Response selection in prosaccades, antisaccades, and other volitional saccades

Spatial and feature-based attention to expressive faces

Facial emotion is an important cue for deciding whether an individual is potentially helpful or harmful. However, facial expressions are inherently ambiguous and observers typically employ other cues to categorize emotion expressed on the face, such as race, sex, and context. Here, we explored the effect of increasing or reducing different types of uncertainty associated with a facial expression that is to be categorized. On each trial, observers responded according to the emotion and location of a peripherally presented face stimulus and were provided with either: (1) no information about the upcoming face; (2) its location; (3) its expressed emotion; or (4) both its location and emotion. While cueing emotion or location resulted in faster response times than cueing unpredictive information, cueing face emotion alone resulted in faster responses than cueing face location alone. Moreover, cueing both stimulus location and emotion resulted in a superadditive reduction of response times compared with cueing location or emotion alone, suggesting that feature-based attention to emotion and spatially selective attention interact to facilitate perception of face stimuli. While categorization of facial expressions was significantly affected by stable identity cues (sex and race) in the face, we found that these interactions were eliminated when uncertainty about facial expression, but not spatial uncertainty about stimulus location, was reduced by predictive cueing. This demonstrates that feature-based attention to facial expression greatly attenuates the need to rely on stable identity cues to interpret facial emotion.

Volitional saccade performance in a large sample of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder and unaffected first-degree relatives

Recent evidence indicates that patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) as well as their unaffected first-degree relatives show deficits in the volitional control of saccades, suggesting that volitional saccade performance may constitute an endophenotype of OCD. Here, we aimed to replicate and extend these findings in a large, independent sample. One hundred and fifteen patients with OCD, 103 healthy comparison subjects without a family history of OCD, and 31 unaffected first-degree relatives of OCD patients were examined using structured clinical interviews and performed a volitional saccade task as well as a prosaccade task. In contrast to previous reports, neither patients nor relatives showed impairments in the performance of volitional saccades compared to healthy controls. Notably, medicated patients did not differ from nonmedicated patients, and there was no effect of depressive comorbidity. Additional analyses investigating correlations between saccade performance and OCD symptom dimensions yielded no significant associations. In conclusion, the present results do not support the notion that volitional saccade execution constitutes an endophenotype of OCD. Possible explanations for inconsistencies with previous studies are discussed.

The antisaccade task: visual distractors elicit a location-independent planning 'cost'

The presentation of a remote – but not proximal – distractor concurrent with target onset increases prosaccade reaction times (RT) (i.e., the remote distractor effect: RDE). The competitive integration model asserts that the RDE represents the time required to resolve the conflict for a common saccade threshold between target- and distractor-related saccade generating commands in the superior colliculus. To our knowledge however, no previous research has examined whether remote and proximal distractors differentially influence antisaccade RTs. This represents a notable question because antisaccades require decoupling of the spatial relations between stimulus and response (SR) and therefore provide a basis for determining whether the sensory- and/or motor-related features of a distractor influence response planning. Participants completed pro- and antisaccades in a target-only condition and conditions wherein the target was concurrently presented with a proximal or remote distractor. As expected, prosaccade RTs elicited a reliable RDE. In contrast, antisaccade RTs were increased independent of the distractor’s spatial location and the magnitude of the effect was comparable across each distractor location. Thus, distractor-related antisaccade RT costs are not accounted for by a competitive integration between conflicting saccade generating commands. Instead, we propose that a visual distractor increases uncertainty related to the evocation of the response-selection rule necessary for decoupling SR relations.