Search

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.

The completion of an antisaccade selectively increases the reaction tiME (RT) of a subsequent prosaccade: a result that has been interpreted to reflect the residual inhibition of stimulus-driven saccade networks [1], [2]. In the present investigation we sought to determine whether the increase in prosaccade RT is contingent on the constituent antisaccade planning processes of response suppression and vector inversion or is limited to response suppression. To that end, in one block participants alternated between pro- and antisaccades after every second trial (task-switching block), and in another block participants completed a series of prosaccades that were randomly (and infrequently) interspersed with no-go catch-trials (go/no-go block). Notably, such a design provides a framework for disentangling whether response suppression and/or vector inversion delays the planning of subsequent prosaccades. As expected, results for the task-switching block showed that antisaccades selectively increased the RTs of subsequent prosaccades. In turn, results for the go/no-go block showed that prosaccade RTs were increased when preceded by a no-go catch-trial. Moreover, the magnitude of the RT 'cost' was equivalent across the task-switching and go/no-go blocks. That prosaccades preceded by an antisaccade or a no-go catch-trial produced equivalent RT costs indicates that the conjoint processes of response suppression and vector inversion do not drive the inhibition of saccade planning mechanisms. Rather, the present findings indicate that a general consequence of response suppression is a residual inhibition of stimulus-driven saccade networks.

BACKGROUND: Previous work by our group has shown that the scaling of reach trajectories to target size is independent of obligatory awareness of that target property and that "action without awareness" can persist for up to 2000 ms of visual delay. In the present investigation we sought to determine if the ability to scale reaching trajectories to target size following a delay is related to the pre-computing of movement parameters during initial stimulus presentation or the maintenance of a sensory (i.e., visual) representation for on-demand response parameterization. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Participants completed immediate or delayed (i.e., 2000 ms) perceptual reports and reaching responses to different sized targets under non-masked and masked target conditions. For the reaching task, the limb associated with a trial (i.e., left or right) was not specified until the time of response cuing: a manipulation that prevented participants from pre-computing the effector-related parameters of their response. In terms of the immediate and delayed perceptual tasks, target size was accurately reported during non-masked trials; however, for masked trials only a chance level of accuracy was observed. For the immediate and delayed reaching tasks, movement time as well as other temporal kinematic measures (e.g., times to peak acceleration, velocity and deceleration) increased in relation to decreasing target size across non-masked and masked trials. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Our results demonstrate that speed-accuracy relations were observed regardless of whether participants were aware (i.e., non-masked trials) or unaware (i.e., masked trials) of target size. Moreover, the equivalent scaling of immediate and delayed reaches during masked trials indicates that a persistent sensory-based representation supports the unconscious and metrical scaling of memory-guided reaching.

Automation inherently removes a certain amount of user control. If perceived as a loss of freedom, users may experience psychological reactance, which is a motivational state that can lead a person to engage in behaviors to reassert their freedom. In an online experiment, participants set up and communicated with a hypothetical smart thermostat. Participants read notifications about a change in the thermostat's setting. Phrasing of notifications was altered across three dimensions: strength of authoritative language, deviation of temperature change from preferences, and whether or not the reason for the change was transparent. Authoritative language, temperatures outside the user's preferences, and lack of transparency induced significantly higher levels of reactance. However, when the system presented a temperature change outside of the user's preferences, reactance was mitigated and user acceptance was higher if the thermostat's operations were transparent. Providing justification may be less likely to induce psychological reactance and increase user acceptance. This supports efforts to use behavioral approaches, such as demand response, to increase sustainability and limit the impacts of climate change.