Central Visual Persistence as Measured by the Redundant Target Effect

Perception ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 26 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 259-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
C A Marzi ◽  
G Nitro ◽  
M Prior
Keyword(s):  
Evoked Potential ◽  
Normal Subjects ◽  
Stimulus Onset ◽  
Visual Persistence ◽  
Single Stimulus ◽  
Redundant Target ◽  
Redundant Target Effect ◽  
Speed Of Response ◽  
Target Effect ◽  
Onset Asynchrony

We measured the duration of central visual persistence by testing normal subjects for the redundant target effect (RTE), ie the speeding up of reaction time to redundant visual stimuli in comparison to similar single stimuli. Brief LED-generated flashes were presented to normal subjects either singly or in a pair at peripheral visual field locations (5 or 30 deg along the horizontal meridian). Stimulus pairs could appear either in the same hemifield at different locations or in opposite hemifields with a stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) ranging between 0 and 100 ms. The subject's task was to press a key as soon as possible following the appearance of either a single stimulus or of the first stimulus in a pair. We found a robust and consistent overall RTE with double stimuli yielding faster RTs than single stimuli for both intrafield and interfield presentations. The effect decreased significantly from 0 ms to 40 ms SOA and at longer SOAs the speed of response to stimulus pairs was indistinguishable from that to a single stimulus. We believe that the longest SOA compatible with a reliable RTE (40 ms) reflects the duration of central persistence. Evoked-potential evidence gathered in our laboratory suggests that the locus of such persistence may be the extrastriate visual cortex.

Sensory and motor involvement in the enhanced redundant target effect: A study comparing anterior- and totally split-brain individuals

2009 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 684-692 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Ouimet ◽  
Pierre Jolicœur ◽  
Jeff Miller ◽  
Alexia Ptito ◽  
Aldo Paggi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Redundant Target ◽  
Split Brain ◽  
Redundant Target Effect ◽  
Target Effect

Non-Linear Interactions in Cortical Responses to Bilateral vs Unilateral Visual Field Stimulation

Perception ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 26 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 62-62
Author(s):  
S P Ahlfors ◽  
J J Foxe ◽  
R J Ilmoniemi ◽  
G V Simpson
Keyword(s):  
Visual Field ◽  
Evoked Potentials ◽  
Normal Subjects ◽  
Stimulus Onset ◽  
Current Dipole ◽  
Field Patterns ◽  
Cortical Responses ◽  
Bilateral Case ◽  
Multichannel Recordings ◽  
Onset Asynchrony

Stimuli in different parts of the visual field can be perceived as independent entities and as conjoined wholes. It is of interest to determine whether there are cortical representations of the left and right hemifields which remain as independent entities when both hemifields are stimulated simultaneously and/or whether they interact to form a conjoined representation. We examined whether cortical processing of visual stimuli depends on whether they occur in isolation in one hemifield (unilaterally) or simultaneously in both hemifields (bilaterally). Visual evoked potentials of six normal subjects were recorded from 128 scalp sites. Wedge-shaped chequerboard stimuli, extending 1 – 4 deg eccentricity, were presented to quadrants of the visual field. Stimulus duration was 250 ms; the stimulus onset asynchrony was random, 500 – 750 ms. The evoked potentials revealed multiple peaks of activity with different surface topography. Prominent deflections occurred around 80, 120 – 180, and 230 ms. The response to bilateral stimuli was compared with the sum of the responses to unilateral stimuli. On the basis of the multichannel recordings, nonlinear interactions were characterised as either (a) modulations (same generators, but different amplitude) or (b) interactions originating from different generators. Modulation occurred at 230 ms, the response being suppressed for the bilateral case. At 120 – 180 ms, the field patterns suggested that at least some of the sources of the interaction effect are different from the source of the bilateral response. Underlying generators of the evoked responses and the interaction effects were further explored with the use of an equivalent current dipole model.

Redundant target effect and intersensory facilitation from visual-tactile interactions in simple reaction time

2002 ◽  
Vol 143 (4) ◽  
pp. 480-487 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bettina Forster ◽  
Cristiana Cavina-Pratesi ◽  
Salvatore M. Aglioti ◽  
Giovanni Berlucchi
Keyword(s):  
Reaction Time ◽  
Simple Reaction Time ◽  
Redundant Target ◽  
Simple Reaction ◽  
Intersensory Facilitation ◽  
Redundant Target Effect ◽  
Target Effect

scholarly journals Multisensory stimuli shift perceptual priors to facilitate rapid behavior

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
John Plass ◽  
David Brang
Keyword(s):  
Cortical Excitability ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Stimulus Onset ◽  
Stimulus Sequence ◽  
Phase Resetting ◽  
Redundant Target Effect ◽  
Sequence Effects ◽  
Multisensory Interactions ◽  
Sensory Responses ◽  
Target Effect

AbstractMultisensory stimuli speed behavioral responses, but the mechanisms subserving these effects remain disputed. Historically, the observation that multisensory reaction times (RTs) outpace models assuming independent sensory channels has been taken as evidence for multisensory integration (the “redundant target effect”; RTE). However, this interpretation has been challenged by alternative explanations based on stimulus sequence effects, RT variability, and/or negative correlations in unisensory processing. To clarify the mechanisms subserving the RTE, we collected RTs from 78 undergraduates in a multisensory simple RT task. Based on previous neurophysiological findings, we hypothesized that the RTE was unlikely to reflect these alternative mechanisms, and more likely reflected pre-potentiation of sensory responses through crossmodal phase-resetting. Contrary to accounts based on stimulus sequence effects, we found that preceding stimuli explained only 3–9% of the variance in apparent RTEs. Comparing three plausible evidence accumulator models, we found that multisensory RT distributions were best explained by increased sensory evidence at stimulus onset. Because crossmodal phase-resetting increases cortical excitability before sensory input arrives, these results are consistent with a mechanism based on pre-potentiation through phase-resetting. Mathematically, this model entails increasing the prior log-odds of stimulus presence, providing a potential link between neurophysiological, behavioral, and computational accounts of multisensory interactions.

scholarly journals Multisensory Stimuli Shift Perceptual Priors to Favor Rapid Detection

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Plass ◽  
David Brang
Keyword(s):  
Cortical Excitability ◽  
Reaction Times ◽  
Stimulus Onset ◽  
Stimulus Sequence ◽  
Phase Resetting ◽  
Redundant Target Effect ◽  
Sequence Effects ◽  
Multisensory Interactions ◽  
Sensory Responses ◽  
Target Effect

Multisensory stimuli speed behavioral responses, but the mechanisms subserving these effects remain disputed. Historically, the observation that multisensory reaction times (RTs) outpace models assuming independent sensory channels has been taken as evidence for multisensory integration (the “redundant target effect”; RTE). However, this interpretation has been challenged by alternative explanations based on stimulus sequence effects, RT variability, and/or negative correlations in unisensory processing. To clarify the mechanisms subserving the RTE, we collected RTs from 78 undergraduates in a multisensory simple RT task. Based on previous neurophysiological findings, we hypothesized that the RTE was unlikely to reflect these alternative mechanisms, and more likely reflected pre-potentiation of sensory responses through crossmodal phase-resetting. Contrary to accounts based on stimulus sequence effects, we found that preceding stimuli explained only 3-9% of the variance in apparent RTEs. Comparing three plausible evidence accumulator models, we found that multisensory RT distributions were best explained by increased sensory evidence at stimulus onset. Because crossmodal phase-resetting increases cortical excitability before sensory input arrives, these results are consistent with a mechanism based on pre-potentiation through phase-resetting. Mathematically, this model entails increasing the prior log-odds of stimulus presence, providing a potential link between neurophysiological, behavioral, and computational accounts of multisensory interactions.

The role of the magnocellular and parvocellular systems in the redundant target effect

2004 ◽  
Vol 158 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Massimo Turatto ◽  
Veronica Mazza ◽  
Silvia Savazzi ◽  
CarloA. Marzi
Keyword(s):  
Redundant Target ◽  
Redundant Target Effect ◽  
Target Effect

Visual Integration during Saccadic and Pursuit Eye Movements: The Importance of Spatial Framework

1993 ◽  
Vol 77 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1219-1234
Author(s):  
Hiroshi Watanabe ◽  
Naoto Suzuki
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Visual Field ◽  
Stimulus Onset Asynchrony ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movements ◽  
Stimulus Onset ◽  
Visual Persistence ◽  
Visual Integration ◽  
Pursuit Eye Movements ◽  
Onset Asynchrony ◽  
Accuracy Rates

Three experiments were conducted to clarify the function of spatiotopic and retinotopic visual persistence during pursuit and saccadic eye movements. Exps. 1 and 2 both showed spatiotopic visual integration for both types of eye movements, although shorter stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) was set in Exp. 2. Exp. 3 was conducted with special attention to the absence of target stimuli when masking stimuli were presented. Although duration of target stimuli and stimulus onset asynchrony in Exp. 3 were longer than those in the first two experiments, analysis contrastively showed retinotopic visual integration during saccades and very low accuracy rates under all conditions during pursuit eye movements. The above indicates that the basis for the functional switching between spatiotopic and retinotopic visual integration may have been the existence of a visual framework for visual integration or the synchronous existence of target and masking stimuli in the visual field, not the duration of target stimuli and stimulus onset asynchrony. Such integration of the reference point may possibly be processed through a higher mechanism and not at the retinal level.

scholarly journals Age-related differences in interhemispheric visuomotor integration measured by the redundant target effect.

2012 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 399-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabeth Linnet ◽  
Matthew E. Roser
Keyword(s):  
Visuomotor Integration ◽  
Redundant Target ◽  
Redundant Target Effect ◽  
Age Related ◽  
Target Effect

scholarly journals Multisensory processing in the redundant-target effect: A behavioral and event-related potential study

2005 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 713-726 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Gondan ◽  
Birgit Niederhaus ◽  
Frank Rösler ◽  
Brigitte Röder
Keyword(s):  
Multisensory Processing ◽  
Event Related Potential ◽  
Redundant Target ◽  
Redundant Target Effect ◽  
Potential Study ◽  
Target Effect
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document