ | 1782258142440062976 |
---|---|
author | Hermens, Frouke Walker, Robin |
author_facet | Hermens, Frouke Walker, Robin |
author_sort | Hermens, Frouke |
collection | PubMed |
description | When making a saccadic eye movement to a peripheral target, a simultaneous stimulus onset at central fixation generally increases saccadic latency, while offsets reduce latency (‘gap effect’). Visual onsets remote from fixation also increase latency (‘remote distractor effect’); however, the influence of remote visual offsets is less clear. Previous studies, which used a search task, found that remote offsets either facilitated, inhibited, or did nothing to saccade latencies towards a peripheral target. It cannot be excluded, however, that the target selection process in such search tasks influenced the results. We therefore simplified the task and asked participants to make eye movements to a predictable target. Simultaneously with target onset, either one or multiple remote stimulus onsets and offsets were presented. It was found that peripheral onsets increased saccade latencies, but offsets did not influence the initiation of a saccade to the target. Moreover, the number of onsets and offsets did not affect the results. These results suggest that earlier effects of remote stimulus offsets and of the number of remote distractor onsets reside in the target identification process of the visual search task rather than the competition between possible saccade goals. The results are discussed in the context of models of saccade target selection. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3563056 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2010 |
publisher | Pion |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-35630562013-02-08 The influence of onsets and offsets on saccade programming Hermens, Frouke Walker, Robin Iperception Research Article When making a saccadic eye movement to a peripheral target, a simultaneous stimulus onset at central fixation generally increases saccadic latency, while offsets reduce latency (‘gap effect’). Visual onsets remote from fixation also increase latency (‘remote distractor effect’); however, the influence of remote visual offsets is less clear. Previous studies, which used a search task, found that remote offsets either facilitated, inhibited, or did nothing to saccade latencies towards a peripheral target. It cannot be excluded, however, that the target selection process in such search tasks influenced the results. We therefore simplified the task and asked participants to make eye movements to a predictable target. Simultaneously with target onset, either one or multiple remote stimulus onsets and offsets were presented. It was found that peripheral onsets increased saccade latencies, but offsets did not influence the initiation of a saccade to the target. Moreover, the number of onsets and offsets did not affect the results. These results suggest that earlier effects of remote stimulus offsets and of the number of remote distractor onsets reside in the target identification process of the visual search task rather than the competition between possible saccade goals. The results are discussed in the context of models of saccade target selection. Pion 2010-11-05 /pmc/articles/PMC3563056/ /pubmed/23397028 http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/i0392 Text en Copyright © 2010 F Hermens, R Walker http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This open-access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Licence, which permits noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction, provided the original author(s) and source are credited and no alterations are made. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Hermens, Frouke Walker, Robin The influence of onsets and offsets on saccade programming |
title | The influence of onsets and offsets on saccade programming |
title_full | The influence of onsets and offsets on saccade programming |
title_fullStr | The influence of onsets and offsets on saccade programming |
title_full_unstemmed | The influence of onsets and offsets on saccade programming |
title_short | The influence of onsets and offsets on saccade programming |
title_sort | influence of onsets and offsets on saccade programming |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3563056/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23397028 http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/i0392 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hermensfrouke theinfluenceofonsetsandoffsetsonsaccadeprogramming AT walkerrobin theinfluenceofonsetsandoffsetsonsaccadeprogramming AT hermensfrouke influenceofonsetsandoffsetsonsaccadeprogramming AT walkerrobin influenceofonsetsandoffsetsonsaccadeprogramming |