Coupling of saccade plans to endogenous attention during urgent choices
- Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy, Wake Forest School of Medicine, United States
Figures
Figure 1
The endogenously driven pro/antisaccade task.
(a) A prosaccade trial begins with a fixation period (Fixation, 500, 600, or 700 ms). The disappearance of the fixation point (Go) instructs the participant to look to the left or to the right within a reaction time (RT) window of 425–450 ms. After a variable time gap (Gap, 0–350 ms), a colored cue and a neutral non-cue appear simultaneously (Cue on) at locations that remain fixed for a block of trials. Thus, the participant always knows the cue location. The green color instructs the participant to look at the cue (Saccade). (b) An antisaccade trial proceeds in the same way as a prosaccade trial except that the magenta color instructs the participant to look at the non-cue. Pro- and antisaccade trials are randomly interleaved. In both, performance is dictated by the raw processing time (rPT), which is the amount of time during which the stimuli can be viewed and assessed before a response is initiated. The luminances of the stimuli can be set to balance the exogenous responses to the cue and non-cue (Experiments 1 and 2), or to create a bias toward either (Experiments 3 and 4).
Figure 2 with 4 supplements
Performance in pro- (blue traces) and antisaccade trials (red traces) in four experiments where cue and non-cue luminance was varied.
Each panel plots two tachometric curves. Each point on a curve indicates the fraction of correct choices for all the trials falling within a given processing time (rPT) bin (bin width=31 ms). (a) Performance in pro trials in Experiments 1 (high luminance cue, high luminance non-cue) and 2 (low luminance cue, low luminance non-cue). (b) As in a, but for anti trials. (c) Performance in pro trials in Experiments 3 (high luminance cue, low luminance non-cue) and 4 (low luminance cue, high luminance non-cue). (d) As in c, but for anti trials. Luminance combinations for cue and non-cue are indicated for each curve. In all panels, data are pooled across participants that met a performance criterion (; Methods). Error bands indicate 95% confidence intervals (CIs) across trials, from binomial statistics.
Figure 2—figure supplement 1
Performance in easy trials and inclusion criterion.
Easy trials were those in which the cue and non-cue stimuli were revealed before the go signal was given (gap < 0), so participants typically had more time to process the cue information. Bars show mean performance in easy pro (blue) and easy anti trials (red), averaged across experiments, for each participant. Black dots indicate performance in easy trials in each of the four experiments. The performance criterion was met when the fraction correct in easy trials was above 0.7 (dotted line). Participants who met the criterion in both tasks (pro and anti) in all four experiments were considered reliable performers (; participants ranked 1–8 and 11–13). Others () were considered unreliable performers. Participants are sorted by their overall antisaccade performance.
Figure 2—figure supplement 2
Tachometric curves from unreliable performers.
The plots in this figure are analogous to those in Figure 2, but present data from the participants that did not meet the performance criterion (). (a) Tachometric curves for pro trials in Experiments 1 (high luminance cue, high luminance non-cue) and 2 (low luminance cue, low luminance non-cue). (b) As in a, but for anti trials. (c) Tachometric curves for pro trials in Experiments 3 (high luminance cue, low luminance non-cue) and 4 (low luminance cue, high luminance, non-cue). (d) As in c, but for anti trials. Luminance combinations for cue and non-cue are indicated for each curve. Error bands indicate 95% confidence intervals (CIs) across trials. During guesses (raw processing time [rPT]≤75 ms), the saccades of unreliable performers are strongly biased toward the cue, but additional exogenous capture is clearly visible in Experiments 3 and 4.
Figure 2—figure supplement 3
Prosaccade versus antisaccade performance aggregated across all the participants.
Each panel compares the tachometric curve for pro trials (blue) with that from anti trials (red) based on data from a given experiment pooled across all the participants. (a–d) Tachometric curves from Experiments 1–4, as labeled. Error bands indicate 95% confidence intervals (CIs) across trials. In all cases, the endogenously driven rise in performance (for raw processing time [rPT] ≳ 135 ms) occurs earlier during pro trials than during anti trials.
Figure 2—figure supplement 4
Individual participants demonstrate varying degrees of bias and exogenous capture.
Each panel shows two tachometric curves, one for prosaccades (blue) and another for antisaccades (red). Columns 1–4 correspond to Experiments 1–4, as indicated. Shaded error bands indicate 68% confidence intervals (CIs). (a) Data from a participant demonstrating a slight bias toward the cue (columns 3, 4) and minimal exogenous capture. (b) Data from a participant demonstrating a moderate, consistent bias toward the non-cue and a moderate level of exogenous capture. (c) Data from a participant demonstrating a sometimes strong bias toward the cue (column 2) and strong exogenous capture.
Figure 3
Exogenous capture across participants, tasks, and experiments.
(a) Tachometric curves for pro (blue) and anti trials (red) in Experiment 3 (high luminance cue, low luminance non-cue). Data are from the reliable performers (). Shaded regions show the fixed raw processing time (rPT) window used for quantifying exogenous capture (83–124 ms). (b) Bar plots show fraction correct (y axis) in the exogenous capture window marked in a for all participants (x axis; ). Pro- (blue) and antisaccade results (red) are from Experiment 3, with participants sorted by their fraction correct in pro trials. Color of axis labels indicates reliable (black) and unreliable (gray) participants. Black lines indicate 95% confidence intervals (CIs). (c) As in a, but for the data from Experiment 4 (low luminance cue, high luminance non-cue). (d) As in b, but for the data from Experiment 4. Participants are sorted by their fraction correct in anti trials. Note that capture is generally symmetric between pro and anti trials.
Figure 4
Antisaccades require more processing time than prosaccades.
(a) Bars show mean rise point (±1 SE across participants) for pro trials in Experiments 1 and 2. Participants were included if their performance met a minimum modulation criterion in both experiments (Methods). Circles show data for individual qualifying participants ( 10; 0.08 for the difference, from paired permutation test). (b) As in a, but for anti trials and corresponding qualifying participants (; ). (c) Bars compare mean rise point (±1 SE across participants) in pro (raw processing time [rPT] = 167 ms) versus anti trials (rPT=202 ms). Data for each participant were pooled across Experiments 1 and 2. Participants were included if their combined performance met a minimum modulation criterion in both pro and anti trials (). Asterisk indicates for the difference, from paired permutation test. (d) Tachometric curves for prosaccades (blue) and antisaccades (red). Data were pooled across Experiments 1 and 2 and across participants (; same group as in panel c). Blue and red lines denote rise points for pro (rPT = 165 ms) and anti trials (rPT = 194 ms). (e) As in d, but for data pooled across Experiments 3 and 4. Blue and red lines denote rise points for pro (rPT = 152 ms) and anti trials (rPT = 187 ms).
Figure 5
Guesses are biased toward the attended cue.
Uninformed choices made at very short cue viewing times (raw processing time [rPT] ≤ 75 ms) are considered guesses. (a) Overall fraction of guesses made toward the cue (y axis), with participants (x axis) ranked by effect size. Results are for data aggregated across Experiments 1–4 and trial types (pro and anti). Color of axis labels indicates reliable (black) and unreliable (gray) participants. Thick and thin lines indicate 68% and 95% binomial confidence intervals (CIs). (b) Overall fraction of guesses made toward the cue in each experiment. Results are for data aggregated across trial types (pro and anti). Participant ranking is the same as above. Bar colors correspond to Experiments 1–4, as indicated. Lines correspond to 95% CIs.
Figure 6
Covariation between motor bias and the processing-time cost of making an antisaccade.
(a) Tachometric curves for pro (blue) and anti (red) trials from one participant whose motor bias was toward the cue. After fitting each curve with a sigmoid function (black traces), the halfway point between minimum and maximum values was determined. The highest halfway point (dashed line) served as a criterion. The mean time cost for an antisaccade, Δ rPT, was set as the difference (anti minus pro) between the raw processing times (rPTs) at which that criterion was reached (vertical lines). The corresponding motor bias magnitude for the participant, Δ bias, was set as the difference between the minimum values of the two fitted curves (pro minus anti). Each curve includes data from all experiments. (b) As in a, but for a participant whose motor bias was away from the cue. (c) Time cost of an antisaccade (y axis) as a function of motor bias magnitude (x axis). Each point corresponds to one participant ( participants with acceptable fits). Data points from the two example participants in a and b are indicated. The dotted line corresponds to linear regression.
Figure 7
The transition from uninformed to informed performance is more rapid for prosaccades than for antisaccades.
Processing times were divided into four non-overlapping ranges: a guessing range (G, raw processing time [rPT] ≤ 75 ms), a capture range (C, 83 ≤ rPT ≤ 124 ms), a transition range (T, 135 ≤ rPT < 200 ms), and an asymptotic range (A, rPT ≥ 200 ms); see inset at bottom. The fraction of correct choices was then computed separately for pro and anti trials in each experiment, in each rPT window, and for each participant. Responses in the T and A windows are informed by the cue color, whereas those in the G and C windows are not. (a) Results in Experiment 1. Fraction correct is shown for each of the four rPT windows. Black dots indicate data from individual participants (); blue and red bars show mean values for pro and anti trials, respectively, averaged across participants. The dotted line indicates chance performance. (b–d) As in a, but for Experiments 2–4. (e) Performance in anti trials (y axis) versus pro trials (x axis) with processing times in the transition range. Different symbols correspond to data from Experiments 1–4, as indicated, with one data point per participant. The dotted line indicates equality. Given the same amount of processing time, performance was typically higher during prosaccades than during antisaccades. (f) Differences between pro and antisaccade performance in the transition range (y axis) compared to those in the guessing range (x axis). Each point represents one participant () with data pooled across experiments. The dotted line corresponds to linear regression.
Tables
Table 1
Stimulus parameters.
| Stimulus | RGB vector | Luminance (cd/m2) |
|---|---|---|
| High luminance green (cue) | [0 0.88 0] | 48 |
| Low luminance green (cue) | [0 0.1067 0] | 0.25 |
| High luminance magenta (cue) | [0.935 0.255 0.935] | 48 |
| Low luminance magenta (cue) | [0.1247 0.034 0.1247] | 0.25 |
| High luminance gray (non-cue) | [0.61 0.61 0.61] | 48 |
| Low luminance gray (non-cue) | [0.0813 0.0813 0.0813] | 0.25 |
Additional files
Download links
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Coupling of saccade plans to endogenous attention during urgent choices
eLife 13:RP97883.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.97883.3
