P31 phosphor persistence at photopic mean luminance level.

P31 phosphor screens are frequently used for short-term presentation of dot and grating patterns, but experimental data obtained with this technique have been criticized because of possible parasitic effects of phosphor persistence on subjects' visual performance. Recently, this issue provoked a controversial discussion in Vision Research (Groner et al., 1993; Westheimer, 1993, 1994; Irwin, 1994; Di Lollo et al., 1994) which was concerned with persistence effects of P31 screens for dot patterns. Supplementing this discussion, the present work deals with the effects of different types of patterns (dot pattern vs. gratings) and background mean-luminance levels (scotopic vs. phototopic) on phosphor persistence. Physical measurements of P31 persistence occurring with grating patterns of a mean luminance of 20 cd m-2 (i.e. photopic range) were obtained by using an extremely linear photometer with high temporal resolution. Under this photopic condition, the measurements demonstrate a fast decay of residual grating contrast to 1.4% of its original value within 50 ms after pattern offset. This phosphor behavior must be considered when designing an experiment with a P31 screen though it certainly embodies no problems in many applications

A dynamic 1/f noise protocol to assess visual attention without biasing perceptual processing

Psychophysical paradigms measure visual attention via localized test items to which observers must react or whose features have to be discriminated. These items, however, potentially interfere with the intended measurement, as they bias observers' spatial and temporal attention to their location and presentation time. Furthermore, visual sensitivity for conventional test items naturally decreases with retinal eccentricity, which prevents direct comparison of central and peripheral attention assessments. We developed a stimulus that overcomes these limitations. A brief oriented discrimination signal is seamlessly embedded into a continuously changing 1/f noise field, such that observers cannot anticipate potential test locations or times. Using our new protocol, we demonstrate that local orientation discrimination accuracy for 1/f filtered signals is largely independent of retinal eccentricity. Moreover, we show that items present in the visual field indeed shape the distribution of visual attention, suggesting that classical studies investigating the spatiotemporal dynamics of visual attention via localized test items may have obtained a biased measure. We recommend our protocol as an efficient method to evaluate the behavioral and neurophysiological correlates of attentional orienting across space and time

Attention allocation before antisaccades

In the present study, we investigated the distribution of attention before antisaccades. We used a dual task paradigm, in which participants made prosaccades or antisaccades and discriminated the orientation of a visual probe shown at the saccade goal, the visual cue location (antisaccade condition), or a neutral location. Moreover, participants indicated whether they had made a correct antisaccade or an erroneous prosaccade. We observed that, while spatial attention in the prosaccade task was allocated only to the saccade goal, attention in the antisaccade task was allocated both to the cued location and to the antisaccade goal. This suggests parallel attentional selection of the cued and antisaccade locations. We further observed that in error trials-in which participants made an incorrect prosaccade instead of an antisaccade-spatial attention was biased towards the prosaccade goal. These erroneous prosaccades were mostly unnoticed and were often followed by corrective antisaccades with very short latencies (<100 ms). Data from error trials therefore provide further evidence for the parallel programming of the reflexive prosaccade to the cue and the antisaccade to the intended location. Taken together, our results suggest that attention allocation and saccade goal selection in the antisaccade task are mediated by a common competitive process

The spread of presaccadic attention depends on the spatial configuration of the visual scene

When preparing a saccade, attentional resources are focused at the saccade target and its immediate vicinity. Here we show that this does not hold true when saccades are prepared toward a recently extinguished target. We obtained detailed maps of orientation sensitivity when participants prepared a saccade toward a target that either remained on the screen or disappeared before the eyes moved. We found that attention was mainly focused on the immediate surround of the visible target and spread to more peripheral locations as a function of the distance from the cue and the delay between the target’s disappearance and the saccade. Interestingly, this spread was not accompanied with a spread of the saccade endpoint. These results suggest that presaccadic attention and saccade programming are two distinct processes that can be dissociated as a function of their interaction with the spatial configuration of the visual scene

Attention allocation before antisaccades

In the present study, we investigated the distribution of attention before antisaccades. We used a dual task paradigm, in which participants made prosaccades or antisaccades and discriminated the orientation of a visual probe shown at the saccade goal, the visual cue location (antisaccade condition), or a neutral location. Moreover, participants indicated whether they had made a correct antisaccade or an erroneous prosaccade. We observed that, while spatial attention in the prosaccade task was allocated only to the saccade goal, attention in the antisaccade task was allocated both to the cued location and to the antisaccade goal. This suggests parallel attentional selection of the cued and antisaccade locations. We further observed that in error trials-in which participants made an incorrect prosaccade instead of an antisaccade-spatial attention was biased towards the prosaccade goal. These erroneous prosaccades were mostly unnoticed and were often followed by corrective antisaccades with very short latencies (<100 ms). Data from error trials therefore provide further evidence for the parallel programming of the reflexive prosaccade to the cue and the antisaccade to the intended location. Taken together, our results suggest that attention allocation and saccade goal selection in the antisaccade task are mediated by a common competitive process

Independent Effects of Eye and Hand Movements on Visual Working Memory

Both eye and hand movements have been shown to selectively interfere with visual working memory. We investigated working memory in the context of simultaneous eye-hand movements to approach the question whether the eye and the hand movement systems independently interact with visual working memory. Participants memorized several locations and performed eye, hand, or simultaneous eye-hand movements during the maintenance interval. Subsequently, we tested spatial working memory at the eye or the hand motor goal, and at action-irrelevant locations. We found that for single eye and single hand movements, memory at the eye or hand target was significantly improved compared to action-irrelevant locations. Remarkably, when an eye and a hand movement were prepared in parallel, but to distinct locations, memory at both motor targets was enhanced-with no tradeoff between the two separate action goals. This suggests that eye and hand movements independently enhance visual working memory at their goal locations, resulting in an overall working memory performance that is higher than that expected when recruiting only one effector

Eye and hand movements disrupt attentional control

Voluntary attentional control is the ability to selectively focus on a subset of visual information in the presence of other competing stimuli–a marker of cognitive control enabling flexible, goal-driven behavior. To test its robustness, we contrasted attentional control with the most common source of attentional orienting in daily life: attention shifts prior to goal-directed eye and hand movements. In a multi-tasking paradigm, human participants attended at a location while planning eye or hand movements elsewhere. Voluntary attentional control suffered with every simultaneous action plan, even under reduced task difficulty and memory load–factors known to interfere with attentional control. Furthermore, the performance cost was limited to voluntary attention: We observed simultaneous attention benefits at two movement targets without attentional competition between them. This demonstrates that the visual system allows for the concurrent representation of multiple attentional foci. Since attentional control is extremely fragile and dominated by premotor attention shifts, we propose that action-driven selection plays the superordinate role for visual selection