Eye cannot see it: The interference of subliminal distractors on saccade metrics

AbstractThe present study investigated whether subliminal (unconsciously perceived) visual information influences eye movement metrics, like saccade trajectories and endpoints. Participants made eye movements upwards and downwards while a subliminal distractor was presented in the periphery. Results showed that the subliminal distractor interfered with the execution of an eye movement, although the effects were smaller compared to a control experiment in which the distractor was presented supraliminal. Because saccade metrics are mediated by low level brain areas, this indicates that subliminal visual information evokes competition at a very low level in the oculomotor system

Conditioned fear modulates visual selection

Eye movements reflect the dynamic interplay between top-down-and bottom-up-driven processes. For example, when we voluntarily move our eyes across the visual field, salient visual stimuli in the environment may capture our attention, our eyes, or modulate the trajectory of an eye movement. Previous research has shown that the behavioral relevance of a salient stimulus modulates these processes. This study investigated whether a stimulus signaling an aversive event modulates saccadic behavior. Using a differential fear-conditioning procedure, we presented a threatening (conditional stimulus: CS+) and a nonthreatening stimulus distractor (CS+) during an oculomotor selection task. The results show that short-latency saccades deviated more strongly toward the CS+ than toward the CS+ distractor, whereas long-latency saccades deviated more strongly away from the CS+ than from the CS+ distractor. Moreover, the CS+ distractor captured the eyes more often than the CS+ distractor. Together, these results demonstrate that conditioned fear has a direct and immediate influence on visual selection. The findings are interpreted in terms of a neurobiological model of emotional visual processing

Eye contact facilitates awareness of faces during interocular suppression

Eye contact captures attention and receives prioritized visual processing. Here we asked whether eye contact might be processed outside conscious awareness. Faces with direct and averted gaze were rendered invisible using interocular suppression. In two experiments we found that faces with direct gaze overcame such suppression more rapidly than faces with averted gaze. Control experiments ruled out the influence of low-level stimulus differences and differential response criteria. These results indicate an enhanced unconscious representation of direct gaze, enabling the automatic and rapid detection of other individuals making eye contact with the observer

Evidence for a dissociation between the control of oculomotor capture and disengagement

The current study investigated whether capture of the eyes by a salient onset distractor and the disengagement of the eyes from that distractor are driven by the same or by different underlying control modes. A variant of the classic oculomotor capture task was used. Observers had to make a saccade to the only gray circle among red background circles. On some trials, a green (novel color), red (placeholder color) or gray (target color) distractor square was presented with sudden onset. Results showed that when participants reacted fast, oculomotor capture was primarily driven by bottom-up pop-out: both types of distractors (green and gray) that popped out among the red background elements showed more capture than a red distractor that did not pop-out. In contrast to initial capture, disengagement of the eyes from the distractor was driven by top-down target–distractor similarity effects. We also examined the time-course of this effect. The distractor could change from green to either the target or placeholder color. When the color change was early in time (30–40 ms after its onset), dwell times were strongly affected by the change, whereas the effect on oculomotor capture was weak. Importantly, a change occurring as early as 60–80 ms after distractor onset did neither affect capture nor dwell times, corroborating the assumption of parallel programming of saccades

Follow the sign! Top-down contingent attentional capture of masked arrow cues

Arrow cues and other overlearned spatial symbols automatically orient attention according to their spatial meaning. This renders them similar to exogenous cues that occur at stimulus location. Exogenous cues trigger shifts of attention even when they are presented subliminally. Here, we investigate to what extent the mechanisms underlying the orienting of attention by exogenous cues and by arrow cues are comparable by analyzing the effects of visible and masked arrow cues on attention. In Experiment 1, we presented arrow cues with overall 50% validity. Visible cues, but not masked cues, lead to shifts of attention. In Experiment 2, the arrow cues had an overall validity of 80%. Now both visible and masked arrows lead to shifts of attention. This is in line with findings that subliminal exogenous cues capture attention only in a top-down contingent manner, that is, when the cues fit the observer’s intentions

Distribution of Attention Modulates Salience Signals in Early Visual Cortex

Previous research has shown that the extent to which people spread attention across the visual field plays a crucial role in visual selection and the occurrence of bottom-up driven attentional capture. Consistent with previous findings, we show that when attention was diffusely distributed across the visual field while searching for a shape singleton, an irrelevant salient color singleton captured attention. However, while using the very same displays and task, no capture was observed when observers initially focused their attention at the center of the display. Using event-related fMRI, we examined the modulation of retinotopic activity related to attentional capture in early visual areas. Because the sensory display characteristics were identical in both conditions, we were able to isolate the brain activity associated with exogenous attentional capture. The results show that spreading of attention leads to increased bottom-up exogenous capture and increased activity in visual area V3 but not in V2 and V1

Top-down contingent feature-specific orienting with and without awareness of the visual input

In the present article, the role of endogenous feature-specific orienting for conscious and unconscious vision is reviewed. We start with an overview of orienting. We proceed with a review of masking research, and the definition of the criteria of experimental protocols that demonstrate endogenous and exogenous orienting, respectively. Against this background of criteria, we assess studies of unconscious orienting and come to the conclusion that so far studies of unconscious orienting demonstrated endogenous feature-specific orienting. The review closes with a discussion of the role of unconscious orienting in action control