The Relationship between Eye Movements and Spatial Attention

1986 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 475-491 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Shepherd ◽  
John M. Findlay ◽  
Robert J. Hockey
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Spatial Attention ◽  
Target Position ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movements ◽  
Saccade Target ◽  
Peripheral Stimulus ◽  
Peripheral Stimulation ◽  
Voluntary Eye Movements ◽  
Automatic Capture ◽  
Saccade Preparation

Most previous studies of the attentional consequences of making saccadic eye movements have used peripheral stimuli to elicit eye movements. It is argued that in the light of evidence showing automatic “capture” of attention by peripheral stimuli, these experiments do not distinguish between attentional effects due to peripheral stimuli and those due to eye movements. In the present study, spatial attention was manipulated by varying the probability that peripheral probe stimuli would appear in different positions, while saccades were directed by a central arrow, enabling the effects of attention and eye movements to be separated. The results showed that the time to react to a peripheral stimulus could be shortened both by advance knowledge of its likely position and, separately, by preparing to make a saccade to that position. When the saccade was directed away from the most likely position of the probe, the targets for attention and eye movements were on opposite sides of the display. In this condition, the effects of preparing to make a saccade proved to be stronger than the effects of attentional allocation until well after the saccade had finished, suggesting that making a saccade necessarily involves the allocation of attention to the target position. The effects of probe stimuli on saccade latencies were also examined: probe stimuli that appeared before the saccade shortened saccade latencies if they appeared at the saccade target, and lengthened saccade latencies if they appeared on the opposite side of fixation. These facilitatory and inhibitory effects were shown to occur at different stages of saccade preparation and suggest that attention plays an important role in the generation of voluntary eye movements. The results of this study indicate that while it is possible to make attention movements without making corresponding eye movements, it is not possible to make an eye movement (in the absence of peripheral stimulation) without making a corresponding shift in the focus of attention.

scholarly journals Vision as oculomotor reward: cognitive contributions to the dynamic control of saccadic eye movements

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Wolf ◽  
Markus Lappe
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Visual Field ◽  
Visual System ◽  
Dynamic Control ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movements ◽  
Saccade Target ◽  
Cognitive Mechanisms ◽  
Foveal Vision ◽  
Subsequent Behavior ◽  
High Level

AbstractHumans and other primates are equipped with a foveated visual system. As a consequence, we reorient our fovea to objects and targets in the visual field that are conspicuous or that we consider relevant or worth looking at. These reorientations are achieved by means of saccadic eye movements. Where we saccade to depends on various low-level factors such as a targets’ luminance but also crucially on high-level factors like the expected reward or a targets’ relevance for perception and subsequent behavior. Here, we review recent findings how the control of saccadic eye movements is influenced by higher-level cognitive processes. We first describe the pathways by which cognitive contributions can influence the neural oculomotor circuit. Second, we summarize what saccade parameters reveal about cognitive mechanisms, particularly saccade latencies, saccade kinematics and changes in saccade gain. Finally, we review findings on what renders a saccade target valuable, as reflected in oculomotor behavior. We emphasize that foveal vision of the target after the saccade can constitute an internal reward for the visual system and that this is reflected in oculomotor dynamics that serve to quickly and accurately provide detailed foveal vision of relevant targets in the visual field.

Recasting the Smooth Pursuit Eye Movement System

2004 ◽  
Vol 91 (2) ◽  
pp. 591-603 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard J. Krauzlis
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Brain Stem ◽  
Smooth Pursuit ◽  
Visual Motion ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movements ◽  
Extrastriate Cortex ◽  
High Acuity ◽  
Voluntary Eye Movements ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
The Brain

Primates use a combination of smooth pursuit and saccadic eye movements to stabilize the retinal image of selected objects within the high-acuity region near the fovea. Pursuit has traditionally been viewed as a relatively automatic behavior, driven by visual motion signals and mediated by pathways that connect visual areas in the cerebral cortex to motor regions in the cerebellum. However, recent findings indicate that this view needs to be reconsidered. Rather than being controlled primarily by areas in extrastriate cortex specialized for processing visual motion, pursuit involves an extended network of cortical areas, and, of these, the pursuit-related region in the frontal eye fields appears to exert the most direct influence. The traditional pathways through the cerebellum are important, but there are also newly identified routes involving structures previously associated with the control of saccades, including the basal ganglia, the superior colliculus, and nuclei in the brain stem reticular formation. These recent findings suggest that the pursuit system has a functional architecture very similar to that of the saccadic system. This viewpoint provides a new perspective on the processing steps that occur as descending control signals interact with circuits in the brain stem and cerebellum responsible for gating and executing voluntary eye movements. Although the traditional view describes pursuit and saccades as two distinct neural systems, it may be more accurate to consider the two movements as different outcomes from a shared cascade of sensory–motor functions.

scholarly journals Voluntary Spatial Attention has Different Effects on Voluntary and Reflexive Saccades

2003 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 881-902 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie K. Seidlits ◽  
Tammie Reza ◽  
Kevin A. Briand ◽  
Anne B. Sereno
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Spatial Attention ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movements ◽  
Fundamental Issue ◽  
Fixation Condition ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Symbolic Cues ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Reflexive Saccades ◽  
Gap Paradigm

Although numerous studies have investigated the relationship between saccadic eye movements and spatial attention, one fundamental issue remains controversial. Some studies have suggested that spatial attention facilitates saccades, whereas others have claimed that eye movements are actually inhibited when spatial attention is engaged. However, these discrepancies may be because previous research has neglected to separate and specify the effects of attention for two distinct types of saccades, namely reflexive (stimulus-directed) and voluntary (antisaccades). The present study explored the effects of voluntary spatial attention on both voluntary and reflexive saccades. Results indicate that voluntary spatial attention has different effects on the two types of saccades. Antisaccades were always greatly facilitated following the engagement of spatial attention by symbolic cues (arrows) informing the subject where the upcoming saccade should be directed. Reflexive saccades showed little or no cueing effects and exhibited significant facilitation only when these cues were randomly intermixed with uncued trials. In addition, the present study tested the effects of fixation condition (gap, step, and overlap) on attentional modulation. Cueing effects did not vary due to fixation condition. Thus, voluntary spatial attention consistently showed different effects on voluntary and reflexive saccades, and there was no evidence in these studies that voluntary cues inhibit reflexive saccades, even in a gap paradigm.

scholarly journals Neuronal Responses to Moving Targets in Monkey Frontal Eye Fields

2008 ◽  
Vol 100 (3) ◽  
pp. 1544-1556 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos R. Cassanello ◽  
Abhay T. Nihalani ◽  
Vincent P. Ferrera
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Neuronal Response ◽  
Target Position ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movements ◽  
Quantitative Model ◽  
Initial Position ◽  
Target Velocity ◽  
Frontal Eye Fields ◽  
Moving Targets ◽  
Velocity Information

Due to delays in visuomotor processing, eye movements directed toward moving targets must integrate both target position and velocity to be accurate. It is unknown where and how target velocity information is incorporated into the planning of rapid (saccadic) eye movements. We recorded the activity of neurons in frontal eye fields (FEFs) while monkeys made saccades to stationary and moving targets. A substantial fraction of FEF neurons was found to encode not only the initial position of a moving target, but the metrics (amplitude and direction) of the saccade needed to intercept the target. Many neurons also encoded target velocity in a nearly linear manner. The quasi-linear dependence of firing rate on target velocity means that the neuronal response can be directly read out to compute the future position of a target moving with constant velocity. This is demonstrated using a quantitative model in which saccade amplitude is encoded in the population response of neurons tuned to retinal target position and modulated by target velocity.

scholarly journals Sustained spatial attention accounts for the direction bias of human microsaccades

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheng Xue ◽  
Antonino Calapai ◽  
Julius Krumbiegel ◽  
Stefan Treue
Keyword(s):  
Spatial Attention ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Covert Attention ◽  
Saccade Target ◽  
Peripheral Stimulus ◽  
Visual Spatial Attention ◽  
Specific Effects ◽  
Visual Spatial ◽  
Attention Tasks ◽  
Direction Effect

AbstractSmall ballistic eye movements, so called microsaccades, occur even while foveating an object. Previous studies using covert attention tasks have shown that shortly after a symbolic spatial cue, specifying a behaviorally relevant location, microsaccades tend to be directed toward the cued location. This suggests that microsaccades can serve as an index for the covert orientation of spatial attention. However, this hypothesis faces two major challenges: First, effects associated with visual spatial attention are hard to distinguish from those that associated with the contemplation of foveating a peripheral stimulus. Second, it is less clear whether endogenously sustained attention alone can bias microsaccade directions without a spatial cue on each trial. To address the first issue, we investigated the direction of microsaccades in human subjects while they attended to a behaviorally relevant location and prepared a response eye movement either toward or away from this location. We find that directions of microsaccades are biased toward the attended location rather than towards the saccade target. To tackle the second issue, we verbally indicated the location to attend before the start of each block of trials, to exclude potential visual cue-specific effects on microsaccades. Our results indicate that sustained spatial attention alone reliably produces the microsaccade direction effect. Overall, our findings demonstrate that sustained spatial attention alone, even in the absence of saccade planning or a spatial cue, is sufficient to explain the direction bias observed in microsaccades.

scholarly journals Changes in the Response Rate and Response Variability of Area V4 Neurons During the Preparation of Saccadic Eye Movements

2010 ◽  
Vol 103 (3) ◽  
pp. 1171-1178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas A. Steinmetz ◽  
Tirin Moore
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Reaction Time ◽  
Firing Rate ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movements ◽  
Response Variability ◽  
Area V4 ◽  
The Mean ◽  
V4 Neurons ◽  
Saccade Preparation

The visually driven responses of macaque area V4 neurons are modulated during the preparation of saccadic eye movements, but the relationship between presaccadic modulation in area V4 and saccade preparation is poorly understood. Recent neurophysiological studies suggest that the variability across trials of spiking responses provides a more reliable signature of motor preparation than mean firing rate across trials. We compared the dynamics of the response rate and the variability in the rate across trials for area V4 neurons during the preparation of visually guided saccades. As in previous reports, we found that the mean firing rate of V4 neurons was enhanced when saccades were prepared to stimuli within a neuron's receptive field (RF) in comparison with saccades to a non-RF location. Further, we found robust decreases in response variability prior to saccades and found that these decreases predicted saccadic reaction times for saccades both to RF and non-RF stimuli. Importantly, response variability predicted reaction time whether or not there were any accompanying changes in mean firing rate. In addition to predicting saccade direction, the mean firing rate could also predict reaction time, but only for saccades directed to the RF stimuli. These results demonstrate that response variability of area V4 neurons, like mean response rate, provides a signature of saccade preparation. However, the two signatures reflect complementary aspects of that preparation.

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.

Canceling of Pursuit and Saccadic Eye Movements in Humans and Monkeys

2003 ◽  
Vol 89 (6) ◽  
pp. 2984-2999 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krista Kornylo ◽  
Natalie Dill ◽  
Melissa Saenz ◽  
Richard J. Krauzlis
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Eye Movement ◽  
Inhibitory Control ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movements ◽  
Preceding Trial ◽  
Stop Signal ◽  
Motor Pathways ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Saccade Preparation ◽  
Countermanding Task

The countermanding paradigm provides a useful tool for examining the mechanisms responsible for canceling eye movements. The key feature of this paradigm is that, on a minority of trials, a stop signal is introduced some time after the appearance of the target, indicating that the subject should cancel the incipient eye movement. If the delay in giving the stop signal is too long, subjects fail to cancel the eye movement to the target stimulus. By modeling this performance as a race between a go process triggered by the appearance of the target and a stop process triggered by the appearance of the stop signal, it is possible to estimate the processing interval associated with canceling the movement. We have now used this paradigm to analyze the canceling of pursuit and saccades. For pursuit, we obtained consistent estimates of the stop process regardless of our technique or assumptions—it took 50–60 ms to cancel pursuit in both humans and monkeys. For saccades, we found different values depending on our assumptions. When we assumed that saccade preparation was under inhibitory control up until movement onset, we found that saccades took longer to cancel (humans: ∼110, monkeys: ∼80 ms) than pursuit. However, when we assumed that saccade preparation includes a final “ballistic” interval not under inhibitory control, we found that the same rapid stop process that accounted for our pursuit results could also account for the canceling of saccades. We favor this second interpretation because canceling pursuit or saccades amounts to maintaining a state of fixation, and it is more parsimonious to assume that this involves a single inhibitory process associated with the fixation system, rather than two separate inhibitory processes depending on which type of eye movement will not be made. From our behavioral data, we estimate that this ballistic interval has a duration of 9–25 ms in monkeys, consistent with the known physiology of the final motor pathways for saccades, although we obtained longer values in humans (28–60 ms). Finally, we examined the effect of trial sequence during the countermanding task and found that pursuit and saccade latencies tended to be longer if the previous trial contained a stop signal than if it did not; these increases occurred regardless of whether the preceding trial was associated with the same or different type of eye movement. Together, these results suggest that a common inhibitory mechanism regulates the initiation of pursuit and saccades.

scholarly journals The eye that binds: Feature integration is not disrupted by saccadic eye movements

2019 ◽  
Vol 82 (2) ◽  
pp. 533-549 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josephine Reuther ◽  
Ramakrishna Chakravarthi ◽  
Amelia R. Hunt
Keyword(s):  
Eye Movements ◽  
Spatial Attention ◽  
Saccadic Eye Movements ◽  
Stimulus Presentation ◽  
Feature Integration ◽  
Integration Theory ◽  
Conjunction Errors ◽  
Retinal Motion ◽  
Retinotopic Maps ◽  
Feature Integration Theory

AbstractFeature integration theory proposes that visual features, such as shape and color, can only be combined into a unified object when spatial attention is directed to their location in retinotopic maps. Eye movements cause dramatic changes on our retinae, and are associated with obligatory shifts in spatial attention. In two experiments, we measured the prevalence of conjunction errors (that is, reporting an object as having an attribute that belonged to another object), for brief stimulus presentation before, during, and after a saccade. Planning and executing a saccade did not itself disrupt feature integration. Motion did disrupt feature integration, leading to an increase in conjunction errors. However, retinal motion of an equal extent but caused by saccadic eye movements is spared this disruption, and showed similar rates of conjunction errors as a condition with static stimuli presented to a static eye. The results suggest that extra-retinal signals are able to compensate for the motion caused by saccadic eye movements, thereby preserving the integrity of objects across saccades and preventing their features from mixing or mis-binding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document