Multisensory integration of target and distractor information within a common retinotopic motor map
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presentation of a remote - but not proximal – visual distractor concurrent with the onset of a visual target increases saccade reaction times (RT) (i.e., the remote distractor effect: RDE). The competitive integration model asserts that the RDE represents the time required to resolve the conflict for a common saccade threshold between target- and distractor-related saccade generating commands in the superior colliculus (SC). Notably, the SC serves as a sensorimotor interface supporting the uni- and multidimensional (i.e., visual and auditory) integration of task-relevant information. As such, an extension of the RDE is that the conflict related to saccade generation signals is sensory-independent and manifests via visual and/or auditory target/distractor spatial information. To address this issue, the present work employed experiments wherein a visual target was paired with an auditory distractor (proximal and remote) (Experiment 1), and when an auditory target was paired with a visual distractor (Experiment 2). Further, responses were directed to the veridical (i.e., prosaccade) and mirror-symmetrical (i.e., antisaccade) location of visual/auditory targets. The basis for including antisaccades was to determine whether the sensory- or motor-related properties of a distractor influence saccade planning. Experiment 1 showed that pro- and antisaccade distractor trials produced RTs that were longer than their no-distractor counterparts – a result independent of distractor location. Experiment 2 showed that prosaccades were refractory to our distractor manipulation, whereas proximal and remote distractors respectively shortened and iengthened antisaccade RTs. Thus, the RDE is a sensory-specific phenomenon relating to conflicting 'visual' signals within a common retinotopic motor map.Acknowledgments: Supported by NSERC.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".