4.2 Article

Distractor-evoked deviation in saccade direction suggests an asymmetric representation of the upper and lower visual fields on oculomotor maps

Journal

ATTENTION PERCEPTION & PSYCHOPHYSICS
Volume 85, Issue 4, Pages 1150-1158

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.3758/s13414-023-02701-9

Keywords

Eye Movements; Mechanisms; Motor control; Inhibition

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined the programming of rapid eye movements and found that visual distractors have a stronger effect on the lower visual field. This observation challenges the traditional model and suggests a revision to account for the asymmetry between the upper and lower visual field.
The programming of rapid eye movements or saccades involves a large collection of neural substrates. The subcortical oculomotor center - the superior colliculus (SC) - contains a topographical motor map that encodes saccade vectors. Using a visual distractor task, the present study examined a classic model of the SC motor map, which assumes a symmetrical representation of the upper visual field (UVF) and lower visual field (LVF). Visual distractors are known to attract or repel the saccade trajectory, depending on their angular distance from the target. In the present study, the distractor (if presented) was placed at a location that mirrored the target in the opposite visual field (upper or lower). The symmetrical SC model predicts equivalent directional deviations for saccades into the UVF and LVF. The results, however, showed that the directional deviations evoked by visual distractors were much stronger for saccades directed to the LVF. We argue that this observation is consistent with the recent neurophysiological finding that the LVF is relatively under-represented, as compared to the UVF, in the SC and possibly in other oculomotor centers. We conclude the paper with a suggested revision to the SC model.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available