The three-loop model: a neural network for the generation of saccadic reaction times

1995 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 185-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Burkhart Fischer ◽  
Stefan Gezeck ◽  
Wolfgang Huber
Keyword(s):  
Neural Network ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Loop Model ◽  
Saccadic Reaction Times

The three-loop model: a neural network for the generation of saccadic reaction times

1995 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 185-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Burkhart Fischer ◽  
Stefan Gezeck ◽  
Wolfgang Huber
Keyword(s):  
Neural Network ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Loop Model ◽  
Saccadic Reaction Times

Event-related potentials and saccadic reaction times: effects of fixation point offset or change

1999 ◽  
Vol 127 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-297 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Spantekow ◽  
Paul Krappmann ◽  
Stefan Everling ◽  
Hans Flohr
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Times ◽  
Event Related Potentials ◽  
Related Potentials ◽  
Saccadic Reaction Times

scholarly journals Giving Subjects the Eye and Showing Them the Finger: Socio-Biological Cues and Saccade Generation in the Anti-Saccade Task

Perception ◽  
10.1068/p7085 ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola J Gregory ◽  
Timothy L Hodgson
Keyword(s):  
Opposite Direction ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Oculomotor System ◽  
Short Soas ◽  
Stimulus Onset ◽  
Saccade Direction ◽  
Saccade Task ◽  
Saccadic Reaction Times ◽  
Saccadic Responses ◽  
Gaze Cues

Pointing with the eyes or the finger occurs frequently in social interaction to indicate direction of attention and one's intentions. Research with a voluntary saccade task (where saccade direction is instructed by the colour of a fixation point) suggested that gaze cues automatically activate the oculomotor system, but non-biological cues, like arrows, do not. However, other work has failed to support the claim that gaze cues are special. In the current research we introduced biological and non-biological cues into the anti-saccade task, using a range of stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs). The anti-saccade task recruits both top–down and bottom–up attentional mechanisms, as occurs in naturalistic saccadic behaviour. In experiment 1 gaze, but not arrows, facilitated saccadic reaction times (SRTs) in the opposite direction to the cues over all SOAs, whereas in experiment 2 directional word cues had no effect on saccades. In experiment 3 finger pointing cues caused reduced SRTs in the opposite direction to the cues at short SOAs. These findings suggest that biological cues automatically recruit the oculomotor system whereas non-biological cues do not. Furthermore, the anti-saccade task set appears to facilitate saccadic responses in the opposite direction to the cues.

scholarly journals The relationship between contrast detection and saccadic reaction times with attention.

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (10) ◽  
pp. 332-332
Author(s):  
M. Mahadevan ◽  
H. Bedell ◽  
S. Stevenson
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Times ◽  
Contrast Detection ◽  
Saccadic Reaction Times ◽  
The Relationship

scholarly journals Inhibitory and Facilitatory Cueing Effects: Competition between Exogenous and Endogenous Mechanisms

Vision ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfred Lim ◽  
Vivian Eng ◽  
Caitlyn Osborne ◽  
Steve M. J. Janssen ◽  
Jason Satel
Keyword(s):  
Behavioral Inhibition ◽  
Inhibition Of Return ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Target Onset ◽  
Saccadic Reaction Times ◽  
Series Of Experiments ◽  
Endogenous Activity ◽  
Onset Asynchrony ◽  
Delayed Responses

Inhibition of return is characterized by delayed responses to previously attended locations when the cue-target onset asynchrony (CTOA) is long enough. However, when cues are predictive of a target’s location, faster reaction times to cued as compared to uncued targets are normally observed. In this series of experiments investigating saccadic reaction times, we manipulated the cue predictability to 25% (counterpredictive), 50% (nonpredictive), and 75% (predictive) to investigate the interaction between predictive endogenous facilitatory (FCEs) and inhibitory cueing effects (ICEs). Overall, larger ICEs were seen in the counterpredictive condition than in the nonpredictive condition, and no ICE was found in the predictive condition. Based on the hypothesized additivity of FCEs and ICEs, we reasoned that the null ICEs observed in the predictive condition are the result of two opposing mechanisms balancing each other out, and the large ICEs observed with counterpredictive cueing can be attributed to the combination of endogenous facilitation at uncued locations with inhibition at cued locations. Our findings suggest that the endogenous activity contributed by cue predictability can reduce the overall inhibition observed when the mechanisms occur at the same location, or enhance behavioral inhibition when the mechanisms occur at opposite locations.

Temporal stability of saccadic task performance in schizophrenia and bipolar patients

2004 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 921-932 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. C. GOODING ◽  
L. MOHAPATRA ◽  
H. B. SHEA
Keyword(s):  
Task Performance ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Clinical Status ◽  
Temporal Stability ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Antisaccade Task ◽  
Response Latencies ◽  
Saccadic Reaction Times ◽  
Task Accuracy ◽  
Bipolar Patients

Background. Identifying endophenotypes of schizophrenia will assist in the identification of individuals who are at heightened risk for the disorder. Investigators have proposed antisaccade task deficits as an endophenotypic marker of schizophrenia. However, the diagnostic specificity and the temporal stability of the task deficit are unresolved issues. To date, there are few published reports of test–retest stability of antisaccade task performance in psychiatric patients.Method. Twenty-three schizophrenia out-patients and 10 bipolar out-patients were administered two saccadic (antisaccade and refixation) tasks at two separate assessments, with an average test–retest interval of 33 months.Results. The schizophrenia patients displayed high test–retest reliabilities of antisaccade task accuracy, despite changes in medication and clinical status. Additionally, the schizophrenia group's saccadic reaction times for antisaccade correct responses and task errors were moderately stable over time. In contrast, the bipolar patients did not show temporal stability in their antisaccade task accuracy or in their response latencies to either correct or incorrect antisaccade responses.Conclusions. The results are supportive of the trait-like characteristics of antisaccade task deficits in schizophrenia patients. These findings also suggest that antisaccade task deficits may serve as an endophenotypic marker of schizophrenia.

386 – Larger unpredictability of saccadic reaction times in schizophrenic patients

2008 ◽  
Vol 98 ◽  
pp. 193
Author(s):  
N. Smyrnis ◽  
T Karantinos ◽  
I. Malogiannis ◽  
C. Theleritis ◽  
N.C. Stefanis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Times ◽  
Schizophrenic Patients ◽  
Saccadic Reaction Times

scholarly journals The effect of offset cues on saccade programming and covert attention

2018 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 481-490 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel T Smith ◽  
Soazig Casteau
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Times ◽  
Motor Preparation ◽  
Covert Attention ◽  
Oculomotor Control ◽  
Covert Orienting ◽  
Cueing Task ◽  
Tightly Coupled ◽  
Saccade Programming ◽  
Saccadic Reaction Times ◽  
Saccade Preparation

Salient peripheral events trigger fast, “exogenous” covert orienting. The influential premotor theory of attention argues that covert orienting of attention depends upon planned but unexecuted eye-movements. One problem with this theory is that salient peripheral events, such as offsets, appear to summon attention when used to measure covert attention (e.g., the Posner cueing task) but appear not to elicit oculomotor preparation in tasks that require overt orienting (e.g., the remote distractor paradigm). Here, we examined the effects of peripheral offsets on covert attention and saccade preparation. Experiment 1 suggested that transient offsets summoned attention in a manual detection task without triggering motor preparation planning in a saccadic localisation task, although there were a high proportion of saccadic capture errors on “no-target” trials, where a cue was presented but no target appeared. In Experiment 2, “no-target” trials were removed. Here, transient offsets produced both attentional facilitation and faster saccadic responses on valid cue trials. A third experiment showed that the permanent disappearance of an object also elicited attentional facilitation and faster saccadic reaction times. These experiments demonstrate that offsets trigger both saccade programming and covert attentional orienting, consistent with the idea that exogenous, covert orienting is tightly coupled with oculomotor activation. The finding that no-go trials attenuates oculomotor priming effects offers a way to reconcile the current findings with previous claims of a dissociation between covert attention and oculomotor control in paradigms that utilise a high proportion of catch trials.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document