Devin H. Kehoe , Lukas Schießer , Hassaan Malik , Mazyar Fallah
{"title":"运动干扰比静态干扰更晚干扰眼跳编程","authors":"Devin H. Kehoe , Lukas Schießer , Hassaan Malik , Mazyar Fallah","doi":"10.1016/j.crneur.2023.100092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The mechanism that reweights oculomotor vectors based on visual features is unclear. However, the latency of oculomotor visual activations gives insight into their antecedent featural processing. We compared the oculomotor processing time course of grayscale, task-irrelevant static and motion distractors during target selection by continuously measuring a battery of human saccadic behavioral metrics as a function of time after distractor onset. The motion direction was towards or away from the target and the motion speed was fast or slow. We compared static and motion distractors and observed that both distractors elicited curved saccades and shifted endpoints at short latencies (∼25 ms). After 50 ms, saccade trajectory biasing elicited by motion distractors lagged static distractor trajectory biasing by 10 ms. There were no such latency differences between distractor motion directions or motion speeds. This pattern suggests that additional processing of motion stimuli occurred prior to the propagation of visual information into the oculomotor system. We examined the interaction of distractor processing time (DPT) with two additional factors: saccadic reaction time (SRT) and saccadic amplitude. Shorter SRTs were associated with shorter DPT latencies of biased saccade trajectories. Both SRT and saccadic amplitude were associated with the magnitude of saccade trajectory biases.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72752,"journal":{"name":"Current research in neurobiology","volume":"4 ","pages":"Article 100092"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/95/7d/main.PMC10313862.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Motion distractors perturb saccade programming later in time than static distractors\",\"authors\":\"Devin H. Kehoe , Lukas Schießer , Hassaan Malik , Mazyar Fallah\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.crneur.2023.100092\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The mechanism that reweights oculomotor vectors based on visual features is unclear. However, the latency of oculomotor visual activations gives insight into their antecedent featural processing. We compared the oculomotor processing time course of grayscale, task-irrelevant static and motion distractors during target selection by continuously measuring a battery of human saccadic behavioral metrics as a function of time after distractor onset. The motion direction was towards or away from the target and the motion speed was fast or slow. We compared static and motion distractors and observed that both distractors elicited curved saccades and shifted endpoints at short latencies (∼25 ms). After 50 ms, saccade trajectory biasing elicited by motion distractors lagged static distractor trajectory biasing by 10 ms. There were no such latency differences between distractor motion directions or motion speeds. This pattern suggests that additional processing of motion stimuli occurred prior to the propagation of visual information into the oculomotor system. We examined the interaction of distractor processing time (DPT) with two additional factors: saccadic reaction time (SRT) and saccadic amplitude. Shorter SRTs were associated with shorter DPT latencies of biased saccade trajectories. Both SRT and saccadic amplitude were associated with the magnitude of saccade trajectory biases.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72752,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current research in neurobiology\",\"volume\":\"4 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100092\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/95/7d/main.PMC10313862.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current research in neurobiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665945X23000207\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current research in neurobiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665945X23000207","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Motion distractors perturb saccade programming later in time than static distractors
The mechanism that reweights oculomotor vectors based on visual features is unclear. However, the latency of oculomotor visual activations gives insight into their antecedent featural processing. We compared the oculomotor processing time course of grayscale, task-irrelevant static and motion distractors during target selection by continuously measuring a battery of human saccadic behavioral metrics as a function of time after distractor onset. The motion direction was towards or away from the target and the motion speed was fast or slow. We compared static and motion distractors and observed that both distractors elicited curved saccades and shifted endpoints at short latencies (∼25 ms). After 50 ms, saccade trajectory biasing elicited by motion distractors lagged static distractor trajectory biasing by 10 ms. There were no such latency differences between distractor motion directions or motion speeds. This pattern suggests that additional processing of motion stimuli occurred prior to the propagation of visual information into the oculomotor system. We examined the interaction of distractor processing time (DPT) with two additional factors: saccadic reaction time (SRT) and saccadic amplitude. Shorter SRTs were associated with shorter DPT latencies of biased saccade trajectories. Both SRT and saccadic amplitude were associated with the magnitude of saccade trajectory biases.