Spatial scale of attention influences saccade latencies

The spatial scale of attention strongly modulates saccade latencies

We have previously shown that when a stimulus consisting of two concentric rings moves, saccade latencies are much longer (by 150 ms) when attention is directed to the larger ring than to the smaller ring. Here, we investigated whether this effect can be explained by a deferral of the "cost" of making a saccade while the target remains inside the attentional field, or by purely visual factors (eccentricity or contrast). We found 1) latencies were shorter when attention was directed to small features irrespective of retinal eccentricity; 2) saccade latency distributions were systematically determined by the ratio between the amplitude of the stimulus step and the diameter of the attended ring: stimulus steps that were larger than the attended ring resulted in short latencies, whereas steps smaller than the attended ring resulted in proportionally longer and more variable latencies; 3) this effect was not seen in manual reaction times to the same target movement; and 4) suprathreshold changes in the contrast of targets, mimicking possible attentional effects on perceived contrast and saliency, had little effect on latency. We argue that the spatial scale of attention determines the urgency of saccade motor preparation processes by changing the rate and rate variability of the underlying decision signal, to defer the cost of saccades that result in little visual benefit.

Involuntary attention and identification accuracy

Using the spatial cuing paradigm, Prinzmetal, McCool, and Park (2005) made the distinction between voluntary and involuntary attention. They claimed that although accuracy was affected by an informative spatial cue (which controls voluntary attention), it was not affected by a noninformative cue (which controls involuntary attention). We reevaluate two reports that assert that noninformative spatial cues affect accuracy. Dufour (1999) reported that a noninformative auditory cue enhanced visual identification in a conjunction search task. Klein and Dick (2002) reported that, in an RSVP task with visual cues, the cue also enhanced accuracy at short stimulus onset asynchronies. We found that Dufour's results were due to overt orienting (eye movements) rather than to covert attention. The results of Klein and Dick were due either to location uncertainty or to a confounding of the order of stimulus presentation and condition.

Spatial deployment of attention influences both saccadic and pursuit tracking

We examined the effects of changing spatial aspects of attention during oculomotor tracking. Human subjects were instructed to make a discrimination on either the small (0.8 degrees ) central or the large (8 degrees ) peripheral part of a compound stimulus (two counter-rotating concentric rings) while the stimulus either translated across the screen or was stationary. During this period, a transient perturbation with either step or ramp movement profile occurred. For perturbations leading to a change in position larger than the small ring, saccades occurred more frequently and had much shorter latencies (by 135 ms) when attention was directed to the small ring than when attention was directed to the large ring. These latency differences were sufficiently great that from a single saccade one can identify the attentional instruction with 94% accuracy. However, with target steps as small as the small ring, saccade latencies differed less. For pursuit, ramp perturbations caused larger changes in eye velocity with little change in latency when attention was directed to the small ring. Finally, when only the motion of the non-attended ring was perturbed, most subjects showed stronger saccadic responses to perturbations of the small than the large ring, and stronger pursuit responses to perturbations of the large than the small ring. By fitting the saccade latency distributions with the Reddi and Carpenter LATER model, we found that our subjects apparently employed at least two distinct strategies for changing latency when attending large vs. small. We propose that the timing of the saccade decision process depends on both the size of the attended object and the magnitude of the perturbation.