SUCCESSFUL COUNTERMANDING AFFECTS PRESACCADIC ATTENTION AT THE SACCADE GOAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well known that prior to a saccade, attention shifts to the saccade goal, improving perceptual discrimination at that location. Here we investigated subjects’ ability to shift attention during a saccade countermanding task, in which they were asked to stop the execution of a saccade for a portion of trials. We hypothesized that stopping the saccade may disrupt the attentional shift to the saccade goal location. Ten subjects discriminated a letter at one of 6 target locations and at the same time performed saccades as fast as possible to one these locations as indicated by a central arrow. A discrimination letter flashed during the saccade latency either at the arrow location 50% of the time (congruent condition) or randomly at one of the other 5 target locations (incongruent condition). During Stop trials (25% of trials), the central arrow turned red, indicating to subjects not to make a saccade; the central arrow turned red at different delays (0-150ms) after it appeared (stop signal delay - SSD). The longer the SSD, the less able subjects were at stopping the saccade. For successful Stop trials, discrimination performance was significantly better in the congruent condition (60%) compared to the incongruent condition (39.8%). However, for the congruent condition, performance was much lower than that of successful Go trials (78.6%). Performance was also significantly lower than performance in the congruent condition in a covert attention control without eye movements (80.2%). In summary, while there still remains a certain amount of attention at the saccade goal when the saccade is stopped, it is greatly reduced compared to when it is not stopped or when a saccade is never required. These results suggest that stopping a saccade affects the attention shift to that location and that attention is disrupted by saccade inhibition processes. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".