Psychological Research

, 72:630 | Cite as

The time course of presaccadic attention shifts

  • Heiner DeubelEmail author
Original Article


The dynamics of the allocation of attention during the preparation of saccadic eye movements was studied in a dual task paradigm. As the primary task, participants had to perform a saccade to letter-like items arranged on a clock face. The secondary task was a 2AFC discrimination task in which a discrimination target (DT) (‘E’ or ‘3’) was presented among distractors, either at the saccade goal, or at a spatially separate, precued location. In the first experiment, the position of the DT was kept constant within an experimental block, while the saccade target location varied. In the second experiment, the location of the DT was varied while the saccade target remained the same within a block. The data demonstrate that attentional dynamics differs between the experiments—attention can shift to the saccade goal early or late during the saccade preparation period, depending on the task. Immediately before saccade onset, however, discrimination performance at the location of the saccade target is always superior to other locations, arguing for a strict and selective coupling between saccade preparation and attention.


Stimulus Onset Asynchrony Saccade Latency Attention Shift Saccade Target Colour Singleton 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Grant De 336/2) and by the DFG Cluster of Excellence “Cognition for Technical Systems”.


  1. Baldauf, D., & Deubel, H. (2008). Properties of attentional selection during the preparation of sequential saccades. Experimental Brain Research, 184(3), 411–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldauf, D., Wolf, M., & Deubel, H. (2006). Deployment of visual attention before sequences of goal-directed hand movements. Vision Research, 46, 4355–4374.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Castet, E., Jeanjean, S., Montagnini, A., & Masson, G. M. (2006). Dynamic of attentional deployment during saccadic programming. Journal of Vision, 6, 196–212.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheal, M., & Lyon, D. R. (1991). Central and peripheral precuing of forced-choice discrimination. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A, 859–880.Google Scholar
  5. Crane, H. D., & Steele, C. M. (1985). Generation V dual-Purkinje-image eye-tracker. Applied Optics, 24, 527–537.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deubel, H., & Schneider, W. X. (1996). Saccade target selection and object recognition: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism. Vision Research, 36, 1827–1837.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deubel, H., & Schneider, W. X. (2003). Delayed saccades, but not delayed manual aiming movements, require visual attention shifts. Annals of the New York Academy Science, 1004, 289–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deubel, H., Schneider, W. X., & Paprotta, I. (1998). Selective dorsal and ventral processing: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism in reaching and perception. Visual Cognition, 5, 81–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dore-Mazars, K., Pouget, P., & Beauvillain, C. (2004). Attentional selection during preparation of eye movements. Psychological Research, 69(1–2), 67–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duncan, J., Ward, R., & Shapiro, K. (1994). Direct measurement of attentional dwell time in human vision. Nature, 369, 313–315.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Godijn, R., & Theeuwes, J. (2003). Parallel allocation of attention prior to the execution of saccade sequences. Journal of Experimantal Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 882–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoffman, J. E., & Subramaniam, B. (1995). The role of visual attention in saccadic eye movements. Perception and Psychophysics, 57, 787–795.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hunt, A. R., & Kingstone, A. (2003a). Covert and overt voluntary attention: linked or independent? Cognitive Brain Research, 18, 102–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hunt, A. R., & Kingstone, A. (2003b). Inhibition of return: Dissociating attentional and oculomotor components. Journal Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 1068–1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Inhoff, A. W., Eiter, B. M., & Radach, R. (2005). Time course of linguistic information extraction from consecutive words during eye fixations in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 979–995.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Juan, C. H., Shorter-Jacobi, S. M., & Schall, J. D. (2004). Dissociation of spatial attention and saccade preparation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 101(43), 15541–15544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kliegl, R., Nuthmann, A., & Engbert, R. (2006). Tracking the mind during reading: The influence of past, present, and future words on fixation durations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 12–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kowler, E., Anderson, E., Dosher, B., & Blaser, E. (1995). The role of attention in the programming of saccades. Vision Research, 35(13), 1897–1916.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kröse, B. J. A., & Julesz, B. (1989). The control and speed of shifts of attention. Vision Research, 29, 1607–1619.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kustov, A. A., & Robinson, D. L. (1996). Shared neural control of attentional shifts and eye movements. Nature, 384, 74–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nakayama, K., & Mackeben, M. (1989). Sustained and transient components of focal visual-attention. Vision Research, 29(11), 1631–1647.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Reichle, E. R., Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (2003). The E-Z Reader model of eye movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models. Behavioral and Brain Science, 1–89.Google Scholar
  23. Reingold, E. M., & Stampe, D. M. (2000). Saccadic inhibition and gaze contingent research paradigms. In A. Kennedy, R. Radach, D. Heller, & J. Pynte (Eds.), Reading as a perceptual process (pp. 119–145). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  24. Rizzolatti, G., Riggio, L., Dascola, I., & Umiltá, C. (1987). Reorienting attention across the horizontal and vertical meridians: Evidence in favour of a premotor theory of attention. Neuropsychologia, 25, 31–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rizzolatti, G., Riggio, L., & Sheliga, B. M. (1994). Space and selective attention. In C. Umiltà, & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and Performance XV. Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 231–265). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Sato, T. R., & Schall, J. D. (2003). Effects of stimulus-response compatibility on neural selection in frontal eye field. Neuron, 38, 637–648.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schneider, W. X. (1995). VAM: A neuro-cognitive model for attention control of segmentation, object recognition and space-based motor action. Visual Cognition, 2, 331–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schneider, W. X., & Deubel, H. (2002). Selection-for-perception and selection-for-spatial-motor-action are coupled by visual attention: A review of recent findings and new evidence from stimulus-driven saccade control. In W. Prinz, & B. Hommel (Eds.), Attention and Performance XIX: Common Mechanisms in Perception and Action (pp. 609–627). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Theeuwes, J., Godijn, R., & Pratt, J. (2004). A new estimation of the duration of attentional dwell time. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11(1), 60–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Walker, R., Deubel, H., Schneider, W. X., & Findlay, J. M. (1997). Effect of remote distractors on saccade programming: evidence for an extended fixation zone. Journal of Neurophysiology, 78, 1108–1119.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Ward, R., Duncan, J., & Shapiro, K. (1997). Effects of similarity, difficulty, and nontarget presentation on the time course of visual attention. Perception and Psychophysics, 59 (4), 593–600.Google Scholar
  32. Wolf, W., & Deubel, H. (1997). P31 phosphor persistence at photopic mean luminance level. Spatial Vision, 10, 323–333.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department PsychologieLudwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations