Setting things straight: a comparison of measures of saccade trajectory deviation

In eye movements, saccade trajectory deviation has often been used as a physiological operationalization of visual attention, distraction, or the visual system’s prioritization of different sources of information. However, there are many ways to measure saccade trajectories and to quantify their deviation. This may lead to noncomparable results and poses the problem of choosing a method that will maximize statistical power. Using data from existing studies and from our own experiments, we used principal components analysis to carry out a systematic quantification of the relationships among eight different measures of saccade trajectory deviation and their power to detect the effects of experimental manipulations, as measured by standardized effect size. We concluded that (1) the saccade deviation measure is a good default measure of saccade trajectory deviation, because it is somewhat correlated with all other measures and shows relatively high effect sizes for two well-known experimental effects; (2) more generally, measures made relative to the position of the saccade target are more powerful; and (3) measures of deviation based on the early part of the saccade are made more stable when they are based on data from an eyetracker with a high sampling rate. Our recommendations may be of use to future eye movement researchers seeking to optimize the designs of their studies

Neural effects of cannabinoid CB1 neutral antagonist tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCv) on food reward and aversion in healthy volunteers

Disturbances in the regulation of reward and aversion in the brain may underlie disorders such as obesity and eating disorders. We previously showed that the cannabis receptor subtype (CB1) inverse agonist rimonabant, an antiobesity drug withdrawn due to depressogenic side effects, diminished neural reward responses yet increased aversive responses (Horder et al., 2010). Unlike rimonabant, tetrahydrocannabivarin is a neutral CB1 receptor antagonist (Pertwee, 2005) and may therefore produce different modulations of the neural reward system. We hypothesized that tetrahydrocannabivarin would, unlike rimonabant, leave intact neural reward responses but augment aversive responses. Methods: We used a within-subject, double-blind design. Twenty healthy volunteers received a single dose of tetrahydrocannabivarin (10mg) and placebo in randomized order on 2 separate occasions. We measured the neural response to rewarding (sight and/or flavor of chocolate) and aversive stimuli (picture of moldy strawberries and/or a less pleasant strawberry taste) using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Volunteers rated pleasantness, intensity, and wanting for each stimulus. Results: There were no significant differences between groups in subjective ratings. However, tetrahydrocannabivarin increased responses to chocolate stimuli in the midbrain, anterior cingulate cortex, caudate, and putamen. Tetrahydrocannabivarin also increased responses to aversive stimuli in the amygdala, insula, mid orbitofrontal cortex, caudate, and putamen. Conclusions: Our findings are the first to show that treatment with the CB1 neutral antagonist tetrahydrocannabivarin increases neural responding to rewarding and aversive stimuli. This effect profile suggests therapeutic activity in obesity, perhaps with a lowered risk of depressive side effects. Keywords: reward, THCv, obesity, fMRI, cannabinoi

Saccadic eye movements in dual tasking : no impairment of spatial planning, but delayed execution of saccades

In the target–distractor saccade task, a target and an irrelevant distractor are simultaneously presented and the task itself consists of a target-directed saccade. Findings usually show that as saccade latency increases, saccade trajectory deviation towards the distractor decreases. We presented this saccade task in two dual-task experiments to address the open question of whether performance of an auditory–manual task simply delays the temporal execution of a saccade, or whether it also interferes with the spatial planning of the saccade trajectory. We measured saccade latency, as a measure of a delay in execution, and saccade trajectory deviation, as a measure of the spatial planning. In Experiment 1, the auditory–manual task was a two-choice reaction time (two-CRT) task, and in Experiment 2, it was a go-no-go task. Performing the two tasks in close temporal succession shortly delayed the temporal execution of the saccade, but did not influence the spatial planning of the saccade trajectory. This result pattern was more pronounced when the auditory–manual task required the selection and execution of one of two possible manual responses (Experiment 1), less pronounced when the auditory–manual task required the decision to execute a button press (go condition, Experiment 2), and absent when the auditory–manual task required the decision to inhibit a button press (no-go condition, Experiment 2). Taken together, the manual response rather than the response selection process of the auditory–manual task led to a delay of saccade execution, but not to an impairment of the spatial planning of the saccade trajectory

Expectations and perceptual priming in a visual search task: Evidence from eye movements and behavior

Item does not contain fulltex