Search

Contains fulltext : 225885.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) Since the seminal work of Yarbus, multiple studies have demonstrated the influence of task-set on oculomotor behavior and the current cognitive state. In more recent years, this field of research has expanded by evaluating the costs of abruptly switching between such different tasks. At the same time, the field of classifying oculomotor behavior has been moving toward more advanced, data-driven methods of decoding data. For the current study, we used a large dataset compiled over multiple experiments and implemented separate state-of-the-art machine learning methods for decoding both cognitive state and task-switching. We found that, by extracting a wide range of oculomotor features, we were able to implement robust classifier models for decoding both cognitive state and task-switching. Our decoding performance highlights the feasibility of this approach, even invariant of image statistics. Additionally, we present a feature ranking for both models, indicating the relative magnitude of different oculomotor features for both classifiers. These rankings indicate a separate set of important predictors for decoding each task, respectively. Finally, we discuss the implications of the current approach related to interpreting the decoding results.

Whenever we move our eyes, some visual information obtained before a saccade is combined with the visual information obtained after a saccade. Interestingly, saccades rarely land exactly on the saccade target, which may pose a problem for transsaccadic perception as it could affect the quality of postsaccadic input. Recently, however, we showed that transsaccadic feature integration is actually unaffected by deviations of saccade landing points. Possibly, transsaccadic integration remains unaffected because the presaccadic shift of attention follows the intended saccade target and not the actual saccade landing point during regular saccades. Here, we investigated whether saccade landing point errors can in fact alter transsaccadic perception when the presaccadic shift of attention follows the saccade landing point deviation. Given that saccadic adaptation not only changes the saccade vector, but also the presaccadic shift of attention, we combined a feature report paradigm with saccadic adaptation. Observers reported the color of the saccade target, which occasionally changed slightly during a saccade to the target. This task was performed before and after saccadic adaptation. The results showed that, after adaptation, presaccadic color information became less precise and transsaccadic perception had a stronger reliance on the postsaccadic color estimate. Therefore, although previous studies have shown that transsaccadic perception is generally unaffected by saccade landing point deviations, our results reveal that this cannot be considered a general property of the visual system. When presaccadic shifts of attention follow altered saccade landing points, transsaccadic perception is affected, suggesting that transsaccadic feature perception might be dependent on visual spatial attention.

We use visual working memory (VWM) to maintain the visual features of objects in our world. Although the capacity of VWM is limited, it is unlikely that this limit will pose a problem in daily life, as visual information can be supplemented with input from our external visual world by using eye movements. In the current study, we influenced the trade-off between eye movements and VWM utilization by introducing a cost to a saccade. Higher costs were created by adding a delay in stimulus availability to a copying task. We show that increased saccade cost results in less saccades towards the model and an increased dwell time on the model. These results suggest a shift from making eye movements towards taxing internal VWM. Our findings reveal that the trade-off between executing eye-movements and building an internal representation of our world is based on an adaptive mechanism, governed by cost-efficiency.

Contains fulltext : 193282.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) It is commonly assumed that one eye is dominant over the other eye. Eye dominance is most frequently determined by using the hole-in-the-card test. However, it is currently unclear whether eye dominance as determined by the hole-in-the-card test (so-called sighting eye dominance) generalizes to tasks involving interocular conflict (engaging sensory eye dominance). We therefore investigated whether sighting eye dominance is linked to sensory eye dominance in several frequently used paradigms that involve interocular conflict. Eye dominance was measured by the hole-in-the- card test, binocular rivalry, and breaking continuous flash suppression (b-CFS). Relationships between differences in eye dominance were assessed using Bayesian statistics. Strikingly, none of the three interocular conflict tasks yielded a difference in perceptual report between eyes when comparing the dominant eye with the nondominant eye as determined by the hole-in-the-card test. From this, we conclude that sighting eye dominance is different from sensory eye dominance. Interestingly, eye dominance of onset rivalry correlated with that of ongoing rivalry but not with that of b-CFS. Hence, we conclude that b-CFS reflects a different form of eye dominance than onset and ongoing rivalry. In sum, eye dominance seems to be a multifaceted phenomenon, which is differently expressed across interocular conflict paradigms. Finally, we highly discourage using tests measuring sighting eye dominance to determine the dominant eye in a subsequent experiment involving interocular conflict. Rather, we recommend that whenever experimental manipulations require a priori knowledge of eye dominance, eye dominance should be determined using pretrials of the same task that will be used in the main experiment. 13 p.

Only part of the visual information that impinges on our retinae reaches visual awareness. In a series of three experiments, we investigated how the task relevance of incoming visual information affects its access to visual awareness. On each trial, participants were instructed to memorize one of two presented hues, drawn from different color categories (e.g., red and green), for later recall. During the retention interval, participants were presented with a differently colored grating in each eye such as to elicit binocular rivalry. A grating matched either the task-relevant (memorized) color category or the task-irrelevant (nonmemorized) color category. We found that the rivalrous stimulus that matched the task-relevant color category tended to dominate awareness over the rivalrous stimulus that matched the task-irrelevant color category. This effect of task relevance persisted when participants reported the orientation of the rivalrous stimuli, even though in this case color information was completely irrelevant for the task of reporting perceptual dominance during rivalry. When participants memorized the shape of a colored stimulus, however, its color category did not affect predominance of rivalrous stimuli during retention. Taken together, these results indicate that the selection of task-relevant information is under volitional control but that visual input that matches this information is boosted into awareness irrespective of whether this is useful for the observer.

To facilitate visual continuity across eye movements, the visual system must presaccadically acquire information about the future foveal image. Previous studies have indicated that visual working memory (VWM) affects saccade execution. However, the reverse relation, the effect of saccade execution on VWM load is less clear. To investigate the causal link between saccade execution and VWM, we combined a VWM task and a saccade task. Participants were instructed to remember one, two, or three shapes and performed either a No Saccade-, a Single Saccade- or a Dual (corrective) Saccade-task. The results indicate that items stored in VWM are reported less accurately if a single saccade-or a dual saccade-task is performed next to retaining items in VWM. Importantly, the loss of response accuracy for items retained in VWM by performing a saccade was similar to committing an extra item to VWM. In a second experiment, we observed no cost of executing a saccade for auditory working memory performance, indicating that executing a saccade exclusively taxes the VWM system. Our results suggest that the visual system presaccadically stores the upcoming retinal image, which has a similar VWM load as committing one extra item to memory and interferes with stored VWM content. After the saccade, the visual system can retrieve this item from VWM to evaluate saccade accuracy. Our results support the idea that VWM is a system which is directly linked to saccade execution and promotes visual continuity across saccades.

Many studies have found a strong coupling between selective attention and eye movements. The premotor theory of attention suggests that saccade preparation is directly responsible for such attentional shifts. While it has already been shown that the attentional shift is not directly coupled to the final stages of motor execution, it is currently unknown to what aspect of the earlier stages of saccade preparation the attentional shift is coupled. An important step in this preparation process is resolving the landing point when multiple elements compete for the saccade. Here we ask how such a competition influences the presaccadic attentional locus and whether the presaccadic shift of attention is coupled to the saccade landing position or the possible saccade goals. To this end, we adopt a global effect paradigm where a target is accompanied by a salient distractor resulting in the majority of eye movements landing in between target and distractor. To determine the allocation of attention, participants are presented with a discrimination task shortly before the execution of the saccade. Despite a strong global effect obtained for saccade endpoints, we find little evidence for attentional facilitation at the location between target and distractor, but strong attentional facilitation at the location of the target and distractor. We argue that attention is coupled to active oculomotor programs, but not part of the resolution of these programs towards the execution of the saccade.

The presence of nontarget objects influences kinematic parameters of reaches toward target objects. In previous studies, several different nontarget positions have been used. Taken together, these studies suggest that when the horizontal or vertical distance to nontargets is decreased, avoidance responses are more pronounced. Furthermore, responses to nontarget objects are asymmetrical across workspace, i.e., responses in the presence of equidistant nontargets on the inside and the outside of the reaching arm are different. However, these studies have provided a coarse overall picture of the effect of nontarget location. Therefore, the aim of this experiment was to systematically map the avoidance responses across the workspace in order to determine in detail the relation between nontarget position and the avoidance response. Specifically, we were interested in the contribution of four parameters to the reaching response: the nontarget’s horizontal and vertical position, its distance from the starting position, and its angle with the vertical midline of the workspace. Participants were asked to perform reaches towards physical targets while nontargets were present in 1 of 24 different positions. Our results replicate horizontal and vertical effects of the nontarget object on reaching behavior. We also replicate stronger avoidances of nontargets on the outside of the reaching limb compared to nontargets on the inside. Furthermore, our results provide a detailed overview of the interaction between these factors and demonstrate that there is a ‘‘hot’’ region qua nontarget positions that prompt the strongest responses. Lastly, our results provide evidence that support a fine-grained spatial resolution of nontarget motor representation.