scholarly journals Spatial Cueing of Infants' Target Selection and Eye Movements

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (9) ◽  
pp. 557-557
Author(s):  
A. Wong Kee You ◽  
S. Adler
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Target Selection ◽  
Spatial Cueing

Target selection for predictive smooth pursuit eye movements

2004 ◽  
Vol 155 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Poliakoff ◽  
C. J. S. Collins ◽  
G. R. Barnes
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Smooth Pursuit ◽  
Target Selection ◽  
Smooth Pursuit Eye Movements ◽  
Pursuit Eye Movements ◽  
Selection For

scholarly journals Separable Influences of Reward on Visual Processing and Choice

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 248-262
Author(s):  
Alireza Soltani ◽  
Mohsen Rakhshan ◽  
Robert J. Schafer ◽  
Brittany E. Burrows ◽  
Tirin Moore
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Visual Processing ◽  
Visual Motion ◽  
Target Selection ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Reward Value ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Visual Targets ◽  
Reinforcement Learning Models ◽  
Selection Of

Primate vision is characterized by constant, sequential processing and selection of visual targets to fixate. Although expected reward is known to influence both processing and selection of visual targets, similarities and differences between these effects remain unclear mainly because they have been measured in separate tasks. Using a novel paradigm, we simultaneously measured the effects of reward outcomes and expected reward on target selection and sensitivity to visual motion in monkeys. Monkeys freely chose between two visual targets and received a juice reward with varying probability for eye movements made to either of them. Targets were stationary apertures of drifting gratings, causing the end points of eye movements to these targets to be systematically biased in the direction of motion. We used this motion-induced bias as a measure of sensitivity to visual motion on each trial. We then performed different analyses to explore effects of objective and subjective reward values on choice and sensitivity to visual motion to find similarities and differences between reward effects on these two processes. Specifically, we used different reinforcement learning models to fit choice behavior and estimate subjective reward values based on the integration of reward outcomes over multiple trials. Moreover, to compare the effects of subjective reward value on choice and sensitivity to motion directly, we considered correlations between each of these variables and integrated reward outcomes on a wide range of timescales. We found that, in addition to choice, sensitivity to visual motion was also influenced by subjective reward value, although the motion was irrelevant for receiving reward. Unlike choice, however, sensitivity to visual motion was not affected by objective measures of reward value. Moreover, choice was determined by the difference in subjective reward values of the two options, whereas sensitivity to motion was influenced by the sum of values. Finally, models that best predicted visual processing and choice used sets of estimated reward values based on different types of reward integration and timescales. Together, our results demonstrate separable influences of reward on visual processing and choice, and point to the presence of multiple brain circuits for the integration of reward outcomes.

Temporal factors in target selection with saccadic eye movements

2004 ◽  
Vol 154 (2) ◽  
pp. 154-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter H. Schiller ◽  
Jennifer Kendall
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Target Selection ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movements ◽  
Temporal Factors

The effect of a moving distractor on the initiation of smooth-pursuit eye movements

1997 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 323-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent P. Ferrera ◽  
Stephen G. Lisberger
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Eye Movement ◽  
Smooth Pursuit ◽  
Visual Motion ◽  
Target Selection ◽  
Motion Processing ◽  
Smooth Pursuit Eye Movements ◽  
Response Preparation ◽  
Pursuit Eye Movements ◽  
Visual Motion Processing

AbstractAs a step toward understanding the mechanism by which targets are selected for smooth-pursuit eye movements, we examined the behavior of the pursuit system when monkeys were presented with two discrete moving visual targets. Two rhesus monkeys were trained to select a small moving target identified by its color in the presence of a moving distractor of another color. Smooth-pursuit eye movements were quantified in terms of the latency of the eye movement and the initial eye acceleration profile. We have previously shown that the latency of smooth pursuit, which is normally around 100 ms, can be extended to 150 ms or shortened to 85 ms depending on whether there is a distractor moving in the opposite or same direction, respectively, relative to the direction of the target. We have now measured this effect for a 360 deg range of distractor directions, and distractor speeds of 5–45 deg/s. We have also examined the effect of varying the spatial separation and temporal asynchrony between target and distractor. The results indicate that the effect of the distractor on the latency of pursuit depends on its direction of motion, and its spatial and temporal proximity to the target, but depends very little on the speed of the distractor. Furthermore, under the conditions of these experiments, the direction of the eye movement that is emitted in response to two competing moving stimuli is not a vectorial combination of the stimulus motions, but is solely determined by the direction of the target. The results are consistent with a competitive model for smooth-pursuit target selection and suggest that the competition takes place at a stage of the pursuit pathway that is between visual-motion processing and motor-response preparation.

The Preparation of Goal-Directed Movements Requires Selective Visual Attention: Evidence from the Line-Motion Illusion

Perception ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 26 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 124-124
Author(s):  
H Deubel ◽  
S Shimojo ◽  
I Paprotta
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Visual Attention ◽  
Visual Processing ◽  
Target Selection ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movements ◽  
Short Soas ◽  
Directed Movement ◽  
Reaching Movement ◽  
Illusory Line Motion ◽  
Motion Effect

Previous research has demonstrated that visual attention is focused on the movement target, both before saccadic eye movements and before manual reaching, allowing for spatially selective object recognition (Deubel and Schneider, 1996 Vision Research36 1827 – 1837; Deubel, Schneider, and Paprotta, 1996 Perception Supplement, 13 – 19). Here we study the illusory line motion effect (Hikosaka et al, 1993 Vision Research33 1219 – 1240) in a dual-task paradigm to further investigate the coupling of attention and movement target selection. Subjects were presented a display with two potential movement targets (small circles). When one of the circles flashed, they performed a reaching movement with the unseen hand to the other stimulus; movements were registered with a Polhemus FastTrack system. At a SOA that was varied between 0 and 1000 ms after the movement cue, a line appeared and connected both stimuli. After the reaching movement, subjects indicated the perceived direction of line motion. In a second experiment, saccadic eye movements instead of reaching movements were studied. The data show that for short SOAs the subjects reported illusory line motion away from the cue location indicating that attention is automatically drawn to the cue. For longer SOAs but well before movement onset the illusory motion effect inverted—evidence for an attention shift to the movement target. The findings were very similar for manual reaching and for saccadic eye movements. The results confirm the hypothesis that the preparation of a goal-directed movement requires the attentional selection of the movement target. We discuss the assumption of a unitary attention mechanism which selects an object for visual processing, and simultaneously provides the information necessary for goal-directed motor action such as saccades, pointing, and grasping.

Placeholders dissociate two forms of inhibition of return

2018 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 360-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew D. Hilchey ◽  
Jay Pratt ◽  
John Christie
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Inhibition Of Return ◽  
Perception And Action ◽  
Manual Response ◽  
Spatial Cueing ◽  
Oculomotor Activity ◽  
Response Target

Decades of research using Posner’s classic spatial cueing paradigm has uncovered at least two forms of inhibition of return (IOR) in the aftermath of an exogenous, peripheral orienting cue. One prominent dissociation concerns the role of covert and overt orienting in generating IOR effects that relate to perception- and action-oriented processes, respectively. Another prominent dissociation concerns the role of covert and overt orienting in generating IOR effects that depend on object- and space-based representation, respectively. Our objective was to evaluate whether these dichotomies are functionally equivalent by manipulating placeholder object presence in the cueing paradigm. By discouraging eye movements throughout, Experiments 1A and 1B validated a perception-oriented form of IOR that depended critically on placeholders. Experiment 2A demonstrated that IOR was robust without placeholders when eye movements went to the cue and back to fixation before the manual response target. In Experiment 2B, we replicated Experiment 2A’s procedures except we discouraged eye movements. IOR was observed, albeit only weakly and significantly diminished relative to when eye movements were involved. We conclude that action-oriented IOR is robust against placeholders but that the magnitude of perception-oriented IOR is critically sensitive to placeholder presence when unwanted oculomotor activity can be ruled out.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document