scholarly journals The remote distractor effect in saccade programming: channel interactions and lateral inhibition

2005 ◽  
Vol 45 (9) ◽  
pp. 1177-1190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Casimir J.H. Ludwig ◽  
Iain D. Gilchrist ◽  
Eugene McSorley
Keyword(s):  
Lateral Inhibition ◽  
Distractor Effect ◽  
Saccade Programming ◽  
Channel Interactions ◽  
Remote Distractor Effect

Saccade Programming in Strabismic Suppression

Perception ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 25 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 47-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
J M Findlay ◽  
R Walker ◽  
V Brown ◽  
I Gilchrist ◽  
M Clarke
Keyword(s):  
Visual Stimulation ◽  
Normal Subjects ◽  
The Other ◽  
Normal Vision ◽  
Strong Suppression ◽  
Distractor Effect ◽  
Saccade Programming ◽  
Remote Distractor Effect ◽  
Saccadic Responses ◽  
Made In

Individuals with strabismus frequently show a suppression phenomenon in which part of the visual input in one eye is apparently ignored when both eyes are seeing, although the eye may have normal vision when used monocularly. This is often described as an adaptive response to avoid diplopia. We have examined two patients with microstrabismus (angle of squint less than 5 deg) who show strong suppression but with only mild amblyopia. We studied saccade generation in the two eyes using a red — green anaglyph display which allowed us to present stimuli independently to each eye. When single targets were presented in the suppressing eye, saccadic responses usually occurred. However the latencies of these saccades were increased with respect to those elicited from the normal eye (by about 70 ms for one subject and 270 ms for the other). The amplitudes of the saccades were less consistent than those of the normal eye, and saccades were sometimes made in the opposite direction to the target. We also investigated the remote distractor effect. This effect is found consistently in normal subjects and consists of an increase in the latency of a target-elicited saccade when a distractor is simultaneously presented elsewhere in the visual field. When distractors were presented in the suppressing eye, they had no effect on the latency of saccades to a simultaneous target in the other eye. We conclude that visual stimulation in a suppressing eye has no rapid access to the saccadic system.

scholarly journals Spatial frequency dependencies of the remote distractor effect in saccade programming

2004 ◽  
Vol 4 (8) ◽  
pp. 638-638
Author(s):  
C. J. H. Ludwig ◽  
I. D. Gilchrist ◽  
E. McSorley
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Frequency ◽  
Distractor Effect ◽  
Saccade Programming ◽  
Remote Distractor Effect

A Comparison of Bilateral Versus Unilateral Target and Distractor Presentation in the Remote Distractor Paradigm

2008 ◽  
Vol 55 (5) ◽  
pp. 334-341 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie Benson
Keyword(s):  
Saccade Latency ◽  
Oculomotor Control ◽  
Target Presentation ◽  
Target Time ◽  
Distractor Effect ◽  
Saccade Onset ◽  
Remote Distractor Effect

The remote distractor effect (RDE) is a robust finding of an increase in saccade onset latencies (20–40 ms) when a distractor is presented simultaneously with a target, compared to when a target is presented on its own ( Walker, Deubel, Schneider, & Findlay, 1997 ). Distractors presented at fixation produce the largest RDE and the effect decreases as distractors are moved into the periphery. Data from two experiments that contrast with these standard findings are reported. Under bilateral target presentation, larger RDE magnitudes occurred for peripheral than for central distractors, whereas under unilateral presentation, the pattern reversed. The findings are discussed with reference to discrimination processes, attentional factors and current models of oculomotor control. It is suggested that in bilateral target presentation the competition between the distractor and the target results in the programming of a saccade to the distractor, as well as a saccade to the target. Time taken to cancel the saccade to the distractor produces the increased saccade latency for peripheral distractors in that condition.

Saccadic inhibition underlies the remote distractor effect

2008 ◽  
Vol 191 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antimo Buonocore ◽  
Robert D. McIntosh
Keyword(s):  
Distractor Effect ◽  
Saccadic Inhibition ◽  
Remote Distractor Effect

scholarly journals The Influence of Complex Distractors in the Remote Distractor Paradigm

2008 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Valerie Benson
Keyword(s):  
Detailed Analysis ◽  
Repeated Presentation ◽  
Lexical Status ◽  
Distractor Effect ◽  
Saccade Onset ◽  
Remote Distractor Effect

Three experiments examined the influence of complex dis-tractors on the Remote Distractor Effect (RDE), a robust finding of an increase is saccade latencies when two, rather than one possible targets are presented simultaneously (Walker, Deubel, Schneider & Findlay, 1997). In Experiment 1 saccade onset latencies (SOL’s) were greater for central versus peripheral presentation for lexical distractors, but not for non-lexical distractors. Experiment 2 showed that repeated presentation of a distractor results in reduced SOL’s at central presentation, regardless of lexical status. In Experiment 3 differences in saccade onsets were obtained between two types of lexical distractor when presented at parafoveal locations. Detailed analysis revealed that although SOL's are modulated by distractor complexity, RDE magnitudes are not.

Close interactions between “When” and “Where” in saccade target selection: Multiple saliency and distractor effects

1999 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 693-694
Author(s):  
Christian Olivers ◽  
Dietmar Heinke ◽  
Glyn Humphreys ◽  
Hermann Müller
Keyword(s):  
Visual Search ◽  
Target Selection ◽  
Saccade Target ◽  
Spatial Selection ◽  
Distractor Effect ◽  
Selection Processes ◽  
Remote Distractor Effect ◽  
Saccade Generation

A model of when and where saccades are made necessarily incorporates a model of the “When” and “Where” of target selection. We suggest that the framework proposed by Findlay & Walker does not specify sufficiently how (and by what means) selection processes contribute to the spatial and temporal determinants of saccade generation. Examples from across-trial priming in visual search and from the inhibition of temporally segmented distractors show linkage between the processes involved in computing when and where selection operates, so that there is cooperation rather than competition between so-called Where and When pathways. Aspects of spatial selection may also determine the remote distractor effect on saccades. The detailed relations between the processes involved in selection and saccade generation may be best understood in relation to detailed computational accounts of the processes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document