Saccadic reaction time in mirror image sectors across horizontal meridian in eye movement perimetry

In eye movement perimetry (EMP), the saccadic reaction time (SRT) to ‘seen’ visual stimuli are delayed in glaucoma. Evaluating SRT behaviour in hemi-field sectors could refine its clinical implication. The development phase included 60 controls retrospectively and for the test cohort in evaluation phase, another 30 healthy subjects and 30 glaucoma patients were recruited prospectively. The SRTs were used to calculate the normative limits within 5 predefined hemi-field sectors. Scores were assigned to probabilities for SRT at the level of 5%, 2.5% 1% and 0.5%. Per sector pair, a probability score limit (PSL) was calculated at each of the four levels and were compared with the scores obtained from the test cohort. The classification accuracy ‘normal versus abnormal’ was assessed for PSL in EMP and compared with glaucoma hemi-field test in standard automated perimetry. We found no statistically significant differences in SRTs between the mirror sectors in healthy subjects. The PSL at 2.5% had moderate classification accuracy with a specificity of 77% and sensitivity 70%. This could be suggestive of an SRT delay in the overall visual field in glaucoma.

Factors Influencing Saccadic Reaction Time: Effect of Task Modality, Stimulus Saliency, Spatial Congruency of Stimuli, and Pupil Size

It is often assumed that the reaction time of a saccade toward visual and/or auditory stimuli reflects the sensitivities of our oculomotor-orienting system to stimulus saliency. Endogenous factors, as well as stimulus-related factors, would also affect the saccadic reaction time (SRT). However, it was not clear how these factors interact and to what extent visual and auditory-targeting saccades are accounted for by common mechanisms. The present study examined the effect of, and the interaction between, stimulus saliency and audiovisual spatial congruency on the SRT for visual- and for auditory-target conditions. We also analyzed pre-target pupil size to examine the relationship between saccade preparation and pupil size. Pupil size is considered to reflect arousal states coupling with locus-coeruleus (LC) activity during a cognitive task. The main findings were that (1) the pattern of the examined effects on the SRT varied between visual- and auditory-auditory target conditions, (2) the effect of stimulus saliency was significant for the visual-target condition, but not significant for the auditory-target condition, (3) Pupil velocity, not absolute pupil size, was sensitive to task set (i.e., visual-targeting saccade vs. auditory-targeting saccade), and (4) there was a significant correlation between the pre-saccade absolute pupil size and the SRTs for the visual-target condition but not for the auditory-target condition. The discrepancy between target modalities for the effect of pupil velocity and between the absolute pupil size and pupil velocity for the correlation with SRT may imply that the pupil effect for the visual-target condition was caused by a modality-specific link between pupil size modulation and the SC rather than by the LC-NE (locus coeruleus-norepinephrine) system. These results support the idea that different threshold mechanisms in the SC may be involved in the initiation of saccades toward visual and auditory targets.

No effect of attachment avoidance on visual disengagement from a romantic partner’s face

Attachment avoidance (discomfort with closeness and intimacy) has been inconsistently linked to visual disengagement from emotional faces, with some studies finding disengagement toward specific emotional faces and others finding no effects. Although most studies use stranger faces as stimuli, it is likely that attachment effects would be most pronounced in the context of attachment relationships. The present study ( N = 92) combined ecologically valid stimuli (i.e., pictures of romantic partner’s face) with eye-tracking methods to more precisely test whether highly avoidant individuals are faster at disengaging from emotional faces. Unexpectedly, attachment avoidance had no effect on saccadic reaction time, regardless of face type or emotion. Instead, all participants took longer to disengage from romantic partner faces than from strangers’ faces, although this effect should be replicated in the future. Our results suggest that romantic attachments capture visual attention on an oculomotor level, regardless of one’s personal attachment orientations.