Advertisement

Saccadic Inhibition in Complex Visual Tasks

  • Eyal M. Reingold
  • Dave M. Stampe
Chapter

Abstract

Several gaze contingent studies that used a fixed delay between physical eye movements and a display change documented a dip in the fixation duration distributions (e.g., Blanchard et al. 1984; McConkie et al. 1985; van Diepen et al. 1995). In a study by van Diepen et al. (1995), a moving mask paradigm was employed in which subjects searched line drawings of everyday scenes for non-objects. The appearance of the mask was delayed relative to the end of a saccade (beginning of fixation) by 17, 46, 76 or 121 msec. All fixation duration distributions in the masking conditions exhibited a dip with longer masking delays resulting in the dip occurring at longer fixation durations. In contrast, a no-mask condition did not produce a dip. Similar effects in reading were reported by Blanchard et al. (1984), and McConkie et al. (1985). In both these studies the text was masked at a fixed delay from the end of the saccade, and the fixation duration distributions exhibited dips. McConkie et al. (1992) interpreted these dips as reflecting a disruption to automatic, parallel encoding or registration processes that are time locked to the onset of the visual pattern on the retina. Processing disruption causes an eye movement disruption after a constant transmission delay in the neural system.

Keywords

Visual Search Fixation Duration Visual Search Task Saccade Latency Random Delay 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Blanchard HE, McConkie GW, Zola D, Wolverton GS (1984) Time course of visual information utilization during fixations in reading. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 10:75–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dorris MC, Munoz DP (1995) A neural correlate for the gap effect on saccadic reaction times in monkeys. J Neurophysiol 73:2558–2562PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. McConkie GW, Underwood NR, Zola D, Wolverton GS (1985) Some temporal characteristics of processing during reading. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 11:168–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. McConkie GW, Reddix MD, Zola D (1992) Perception and cognition in reading: Where is the meeting point? In: Rayner K (ed) Eye movements and visual cognition: Scene perception and reading. Springer Verlag, NY, pp 293–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Munoz DP, Wurtz RH (1993) Fixation cells in monkey superior colliculus. I. Characteristics of cell discharge. J Neurophysiol 70:559–575.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Ross LE, Ross SM (1980) Saccade latency and warning signals: Stimulus onset, offset, and change as warning events. Percept Psychophys 27:251–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ross SM, Ross LE (1981) Saccade latency and warning signals: Effects of auditory and visual stimulus onset and offset. Percept Psychophys 29:429–437PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. van Diepen PMJ, De Graef P, d’Ydewalle G (1995) Chronometry of foveal information extraction during scene perception. In: Findlay JM, Walker R, Kentridge RW (eds) Eye movement research: Mechanisms, processes and applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 349–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Walker R, Deubel H, Schneider WX, Findlay JM (1997) Effect of remote distractors on saccade programming: Evidence for an extended fixation zone. J Neurophysiol 78:1108–1119PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eyal M. Reingold
    • 1
  • Dave M. Stampe
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations