Location- and feature-based selection histories make independent, qualitatively distinct contributions to urgent visuomotor performance

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Oor et al. report the potentially independent effects of the spatial and feature-based selection history on visuomotor choices. They outline compelling evidence, tracking the dynamic history effects based on their clever experimental design (urgent version of the search task). Their finding broadens the framework to identify variables contributing to choice behavior and their neural correlates in future studies.

Strengths:

In their urgent search task, the variable processing time of the visual cue leads to a dichotomy in choice performance - uninformed guesses vs. informed choices. Oor et al. did rigorous analyses to find a stronger influence of the location-based selection history on the uninformed guesses and a stronger influence of the feature-based selection history on the informed choices. It is a fundamental finding that contributes to understanding the drivers of behavioral variance. The results are clear.

Weaknesses:

(1) In this urgent search task, as the authors stated in line 724, the variability in performance was mainly driven by the amount of time available for processing the visual cue. The authors used processing time (PT) as the proxy for this "time available for processing the visual cue." But PT itself is already a measure of behavioral variance since it is also determined by the subject's reaction time (i.e., PT = Reaction time (RT) - Gap). In that sense, it seems circular to explain the variability in performance using the variability in PT. I understand the Gap time and PT are correlated (hinted by the RT vs. Gap in Figure 1C), but Gap time seems to be more adequate to use as a proxy for the (imposed) time available for processing the visual cue, which drives the behavioral variance. Can the Gap time better explain some of the results? It would be important to describe how the results are different (or the same) if Gap time was used instead of PT and also discuss why the authors would prefer PT over Gap time (if that's the case).

(2) The authors provide a compelling account of how the urgent search task affords
(i) more pronounced selection history effects on choice and
(ii) dissociating the spatial and feature-based history effects by comparing their different effects on the tachometric curves. However, the authors didn't discuss the limits of their task design enough. It is a contrived task (one of the "laboratoray tasks"), but the behavioral variability in this simple task is certainly remarkable. Yet, is there any conclusion we should avoid from this study? For instance, can we generalize the finding in more natural settings and say, the spatial selection history influences the choice under time pressure? I wonder whether the task is simple yet general enough to make such a conclusion.

(3) Although the authors aimed to look at both inter- and intra-trial temporal dynamics, I'm not sure if the results reflect the true within-trial dynamics. I expected to learn more about how the spatial selection history bias develops as the Gap period progresses (as the authors mentioned in line 386, the spatial history bias must develop during the Gap interval). Does Figure 3 provide some hints in this within-trial temporal dynamics?

(4) The monkeys show significant lapse rates (enough error trials for further analyses). Do the choices in the error trials reflect the history bias? For example, if errors are divided in terms of PTs, do the errors with short PT reflect more pronounced spatial history bias (choosing the previously selected location) compared to the errors with long PT?

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This is a clear and systematic study of trial history influences on the performance of monkeys in a target selection paradigm. The primary contribution of the paper is to add a twist in which the target information is revealed after, rather than before, the cue to make a foveating eye movement. This twist results in a kind of countermanding of an earlier "uninformed" saccade plan by a new one occurring right after the visual information is provided. As with countermanding tasks in general, time now plays a key factor in the success of this task, and it is time that allows the authors to quantitatively assess the parametric influences of things like previous target location, previous target identity, and previous correctness rate on choice performance. The results are logical and consistent with the prior literature, but the authors also highlight novelties in the interpretation of prior-trial effects that they argue are enabled by the use of their paradigm.

Strengths:

Careful analysis of a multitude of variables influencing behavior

Weaknesses:

Results appear largely confirmatory.