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.

Visual Attention and Manual Aiming: Evidence for Obligatory and Selective Spatial Coupling

Perception ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 25 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 34-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
H Deubel ◽  
W X Schneider ◽  
I Paprotta
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Visual Attention ◽  
Visual Processing ◽  
Discrimination Performance ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movements ◽  
Visual Selective Attention ◽  
Saccade Target ◽  
Manual Aiming ◽  
Goal Object ◽  
Spatial Coupling

We recently demonstrated that visual attention before saccadic eye movements is focused on the saccade target, allowing for spatially selective object recognition (Deubel and Schneider Vision Research in press). Here we investigate the role of visual selective attention in the preparation of aiming hand movements. The interaction of visual attention and manual aiming was studied in a dual-task paradigm that required manual pointing to a target in combination with a letter discrimination task. Subjects were asked to keep fixation in the centre of a screen. Upon offset of a central cue, they had to aim, with unseen hand, to locations within horizontal letter strings left or right from the central fixation; movements were registered with a Polhemus FastTrack system. The ability to discriminate between the symbol “E” and its mirror image presented tachistoscopically within the surrounding distractors was taken as the measure of visual attention. The results reveal that discrimination performance is far superior when the discrimination stimulus is also the target for manual aiming; when discrimination stimulus and pointing target refer to different objects, performance deteriorates. We conclude that it is not possible to maintain attention on a stimulus while directing a manual movement to a spatially separate object. Rather, our results argue for an obligatory and selective coupling of visual attention and movement programming, just as found for saccadic eye movements. This is consistent with a model of visual attention (proposed by Schneider) in which a unitary attention mechanism selects a goal object for visual processing, and simultaneously provides the information necessary for goal-directed motor action such as saccades, pointing, and grasping.

scholarly journals The role of action intentionality and effector in the subjective expansion of temporal duration after saccadic eye movements

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
David Melcher ◽  
Devpriya Kumar ◽  
Narayanan Srinivasan
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Visual Processing ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movements ◽  
Intentional Binding ◽  
Opposite Pattern ◽  
Motor Action ◽  
Saccade Onset ◽  
Backward Shift ◽  
The Moment

Abstract Visual perception is based on periods of stable fixation separated by saccadic eye movements. Although naive perception seems stable (in space) and continuous (in time), laboratory studies have demonstrated that events presented around the time of saccades are misperceived spatially and temporally. Saccadic chronostasis, the “stopped clock illusion”, represents one such temporal distortion in which the movement of the clock hand after the saccade is perceived as lasting longer than usual. Multiple explanations for chronostasis have been proposed including action-backdating, temporal binding of the action towards the moment of its effect (“intentional binding”) and post-saccadic temporal dilation. The current study aimed to resolve this debate by using different types of action (keypress vs saccade) and varying the intentionality of the action. We measured both perceived onset of the motor action and perceived onset of an auditory tone presented at different delays after the keypress/saccade. The results showed intentional binding for the keypress action, with perceived motor onset shifted forwards in time and the time of the tone shifted backwards. Saccades resulted in the opposite pattern, showing temporal expansion rather than compression, especially with cued saccades. The temporal illusion was modulated by intentionality of the movement. Our findings suggest that saccadic chronostasis is not solely dependent on a backward shift in perceived saccade onset, but instead reflects a temporal dilation. This percept of an effectively “longer” period at the beginning of a new fixation may reflect the pattern of suppressed, and then enhanced, visual processing around the time of saccades.

scholarly journals Salient Distractors Can Induce Saccade Adaptation

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Afsheen Khan ◽  
Sally A. McFadden ◽  
Mark Harwood ◽  
Josh Wallman
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Visual Attention ◽  
Visual Target ◽  
Random Noise ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movements ◽  
Small Degree ◽  
Error Signal ◽  
Intended Target ◽  
Saccade Adaptation

When saccadic eye movements consistently fail to land on their intended target, saccade accuracy is maintained by gradually adapting the movement size of successive saccades. The proposed error signal for saccade adaptation has been based on the distance between where the eye lands and the visual target (retinal error). We studied whether the error signal could alternatively be based on the distance between the predicted and actual locus of attention after the saccade. Unlike conventional adaptation experiments that surreptitiously displace the target once a saccade is initiated towards it, we instead attempted to draw attention away from the target by briefly presenting salient distractor images on one side of the target after the saccade. To test whether less salient, more predictable distractors would induce less adaptation, we separately used fixed random noise distractors. We found that both visual attention distractors were able to induce a small degree of downward saccade adaptation but significantly more to the more salient distractors. As in conventional adaptation experiments, upward adaptation was less effective and salient distractors did not significantly increase amplitudes. We conclude that the locus of attention after the saccade can act as an error signal for saccade adaptation.

Short Report: Scrutinization, Spatial Attention, and the Spatial Programming of Saccadic Eye Movements

1992 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 633-647 ◽  
Author(s):  
John M. Findlay ◽  
Zoi Kapoula
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Visual Attention ◽  
Spatial Attention ◽  
Visual Space ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movements ◽  
Short Report ◽  
Similar Material ◽  
Visual Tasks ◽  
Corrective Saccade ◽  
Spatial Programming

Results are presented from an experiment in which subjects’ eye movements were recorded while they carried out two visual tasks with similar material. One task was chosen to require close visual scrutiny; the second was less visually demanding. The oculomotor behaviour in the two tasks differed in three ways. (1) When scrutinizing, there was a reduction in the area of visual space over which stimulation influences saccadic eye movements. (2) When moving their eyes to targets requiring scrutiny, subjects were more likely to make a corrective saccade. (3) The duration of fixations on targets requiring scrutiny was increased. The results are discussed in relation to current theories of visual attention and the control of saccadic eye movements.

scholarly journals Contrast sensitivity, V1 neural activity, and natural vision

2017 ◽  
Vol 117 (2) ◽  
pp. 492-508 ◽  
Author(s):  
James E. Niemeyer ◽  
Michael A. Paradiso
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Contrast Sensitivity ◽  
Visual Processing ◽  
Brain Area ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movements ◽  
Visual Sensitivity ◽  
Natural Image ◽  
Spatial Frequencies ◽  
Natural Vision ◽  
Common Laboratory

Contrast sensitivity is fundamental to natural visual processing and an important tool for characterizing both visual function and clinical disorders. We simultaneously measured contrast sensitivity and neural contrast response functions and compared measurements in common laboratory conditions with naturalistic conditions. In typical experiments, a subject holds fixation and a stimulus is flashed on, whereas in natural vision, saccades bring stimuli into view. Motivated by our previous V1 findings, we tested the hypothesis that perceptual contrast sensitivity is lower in natural vision and that this effect is associated with corresponding changes in V1 activity. We found that contrast sensitivity and V1 activity are correlated and that the relationship is similar in laboratory and naturalistic paradigms. However, in the more natural situation, contrast sensitivity is reduced up to 25% compared with that in a standard fixation paradigm, particularly at lower spatial frequencies, and this effect correlates with significant reductions in V1 responses. Our data suggest that these reductions in natural vision result from fast adaptation on one fixation that lowers the response on a subsequent fixation. This is the first demonstration of rapid, natural-image adaptation that carries across saccades, a process that appears to constantly influence visual sensitivity in natural vision. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Visual sensitivity and activity in brain area V1 were studied in a paradigm that included saccadic eye movements and natural visual input. V1 responses and contrast sensitivity were significantly reduced compared with results in common laboratory paradigms. The parallel neural and perceptual effects of eye movements and stimulus complexity appear to be due to a form of rapid adaptation that carries across saccades.

scholarly journals Visual Attention Through Uncertainty Minimization in Recurrent Generative Models

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kai Standvoss ◽  
Silvan C. Quax ◽  
Marcel A.J. van Gerven
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Visual Attention ◽  
Intelligent Agents ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movements ◽  
Generative Models ◽  
Task Demands ◽  
Relevant Stimulus ◽  
Predictive Uncertainty ◽  
Proposed Model ◽  
Uncertainty Minimization

AbstractAllocating visual attention through saccadic eye movements is a key ability of intelligent agents. Attention is both influenced through bottom-up stimulus properties as well as top-down task demands. The interaction of these two attention mechanisms is not yet fully understood. A parsimonious reconciliation posits that both processes serve the minimization of predictive uncertainty. We propose a recurrent generative neural network model that predicts a visual scene based on foveated glimpses. The model shifts its attention in order to minimize the uncertainty in its predictions. We show that the proposed model produces naturalistic eye movements focusing on informative stimulus regions. Introducing additional tasks modulates the saccade patterns towards task-relevant stimulus regions. The model’s saccade characteristics correspond well with previous experimental data in humans, providing evidence that uncertainty minimization could be a fundamental mechanisms for the allocation of visual attention.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document