Remote Distractor Research Articles

Eye-movement methodology reveals a shift in attention from threat to neutral stimuli with self-reported symptoms of social anxiety across children, adolescents and adults

ABSTRACT The current study used an eye-movement remote distractor paradigm (RDP) to examine the relationship between self-reported symptoms of social anxiety in children (9–11-year-olds), young adolescents (12–14-year-olds) and adults (18–43-year-olds) on saccade latencies to identify a target and saccadic errors to task irrelevant distractor (angry, neutral and happy faces). Distractors were presented simultaneously, either at the centre of the display, or at a contralateral parafoveal or peripheral location to the target. Symptoms of social anxiety in children were associated with increased saccade latencies in the presence of angry and neutral faces suggesting avoidance of these emotion expressions in this age group. Symptoms of social anxiety in adolescents and adults were respectively linked with longer latencies for neutral faces, indicating that neutral faces represent ambiguous and potentially negative stimuli for individuals with elevated social anxiety, and fit with research that has questioned the role of neutral faces as non-emotional control stimuli in attention research and anxiety.

The impact of circumscribed interest distractors on attentional orienting in young children with autism: eye-tracking evidence from the remote distractor paradigm

ABSTRACT Studies from free-viewing tasks report that children with autism spectrum condition (ASC) exhibit an attentional bias for circumscribed interest (CI) objects (e.g., vehicles) over non-CI objects (e.g., furniture). This atypical preference has led researchers to hypothesise that ASC children would be more distracted by CI-related objects than non-CI-related objects. The current study aimed to explore this issue using a remote distractor paradigm. We found longer saccade latencies for centrally presented distractors in ASC, suggesting delayed endogenous disengagement. Additionally, higher error rates and fewer corrective saccades in ASC indicated poorer attentional control. Neither latencies nor errors were modulated by stimulus types but increased dwell time for CI-related objects over non-CI-related objects in ASC, demonstrated some support for the CI attentional bias reported in previous free-viewing studies. The findings are discussed in relation to how task demands in basic orienting paradigms might mask any CI-related preference bias in children with ASC.

The presence of placeholders modulates the naso-temporal asymmetry in the remote distractor effect

The remote distractor effect (RDE) is a well-known and robust phenomenon whereby latencies of saccades are increased when a distractor is presented simultaneously along with the saccade target. Studies of the RDE in patients with a loss of vision in one visual field (hemianopia) following damage to primary visual cortex have provided conflicting results. Rafal, Smith, Krantz, Cohen, and Brennan (1990) reported a naso-temporal asymmetry in the RDE in patients with hemianopias, with a greater influence of distractors presented in their blind temporal visual field. This asymmetry was not observed in typically sighted controls. By contrast, Walker, Mannan, Maurer, Pambakian, and Kennard (2000) observed no effect of distractors presented to either the blind nasal or blind temporal hemifield of hemianopes, but the naso-temporal asymmetry was observed in typically sighted controls. The present study addressed one potential methodological differences between the two studies by investigating the inhibitory effect of a distractor on saccade latency in neurotypical participants. Here participants were tested monocularly and the effect of a nasal/temporal hemifield distractor on saccade latency observed in the presence or absence of peripheral placeholders. Our results showed a naso-temporal asymmetry in the magnitude of the RDE in the no placeholder condition, with a greater RDE when the distractor was presented in the temporal visual field. However, in the placeholder condition the opposite asymmetry was observed, that is an increased RDE when the distractor was presented in the nasal visual field. Our results suggest that the presence/absence of a placeholder might be the critical factor explaining the discrepancy between Rafal et al. (1990) and Walker et al. (2000) in participants without visual field loss. The current results can be interpreted in terms of additional inhibitory or attentional processes that bias selection towards stimuli in the nasal hemifield in the presence of placeholders, still, the mechanisms underlying these effects remain unclear.

The influence of emotional face distractors on attentional orienting in Chinese children with autism spectrum disorder.

The current study examined how emotional faces impact on attentional control at both involuntary and voluntary levels in children with and without autism spectrum disorder (ASD). A non-face single target was either presented in isolation or synchronously with emotional face distractors namely angry, happy and neutral faces. ASD and typically developing children made more erroneous saccades towards emotional distractors relative to neutral distractors in parafoveal and peripheral conditions. Remote distractor effects were observed on saccade latency in both groups regardless of distractor type, whereby time taken to initiate an eye movement to the target was longest in central distractor conditions, followed by parafoveal and peripheral distractor conditions. The remote distractor effect was greater for angry faces compared to happy faces in the ASD group. Proportions of failed disengagement trials from central distractors, for the first saccade, were higher in the angry distractor condition compared with the other two distractor conditions in ASD, and this effect was absent for the typical group. Eye movement results suggest difficulties in disengaging from fixated angry faces in ASD. Atypical disengagement from angry faces at the voluntary level could have consequences for the development of higher-level socio-communicative skills in ASD.

Inhibition of saccade initiation improves saccade accuracy: The role of local and remote visual distractors in the control of saccadic eye movements.

When a distractor appears close to the target location, saccades are less accurate. However, the presence of a further distractor, remote from those stimuli, increases the saccade response latency and improves accuracy. Explanations for this are either that the second, remote distractor impacts directly on target selection processes or that the remote distractor merely impairs the ability to initiate a saccade and changes the time at which unaffected target selection processes are accessed. In order to tease these two explanations apart, here we examine the relationship between latency and accuracy of saccades to a target and close distractor pair while a remote distractor appears at variable distance. Accuracy improvements are found to follow a similar pattern, regardless of the presence of the remote distractor, which suggests that the effect of the remote distractor is not the result of a direct impact on the target selection process. Our findings support the proposal that a remote distractor impairs the ability to initiate a saccade, meaning the competition between target and close distractor is accessed at a later time, thus resulting in more accurate saccades.

Visually guided saccades and acoustic distractors: no evidence for the remote distractor effect or global effect.

A remote visual distractor increases saccade reaction time (RT) to a visual target and may reflect the time required to resolve conflict between target- and distractor-related information within a common retinotopic representation in the superior colliculus (SC) (i.e., the remote distractor effect: RDE). Notably, because the SC serves as a sensorimotor interface it is possible that the RDE may be associated with the pairing of an acoustic distractor with a visual target; that is, the conflict related to saccade generation signals may be sensory-independent. To address that issue, we employed a traditional RDE experiment involving a visual target and visual proximal and remote distractors (Experiment 1) and an experiment wherein a visual target was presented with acoustic proximal and remote distractors (Experiment 2). As well, Experiments 1 and 2 employed no-distractor trials. Experiment 1 RTs elicited a reliable RDE, whereas Experiment 2 RTs for proximal and remote distractors were shorter than their no distractor counterparts. Accordingly, findings demonstrate that the RDE is sensory specific and arises from conflicting visual signals within a common retinotopic map. As well, Experiment 2 findings indicate that an acoustic distractor supports an intersensory facilitation that optimizes oculomotor planning.

The Influence of Irrelevant Visual Distractors on Eye Movement Control in Chinese Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Evidence from the Remote Distractor Paradigm

The current study examined eye movement control in autistic (ASD) children. Simple targets were presented in isolation, or with central, parafoveal, or peripheral distractors synchronously. Sixteen children with ASD (47–81 months) and nineteen age and IQ matched typically developing children were instructed to look to the target as accurately and quickly as possible. Both groups showed high proportions (40%) of saccadic errors towards parafoveal and peripheral distractors. For correctly executed eye movements to the targets, centrally presented distractors produced the longest latencies (time taken to initiate eye movements), followed by parafoveal and peripheral distractor conditions. Central distractors had a greater effect in the ASD group, indicating evidence for potential atypical voluntary attentional control in ASD children.

The Limitations of Reward Effects on Saccade Latencies: An Exploration of Task-Specificity and Strength.

Saccadic eye movements are simple, visually guided actions. Operant conditioning of specific saccade directions can reduce the latency of eye movements in the conditioned direction. However, it is not clear to what extent this learning transfers from the conditioned task to novel tasks. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the effects of operant conditioning of prosaccades to specific spatial locations would transfer to more complex oculomotor behaviours, specifically, prosaccades made in the presence of a distractor (Experiment 1) and antisaccades (Experiment 2). In part 1 of each experiment, participants were rewarded for making a saccade to one hemifield. In both experiments, the reward produced a significant facilitation of saccadic latency for prosaccades directed to the rewarded hemifield. In part 2, rewards were withdrawn, and the participant made a prosaccade to targets that were accompanied by a contralateral distractor (Experiment 1) or an antisaccade (Experiment 2). There were no hemifield-specific effects of the reward on saccade latency on the remote distractor effect or antisaccades, although the reward was associated with an overall slowing of saccade latency in Experiment 1. These data indicate that operant conditioning of saccadic eye movements does not transfer to similar but untrained tasks. We conclude that rewarding specific spatial locations is unlikely to induce long-term, systemic changes to the human oculomotor system.

The effect of offset cues on saccade programming and covert attention.

Salient peripheral events trigger fast, “exogenous” covert orienting. The influential premotor theory of attention argues that covert orienting of attention depends upon planned but unexecuted eye-movements. One problem with this theory is that salient peripheral events, such as offsets, appear to summon attention when used to measure covert attention (e.g., the Posner cueing task) but appear not to elicit oculomotor preparation in tasks that require overt orienting (e.g., the remote distractor paradigm). Here, we examined the effects of peripheral offsets on covert attention and saccade preparation. Experiment 1 suggested that transient offsets summoned attention in a manual detection task without triggering motor preparation planning in a saccadic localisation task, although there were a high proportion of saccadic capture errors on “no-target” trials, where a cue was presented but no target appeared. In Experiment 2, “no-target” trials were removed. Here, transient offsets produced both attentional facilitation and faster saccadic responses on valid cue trials. A third experiment showed that the permanent disappearance of an object also elicited attentional facilitation and faster saccadic reaction times. These experiments demonstrate that offsets trigger both saccade programming and covert attentional orienting, consistent with the idea that exogenous, covert orienting is tightly coupled with oculomotor activation. The finding that no-go trials attenuates oculomotor priming effects offers a way to reconcile the current findings with previous claims of a dissociation between covert attention and oculomotor control in paradigms that utilise a high proportion of catch trials.

In search of oculomotor capture during film viewing: Implications for the balance of top-down and bottom-up control in the saccadic system

In the laboratory, the abrupt onset of a visual distractor can generate an involuntary orienting response: this robust oculomotor capture effect has been reported in a large number of studies (e.g. Ludwig & Gilchrist, 2002; Theeuwes, Kramer, Hahn, & Irwin, 1998) suggesting it may be a ubiquitous part of more natural visual behaviour. However the visual stimuli used in these experiments have tended to be static and had none of the complexity, and dynamism of more natural visual environments. In addition, the primary task in the laboratory (typically visual search) can be tedious for the participants with participant’s losing interest and becoming stimulus driven and more easily distracted. Both of these factors may have led to an overestimation of the extent to which oculomotor capture occurs and the importance of this phenomena in everyday visual behaviour. To address this issue, in the current series of studies we presented abrupt and highly salient visual distractors away from fixation while participants watched a film. No evidence of oculomotor capture was found. However, the distractor does effect fixation duration: we find an increase in fixation duration analogous to the remote distractor effect (Walker, Deubel, Schneider, & Findlay, 1997). These results suggest that during dynamic scene perception, the oculomotor system may be under far more top-down control than traditional laboratory based-tasks have previously suggested.

GABA spectra and remote distractor effect in progressive supranuclear palsy: A pilot study

Disturbances of the gamma-aminobutyric-acid (GABA) system have been suspected of contributing to the pathophysiology of progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP). The ability to rapidly resolve competitive action decisions, such as shifting the gaze to one particular stimulus rather than another, can be predicted by the concentration of GABA in the region of the frontal cortex relevant to eye movements. For this reason, our study measured GABA levels in seven PSP patients and eight healthy controls, using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy, and assessed the relationship of these measurements to the remote distractor effect (RDE), an eye-movement paradigm investigating competitive action decisions. No significant differences were found in either frontal-eye-field GABA levels or RDE between PSP patients and controls.

Speeded saccadic and manual visuo-motor decisions: Distinct processes but same principles

Action decisions are considered an emergent property of competitive response activations. As such, decision mechanisms are embedded in, and therefore may differ between, different response modalities. Despite this, the saccadic eye movement system is often promoted as a model for all decisions, especially in the fields of electrophysiology and modelling. Other research traditions predominantly use manual button presses, which have different response distribution profiles and are initiated by different brain areas. Here we tested whether core concepts of action selection models (decision and non-decision times, integration of automatic and selective inputs to threshold, interference across response options, noise, etc.) generalise from saccadic to manual domains. Using two diagnostic phenomena, the remote distractor effect (RDE) and ‘saccadic inhibition', we find that manual responses are also sensitive to the interference of visual distractors but to a lesser extent than saccades and during a shorter time window. A biologically-inspired model (DINASAUR, based on non-linear input dynamics) can account for both saccadic and manual response distributions and accuracy by simply adjusting the balance and relative timings of transient and sustained inputs, and increasing the mean and variance of non-decisional delays for manual responses. This is consistent with known neurophysiological and anatomical differences between saccadic and manual networks. Thus core decision principles appear to generalise across effectors, consistent with previous work, but we also conclude that key quantitative differences underlie apparent qualitative differences in the literature, such as effects being robustly reported in one modality and unreliable in another.

The influence of distractors on express saccades.

It is well known that regular target-driven saccades are affected by the presence of close and remote distractors. Distractors close to the target affect the saccade landing position (known as the global effect), while remote distractors prolong saccade latencies to the target (known as the remote-distractor effect). Little is known about whether a different population of saccades known as express saccades (saccades with very short latencies between 80 and 130 ms) is similarly affected by close and remote distractors, as these saccades are considered to be the result of advanced preparation of an oculomotor program toward the target. We designed a task in which we were able to generate a large number of express saccades, as evidenced by a separate and very early peak in the saccade-latency distribution-a distribution that was different from that of regular saccades. Our results show that irrelevant and unexpected visual input had a large effect on express saccades. We found a global and a remote-distractor effect which were similar to those seen in regular saccades. Even though our findings confirm the existence of very-short-latency saccades in humans, it is questionable whether they represent a different population of saccades, as they were equally affected by the presence of distractors as are regular saccades.

Effects of reward on oculomotor control.

The present study examines the extent to which distractors that signal the availability of monetary reward on a given trial affect eye movements. We used a novel eye movement task in which observers had to follow a target around the screen while ignoring distractors presented at varying locations. We examined the effects of reward magnitude and distractor location on a host of oculomotor properties, including saccade latency, amplitude, landing position, curvature, and erroneous saccades toward the distractor. We found consistent effects of reward magnitude on classic oculomotor phenomena such as the remote distractor effect, the global effect, and oculomotor capture by the distractor. We also show that a distractor in the visual hemifield opposite to the target had a larger effect on oculomotor control than an equidistant distractor in the same hemifield as the target. Bayesian hierarchical drift diffusion modeling revealed large differences in drift rate depending on the reward value, location, and visual hemifield of the distractor stimulus. Our findings suggest that high reward distractors not only capture the eyes but also affect a multitude of oculomotor properties associated with oculomotor inhibition and control.

The visual properties of proximal and remote distractors differentially influence reaching planning times: evidence from pro- and antipointing tasks.

The saccade literature has consistently reported that the presentation of a distractor remote to a target increases reaction time (i.e., the remote distractor effect: RDE). As well, some studies have shown that a proximal distractor facilitates saccade reaction time. The lateral inhibition hypothesis attributes the aforementioned findings to the inhibition/facilitation of target selection mechanisms operating in the intermediate layers of the superior colliculus(SC). Although the impact of remote and proximal distractors has been extensively examined in the saccade literature, a paucity of work has examined whether such findings generalize to reaching responses, and to our knowledge, no work has directly contrasted reaching RTs for remote and proximal distractors. To that end, the present investigation had participants complete reaches in target only trials (i.e., TO) and when distractors were presented at "remote" (i.e., the opposite visual field) and "proximal" (i.e., the same visual field) locations along the same horizontal meridian as the target. As well, participants reached to the target's veridical (i.e., propointing) and mirror-symmetrical (i.e., antipointing) location. The basis for contrasting pro- and antipointing was to determine whether the distractor's visual- or motor-related activity influence reaching RTs. Results demonstrated that remote and proximal distractors, respectively, increased and decreased reaching RTs and the effect was consistent for pro- and antipointing. Accordingly, results evince that the RDE and the facilitatory effects of a proximal distractor are effector independent and provide behavioral support for the contention that the SC serves as a general target selection mechanism. As well, the comparable distractor-related effects for pro- and antipointing trials indicate that the visual properties of remote and proximal distractors respectively inhibit and facilitate target selection.

Exploring Links between Neuroticism and Psychoticism Personality Traits, Attentional Biases to Threat and Friendship Quality in 9–11-year-olds

The current study used an eye-movement Remote Distractor Paradigm (RDP) to explore attention to threat and considered associations with personality traits (neuroticism and psychoticism) and self-reported friendship quality in children aged 9–11 years. The RDP asked children to look at and identify a target presented on a computer display in the presence or absence of a central, parafoveal or peripheral visual distractor (an angry, happy or neutral face). The results showed that symptoms of neuroticism were associated with hypervigilance for threat (i.e., slower latencies to initiate eye movements to the target in the presence of angry versus happy or neutral faces). In addition, when distractors were presented centrally, this relationship was most evident in children who reported lower levels of attentional control. Psychoticism traits were associated with increased selective attention to all distractors (as measured by directional errors to face stimuli) and to child reported lower friendship quality. Moreover, the negative relationship between psychoticism and friendship characteristics associated with companionship was mediated via attentional capture of threat (i.e., a greater proportion of directional errors to angry distractors). The findings have potential to inform the development of translational research, to reduce symptoms of psychopathology and address attentional biases to threat with an aim to improve peer relationships in late childhood.

How Eye Dominance Strength Modulates the Influence of a Distractor on Saccade Accuracy.

Neuroimaging studies have shown that the dominant eye is linked preferentially to the ipsilateral primary visual cortex. However, its role in perception still is misunderstood. We examined the influence of eye dominance and eye dominance strength on saccadic parameters, contrasting stimulations presented in the two hemifields. Participants with contrasted eye dominance (left or right) and eye dominance strength (strong or weak) were asked to make a saccade toward a target displayed at 5° or 7° left or right of a fixation cross. In some trials, a distractor at 3° of eccentricity also was displayed either in the same hemifield as the target (to induce a global effect on saccade amplitude) or in the opposite hemifield (to induce a remote distractor effect on saccade latency). Eye dominance did influence saccade amplitude as participants with strong eye dominance showed more accurate saccades toward the target (weaker global effect) in the hemifield contralateral to the dominant eye than in the ipsilateral one. Such asymmetry was not found in participants with weak eye dominance or when a remote distractor was used. We show that eye dominance strength influences saccade target selection. We discuss several arguments supporting the view that such advantage may be linked to the relationship between the dominant eye and ipsilateral hemisphere. French Abstract.

Saccadic inhibition and the remote distractor effect: One mechanism or two?

It has been hotly debated whether a single mechanism underlies two established and highly robust oculomotor phenomena thought to index the competitive nature of eye movement plans: the remote distractor effect and saccadic inhibition (SI). It has been suggested that a transient mechanism underlying SI would not be able to account for the shift in the saccade latency distribution produced by early distractors (e.g., those appearing 60 ms before target onset) without additional assumptions or a more sustained source of inhibition. Here we tested this prediction with a model previously optimized to capture SI for late distractors. Where behavioral studies have intermingled stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) within the same block, the model captures the pattern of RDEs and SI effects with no parameter changes. Where SOAs have been blocked behaviorally, the pattern of RDEs can also be captured by the same model architecture, but requires changes to the inputs of the model between SOAs. Such changes plausibly reflect likely changes in participants' expectations and attentional strategy across block types.

The antisaccade task: visual distractors elicit a location-independent planning 'cost'.

The presentation of a remote – but not proximal – distractor concurrent with target onset increases prosaccade 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. To our knowledge however, no previous research has examined whether remote and proximal distractors differentially influence antisaccade RTs. This represents a notable question because antisaccades require decoupling of the spatial relations between stimulus and response (SR) and therefore provide a basis for determining whether the sensory- and/or motor-related features of a distractor influence response planning. Participants completed pro- and antisaccades in a target-only condition and conditions wherein the target was concurrently presented with a proximal or remote distractor. As expected, prosaccade RTs elicited a reliable RDE. In contrast, antisaccade RTs were increased independent of the distractor’s spatial location and the magnitude of the effect was comparable across each distractor location. Thus, distractor-related antisaccade RT costs are not accounted for by a competitive integration between conflicting saccade generating commands. Instead, we propose that a visual distractor increases uncertainty related to the evocation of the response-selection rule necessary for decoupling SR relations.

Biomimetic race model of the loop between the superior colliculus and the basal ganglia: Subcortical selection of saccade targets

The superior colliculus, a laminar structure involved in the retinotopic mapping of the visual field, plays a cardinal role in several cortical and subcortical pathways of the saccadic system. Although the selection of saccade targets has long been thought to be mainly the product of cortical processes, a growing body of evidence hints at the implication of the superior colliculus in selection processes independent from cortical inputs, capable of producing saccades at latencies incompatible with the cortical pathways. This selection ability could be produced firstly by the lateral connections between the neurons of its maps, and secondly by its interactions with the midbrain basal ganglia, already renowned for their role in decision making.We propose a biomimetic population-coded race model of selection based on a dynamic tecto-basal loop that reproduces the observed ability of the superior colliculus to stochastically select between similar stimuli. Our model’s selection accuracy depends on the discriminability of the target and the distractors. Our model also offers an explanation for the phenomenon of Remote Distractor Effect based on the lateral connectivity within the basal ganglia circuitry rather than on lateral inhibitions within the collicular maps. Finally, we propose a role for the intermediate layers of the superior colliculus, as stochastic integrators dynamically gated by the selective disinhibition of the basal ganglia channels that is consistent with the recorded activity profiles of these neurons.