AB063. Contrasting effects of exogenous attention on saccades and reaches
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: The goal of the present study was to determine whether exogenous attentional mechanisms involved in motor planning for saccades and reaches are the same for both effectors or are independent for each effector. We compared how eye and arm movement parameters, notably reaction time and amplitude, are affected by modulating exogenous attentional visual cues at different locations relative to a target. Methods: Thirteen participants (M =22.8, SD =1.5) were asked to perform a task involving exogenous attentional allocation and movement planning. The participants were asked to fixate and maintain their hand at an initial position on a screen in front of them (left or right of screen centre) and then, at the disappearance of the fixation cross, perform an eye or arm movement, or both, to a target square (mirror location of fixation cross). A distractor appeared momentarily just before the appearance of the target at one of seven equidistant locations on the horizontal meridian. Saccade reaction times (SRTs), reach reaction times (RRTs) and amplitudes were calculated. Results: Compared to the neutral condition (where no distractor was presented), distractors overall did not result in a facilitation of SRTs at any location (shorter SRTs), rather only a strong inhibition (longer SRTs) as a function of distractor target distance. In contrast, RRTs showed strong facilitation at the target location and less inhibition at further distances. However, both SRTs and RRTs followed a similar pattern in that RTs were shortest closer to the target position and were increasingly longer as a function of distractor target distance. In terms of amplitude, there was no effect of the distractor on reach endpoints, whereas, for saccades, there was an averaging effect of distractor position on saccade endpoints, but only for saccades with short SRTs. These effects were similar when either effector movement was performed alone or together. Conclusions: These findings suggest that attentional selection mechanisms have both similar and differential effects on motor planning depending on the effectors used, providing evidence for both effector independent and effector dependent attentional selection mechanisms. This study furthers understanding of the operating mechanisms of exogenous attention on eye and arm movements and the interaction between sensory and motor systems.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».