Experimental Brain Research

, Volume 204, Issue 1, pp 115–118 | Cite as

An anti-Hick’s effect for exogenous, but not endogenous, saccadic eye movements

  • Bonnie M. Lawrence
Research Article


Previously, we have shown that the reaction times (RTs) of exogenously generated saccadic eye movements decrease with an increase in the number of response alternatives (Lawrence et al. in J Vis 8(26):1–7, 2008; Lawrence and Gardella in Exp Brain Res 195(3):413–418, 2009). Because this pattern of RTs is in the direction opposite that predicted by Hick (Q J Exp Psychol 4:11–26, 1952), we termed the effect an “anti-Hick’s” effect. In the present study, we examined whether this effect characterizes saccades in general, or only those saccades that are exogenously generated. An anti-Hick’s effect was found for exogenous, but not for endogenous, saccades. These results demonstrate a clear dissociation between exogenously and endogenously generated saccades and place an important constraint on the anti-Hick’s effect.


Saccade Endogenous Exogenous Anti-Hick's effect Hick's law 



The author wishes to thank Richard A. Abrams for reading an earlier version of the manuscript, Andrew Gardella for his assistance with data collection, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.


  1. Abrams RA, Dobkin RS (1994) Inhibition of return: effects of attentional cuing on eye movement latencies. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 20:467–477CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrams RA, Oonk HM, Pratt J (1998) Fixation point offsets facilitate endogenous saccades. Percept Psychophys 60:201–208PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Forbes K, Klein RM (1996) The magnitude of the fixation offset effect with endogenously and exogenously controlled saccades. J Cogn Neurosci 8:344–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Heywood S, Churcher J (1980) Structure of the visual array and saccadic latency: implications for oculomotor control. Q J Exp Psychol 32:335–341CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Hick WE (1952) On the rate of gain of information. Q J Exp Psychol 4:11–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hyman R (1953) Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. J Exp Psychol 45:188–196CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Kveraga K, Boucher L, Hughes HC (2002) Saccades operate in violation of Hick’s law. Exp Brain Res 146:307–314CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Lawrence BM, Gardella AL (2009) Saccades and reaches, behaving differently. Exp Brain Res 195(3):413–418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Lawrence BM, St John A, Abrams RA, Snyder LH (2008) An anti-Hick’s effect in monkey and human saccade reaction times. J Vis 8(26):1–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Lee KM, Keller EL, Heinen SJ (2005) Properties of saccades generated as a choice response. Exp Brain Res 162:278–286CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Longstreth LE, el-Zahhar N, Alcorn MB (1985) Exceptions to Hick’s law: explorations with a response duration measure. J Exp Psychol Gen 114:417–434CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Marino RA, Munoz DP (2009) The effects of bottom-up target luminance and top-down spatial target predictability on saccadic reaction times. Exp Brain Res 197(4):321–335CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Rafal RD, Calabresi PA, Brennan CW, Sciolto TK (1989) Saccade preparation inhibits reorienting to recently attended locations. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 15(4):673–685CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Teichner WH, Krebs MJ (1974) Laws of visual choice reaction time. Psychol Rev 81:75–98CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Thiem PD, Hill JA, Lee KM, Keller EL (2008) Behavioral properties of saccades generated as a choice response. Exp Brain Res 186:355–364CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Wright CE, Marino VF, Belovsky SA, Chubb C (2007) Visually guided, aimed movements can be unaffected by stimulus–response uncertainty. Exp Brain Res 179:475–496CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyCase Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations