Exogenous capture accounts for fundamental differences between prosaccade and antisaccade performance

Oculomotor circuits generate eye movements based on the physical salience of objects and current behavioral goals, exogenous and endogenous influences, respectively. However, the interactions between exogenous and endogenous mechanisms and their dynamic contributions to target selection have been difficult to resolve because they evolve extremely rapidly. In a recent study (Salinas et al., 2019), we achieved the necessary temporal precision using an urgent variant of the antisaccade task wherein motor plans are initiated early and choice accuracy depends sharply on when exactly the visual cue information becomes available. Empirical and modeling results indicated that the exogenous signal arrives ~80 ms after cue onset and rapidly accelerates the (incorrect) plan toward the cue, whereas the informed endogenous signal arrives ~25 ms later to favor the (correct) plan away from the cue. Here, we scrutinize a key mechanistic hypothesis about this dynamic, that the exogenous and endogenous signals act at different times and independently of each other. We test quantitative model predictions by comparing the performance of human participants instructed to look toward a visual cue versus away from it under high urgency. We find that, indeed, the exogenous response is largely impervious to task instructions; it simply flips its sign relative to the correct choice, and this largely explains the drastic differences in psychometric performance between the two tasks. Thus, saccadic choices are strongly dictated by the alignment between salience and behavioral goals.

EXPRESS: Task demands moderate the effect of emotion on attentional capture

The current experiment examined the effect of task demands on attention to emotional images. Eighty participants viewed pairs of images, with each pair consisting of an emotional (negative or positive) and a neutral image, or two neutral images. Participants’ eye movements were recorded during picture viewing, and participants were either asked 1) which picture contains more colour? (colour task), 2) are the images equally pleasant? (pleasantness task), 3) which picture do you prefer? (preference task), or 4) were given no task instructions (control task). Although the results did not suggest that emotional images strongly captured attention, emotional images were looked at earlier than neutral images. Importantly, the pattern of results were dependent upon the task instructions; whilst the preference and colour task conditions showed early attentional biases to emotional images, only positive images were looked at earlier in the pleasantness task condition, and no early attentional biases were observed in the control task. Moreover, total fixation duration was increased for positive images in the preference task condition, but not in the other task conditions. It was concluded that attention to emotional stimuli can be modified by the demands of the task during viewing. However, further research should consider additional factors, such as the cognitive load of the viewing tasks, and the content of the images used.

Cultural factors weaken but do not reverse left-to-right spatial biases in numerosity processing: Data from Arabic and English monoliterates and Arabic-English biliterates

Directional response biases due to a conceptual link between space and number, such as a left-to-right hand bias for increasing numerical magnitude, are known as the SNARC (Spatial-Numerical Association of Response Codes) effect. We investigated how the SNARC effect for numerosities would be influenced by reading-writing direction, task instructions, and ambient visual environment in four literate populations exemplifying opposite reading-writing cultures—namely, Arabic (right-to-left script) and English (left-to-right script). Monoliterates and biliterates in Jordan and the U.S. completed a speeded numerosity comparison task to assess the directionality and magnitude of a SNARC effect in their numerosity processing. Monoliterates’ results replicated previously documented effects of reading-writing direction and task instructions: the SNARC effect found in left-to-right readers was weakened in right-to-left readers, and the left-to-right group exhibited a task-dependency effect (SNARC effect in the smaller condition, reverse SNARC effect in the larger condition). Biliterates’ results did not show a clear effect of environment; instead, both biliterate groups resembled English monoliterates in showing a left-to-right, task-dependent SNARC effect, albeit weaker than English monoliterates’. The absence of significant biases in all Arabic-reading groups (biliterates and Arabic monoliterates) points to a potential conflict between distinct spatial-numerical mapping codes. This view is explained in terms of the proposed Multiple Competing Codes Theory (MCCT), which posits three distinct spatial-numerical mapping codes (innate, cardinal, ordinal) during numerical processing—each involved at varying levels depending on individual and task factors.

Providing Task Instructions During Motor Training Enhances Performance and Modulates Attentional Brain Networks

Learning a new motor task is a complex cognitive and motor process. Especially early during motor learning, cognitive functions such as attentional engagement, are essential, e.g., to discover relevant visual stimuli. Drawing participant’s attention towards task-relevant stimuli—e.g., with task instructions using visual cues or explicit written information—is a common practice to support cognitive engagement during training and, hence, accelerate motor learning. However, there is little scientific evidence about how visually cued or written task instructions affect attentional brain networks during motor learning. In this experiment, we trained 36 healthy participants in a virtual motor task: surfing waves by steering a boat with a joystick. We measured the participants’ motor performance and observed attentional brain networks using alpha-band electroencephalographic (EEG) activity before and after training. Participants received one of the following task instructions during training: (1) No explicit task instructions and letting participants surf freely (implicit training; IMP); (2) Task instructions provided through explicit visual cues (explicit-implicit training; E-IMP); or (3) through explicit written commands (explicit training; E). We found that providing task instructions during training (E and E-IMP) resulted in less post-training motor variability—linked to enhanced performance—compared to training without instructions (IMP). After training, participants trained with visual cues (E-IMP) enhanced the alpha-band strength over parieto-occipital and frontal brain areas at wave onset. In contrast, participants who trained with explicit commands (E) showed decreased fronto-temporal alpha activity. Thus, providing task instructions in written (E) or using visual cues (E-IMP) leads to similar motor performance improvements by enhancing activation on different attentional networks. While training with visual cues (E-IMP) may be associated with visuo-attentional processes, verbal-analytical processes may be more prominent when written explicit commands are provided (E). Together, we suggest that training parameters such as task instructions, modulate the attentional networks observed during motor practice and may support participant’s cognitive engagement, compared to training without instructions.

Students in sight: Using mobile eye-tracking to investigate mathematics teachers’ gaze behaviour during task instruction-giving

Mobile eye-tracking research has provided evidence both on teachers' visual attention in relation to their intentions and on teachers’ student-centred gaze patterns. However, the importance of a teacher’s eye-movements when giving instructions is unexplored. In this study we used mobile eye-tracking to investigate six teachers’ gaze patterns when they are giving task instructions for a geometry problem in four different phases of a mathematical problem-solving lesson. We analysed the teachers’ eye-tracking data, their verbal data, and classroom video recordings. Our paper brings forth a novel interpretative lens for teacher’s pedagogical intentions communicated by gaze during teacher-led moments such as when introducing new tasks, reorganizing the social structures of students for collaboration, and lesson wrap-ups. A change in the students’ task changes teachers’ gaze patterns, which may indicate a change in teacher’s pedagogical intention. We found that teachers gazed at students throughout the lesson, whereas teachers’ focus was at task-related targets during collaborative instruction-giving more than during the introductory and reflective task instructions. Hence, we suggest two previously not detected gaze types: contextualizing gaze for task readiness and collaborative gaze for task focus to contribute to the present discussion on teacher gaze

Pick the smaller number: No influence of linguistic markedness on three-digit number processing

The symbolic number comparison task has been widely used to investigate the cognitive representation and underlying processes of multi-digit number processing. The standard procedure to establish numerical distance and compatibility effects in such number comparison paradigms usually entails asking participants to indicate the larger of two presented multi-digit Arabic numbers rather than to indicate the smaller number. In terms of linguistic markedness, this procedure includes the unmarked/base form in the task instruction (i.e., large). Here we evaluate distance and compatibility effects in a three-digit number comparison task observed in Bahnmueller et al. (2015, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01216) using a marked task instruction (i.e., ‘pick the smaller number’). Moreover, we aimed at clarifying whether the markedness of task instruction influences common numerical effects and especially componential processing as indexed by compatibility effects. We instructed German- and English-speaking adults (N = 52) to indicate the smaller number in a three-digit number comparison task as opposed to indicating the larger number in Bahnmueller et al. (2015). We replicated standard effects of distance and compatibility in the new pick the smaller number experiment. Moreover, when comparing our findings to Bahnmueller et al. (2015), numerical effects did not differ significantly between the two studies as indicated by both frequentist and Bayesian analysis. Taken together our data suggest that distance and compatibility effects alongside componential processing of multi-digit numbers are rather robust against variations of linguistic markedness of task instructions.

Do task instructions influence readers' topic beliefs, topic belief justifications, and task interest? A mixed methods study

<p>The purpose of this mixed methods study was to investigate whether task instructions influence readers’ topic beliefs, topic belief justifications, and task interest. Year 10 high school students completed a topic beliefs scale about a controversial topic (i.e., whether a prominent transportation tunnel should be widened) and provided a written justification of their beliefs. Then they were randomly assigned to one of four pre-reading task instruction conditions before reading a text that presented arguments that supported and opposed the widening of the tunnel. The first condition received rationale instructions, which provided an explanation as to why putting forth effort during the reading activity was useful and worthwhile. The second condition received evidence instructions, which directed readers to focus on the evidence supporting each argument in the text. The third condition received both evidence and rationale instructions. The fourth condition, the control condition, was asked to read for a general purpose. After reading, participants again completed the topic beliefs scale and topic belief justification. Experimental results showed that task instructions affected topic beliefs and topic belief justifications, but did not affect task interest. More specifically, participants who received evidence instructions moderated their beliefs after reading, and participants in the evidence condition and rationale condition included more opposing arguments in their topic belief justifications after reading. The interview data indicated that task instructions influenced readers’ goals and the strategies they used to meet those goals. The data sets were complementary: the quantitative data indicated differences in topic beliefs and topic belief justifications and the qualitative data allowed us to interpret why these differences occurred. Some students displayed belief-reflection, whereas others displayed belief-protection. Results are discussed and implications are provided.</p>

Do task instructions influence readers' topic beliefs, topic belief justifications, and task interest? A mixed methods study

<p>The purpose of this mixed methods study was to investigate whether task instructions influence readers’ topic beliefs, topic belief justifications, and task interest. Year 10 high school students completed a topic beliefs scale about a controversial topic (i.e., whether a prominent transportation tunnel should be widened) and provided a written justification of their beliefs. Then they were randomly assigned to one of four pre-reading task instruction conditions before reading a text that presented arguments that supported and opposed the widening of the tunnel. The first condition received rationale instructions, which provided an explanation as to why putting forth effort during the reading activity was useful and worthwhile. The second condition received evidence instructions, which directed readers to focus on the evidence supporting each argument in the text. The third condition received both evidence and rationale instructions. The fourth condition, the control condition, was asked to read for a general purpose. After reading, participants again completed the topic beliefs scale and topic belief justification. Experimental results showed that task instructions affected topic beliefs and topic belief justifications, but did not affect task interest. More specifically, participants who received evidence instructions moderated their beliefs after reading, and participants in the evidence condition and rationale condition included more opposing arguments in their topic belief justifications after reading. The interview data indicated that task instructions influenced readers’ goals and the strategies they used to meet those goals. The data sets were complementary: the quantitative data indicated differences in topic beliefs and topic belief justifications and the qualitative data allowed us to interpret why these differences occurred. Some students displayed belief-reflection, whereas others displayed belief-protection. Results are discussed and implications are provided.</p>

Task compliance predicts suppression-induced forgetting in a large sample

Suppression-induced forgetting (SIF) refers to a memory impairment resulting from repeated attempts to stop the retrieval of unwanted memory associates. SIF has become established in the literature through a growing number of reports built upon the Think/No-Think (TNT) paradigm. Not all individuals and not all reported experiments yield reliable forgetting, however. Given the reliance on task instructions to motivate participants to suppress target memories, such inconsistencies in SIF may reasonably owe to differences in compliance or expectations as to whether they will again need to retrieve those items (on, say, a final test). We tested these possibilities on a large (N = 497) sample of TNT participants. In addition to successfully replicating SIF, we found that the magnitude of the effect was significantly and negatively correlated with participants’ reported compliance during the No-Think trials. This pattern held true on both same- and independent-probe measures of forgetting, as well as when the analysis was conditionalized on initial learning. In contrast, test expectancy was not associated with SIF. Supporting previous intuition and more limited post-hoc examinations, this study provides robust evidence that a lack of compliance with No-Think instructions significantly compromises SIF. As such, it suggests that diminished effects in some studies may owe, at least in part, to non-compliance—a factor that should be carefully tracked and/or controlled. Motivated forgetting is possible, provided that one is sufficiently motivated and capable of following the task instructions.