Expand this Topic clickable element to expand a topic
Skip to content
Optica Publishing Group

Interaction between lateral and eccentricity-dependent preferences in saccadic responses

Not Accessible

Your library or personal account may give you access

Abstract

Eye movement responses to dual targets provide insight into mechanisms of visual information acquisition. It was previously shown1 that symmetric point targets stimulating both hemispheres require extra processing time compared to either a single or a dual unidirectional stimulus. These so-called bifurcating point stimuli reveal the existence of preferred lateral direction. We substantiate and refine these results incorporating the effects of eccentricity. In the case of a unidirectional dual target an absolute preference exists for the target closer to the fovea. Responses to asymmetric bihemifield stimuli show that the lateral direction preference is contingent on target eccentricities. Being close to the fovea enchances, whereas being away from the fovea inhibits, the preference level of the point target. If one of the points is delayed, the overall lateral, spatial, and temporal preferences determine the response direction. At large interpoint delays for which the second point is still the preferred one, the response time measured with respect to the onset of this target is much shorter than the average latency. We propose a stochastic model accounting for the temporal aspect of our observations. Each point stimulus is processed in a separate channel in two stages, the first providing a general intermediate output utilizable in the processing of any additional input. Interaction between opposite hemispheric channels results in longer response duration due to the second stage processing time. The model reproduces the timing of events in responses to dual targets.

© 1985 Optical Society of America

PDF Article
More Like This
Accommodation to stimuli in peripheral vision?

Y. Gu and Gordon E. Legge
THH7 OSA Annual Meeting (FIO) 1985

Rod and cone responses in the flicker ERG

Kenneth R. Alexander, Gerald A. Fishman, and Phyllis Bobak
TUZ2 OSA Annual Meeting (FIO) 1985

Why rod cone interactions?

Steven L. Buck, Roger Knight, and John Hogden
TUZ1 OSA Annual Meeting (FIO) 1985

Select as filters


Select Topics Cancel
© Copyright 2024 | Optica Publishing Group. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies.