Antimo Buonocore

Low and high imagers activate networks differentially in mental rotation

Whether mental visual images play a functional role in cognition or that propositional knowledge is sufficient for supporting performance in imagery tasks is a long-standing debate. It cannot be resolved using behavioural data alone, nor by brain imaging data alone; for example, across fMRI studies mental rotation has been shown to involve virtually all areas of the brain. Alternatively participants might adopt different cognitive strategies. We report behavioural and fMRI data for mental rotation from individuals reporting vivid or poor mental imagery. Groups differed in errors but not response times, and differed in brain activation patterns, suggesting that the groups performed the same task in different ways.

Saccadic inhibition can cause the remote distractor effect, but the remote distractor effect may not be a useful concept

We have suggested that the remote distractor effect (RDE), the elevation of average saccadic reaction time (SRT) induced by a task-irrelevant distractor, may be explained as a statistical consequence of a characteristic reshaping of the SRT distribution known as saccadic inhibition (SI; Buonocore & McIntosh, 2008). In a recent paper, Walker and Benson (2013) argue against this idea and claim that the RDE and SI are partly dissociable. Here, we examine this claim, taking the opportunity to clarify potential ambiguities about how SI affects average SRT, and how the presence of SI can be inferred from SRT distributions.We highlight what we consider to be the most interesting aspects of Walker and Benson’s data, and suggest that a more flexible and nuanced view of SI can account for them. In considering the relation between SI and the RDE, we conclude that the RDE may no longer be a useful concept for eye movement researchers.

Attention modulates saccadic inhibition magnitude

Visual transient events during ongoing eye movement tasks inhibit saccades within a precise temporal window, spanning from around 60–120 ms after the event, having maximum effect at around 90 ms. It is not yet clear to what extent this saccadic inhibition phenomenon can be modulated by attention. We studied the saccadic inhibition induced by a bright flash above or below fixation, during the preparation of a saccade to a lateralized target, under two attentional manipulations. Experiment 1 demonstrated that exogenous precueing of a distractors location reduced saccadic inhibition, consistent with inhibition of return. Experiment 2 manipulated the relative likelihood that a distractor would be presented above or below fixation. Saccadic inhibition magnitude was relatively reduced for distractors at the more likely location, implying that observers can endogenously suppress interference from specific locations within an oculomotor map. We discuss the implications of these results for models of saccade target selection in the superior colliculus.

Eye movements disrupt spatial but not visual mental imagery

Abstract It has long been known that eye movements are functionally involved in the generation and maintenance of mental images. Indeed, a number of studies demonstrated that voluntary eye movements interfere with mental imagery tasks (e.g., Laeng and Teodorescu in Cogn Sci 26:207–231, 2002). However, mental imagery is conceived as a multifarious cognitive function with at least two components, a spatial component and a visual component. The present study investigated the question of whether eye movements disrupt mental imagery in general or only its spatial component. We present data on healthy young adults, who performed visual and spatial imagery tasks concurrently with a smooth pursuit. In line with previous literature, results revealed that eye movements had a strong disruptive effect on spatial imagery. Moreover, we crucially demonstrated that eye movements had no disruptive effect when participants visualized the depictive aspects of an object. Therefore, we suggest that eye movements serve to a greater extent the spatial than the visual component of mental imagery.

Eye movements disrupt episodic future thinking

Remembering the past and imagining the future both rely on complex mental imagery. We considered the possibility that constructing a future scene might tap a component of mental imagery that is not as critical for remembering past scenes. Whereas visual imagery plays an important role in remembering the past, we predicted that spatial imagery plays a crucial role in imagining the future. For the purpose of teasing apart the different components underpinning scene construction in the two experiences of recalling episodic memories and shaping novel future events, we used a paradigm that might selectively affect one of these components (i.e., the spatial). Participants performed concurrent eye movements while remembering the past and imagining the future. These concurrent eye movements selectively interfere with spatial imagery, while sparing visual imagery. Eye movements prevented participants from imagining complex and detailed future scenes, but had no comparable effect on the recollection of past scenes. Similarities between remembering the past and imagining the future are coupled with some differences. The present findings uncover another fundamental divergence between the two processes.

Saccade reorienting is facilitated by pausing the oculomotor program

As we look around the world, selecting our targets, competing events may occur at other locations. Depending on current goals, the viewer must decide whether to look at new events or to ignore them. Two experimental paradigms formalize these response options: double-step saccades and saccadic inhibition. In the first, the viewer must reorient to a newly appearing target; in the second, they must ignore it. Until now, the relationship between reorienting and inhibition has been unexplored. In three experiments, we found saccadic inhibition ∼100 msec after a new target onset, regardless of the task instruction. Moreover, if this automatic inhibition is boosted by an irrelevant flash, reorienting is facilitated, suggesting that saccadic inhibition plays a crucial role in visual behavior, as a bottom–up brake that buys the time needed for decisional processes to act. Saccadic inhibition may be a ubiquitous pause signal that provides the flexibility for voluntary behavior to emerge.

Disrupting saccadic updating: visual interference prior to the first saccade elicits spatial errors in the secondary saccade in a double-step task

When we explore the visual environment around us, we produce sequences of very precise eye movements aligning the objects of interest with the most sensitive part of the retina for detailed visual processing. A copy of the impending motor command, the corollary discharge, is sent as soon as the first saccade in a sequence is ready to monitor the next fixation location and correctly plan the subsequent eye movement. Neurophysiological investigations have shown that chemical interference with the corollary discharge generates a distinct pattern of spatial errors on sequential eye movements, with similar results also from clinical and TMS studies. Here, we used saccadic inhibition to interfere with the temporal domain of the first of two subsequent saccades during a standard double-step paradigm. In two experiments, we report that the temporal interference on the primary saccade led to a specific error in the final landing position of the second saccade that was consistent with previous lesion and neurophysiological studies, but without affecting the spatial characteristics of the first eye movement. On the other hand, single-step saccades were differently influence by the flash, with a general undershoot, more pronounced for larger saccadic amplitude. These findings show that a flashed visual transient can disrupt saccadic updating in a double-step task, possibly due to the mismatch between the planned and the executed saccadic eye movement.

Pre-saccadic perception: separate time courses for enhancement and spatial pooling at the saccade target

We interact with complex scenes using eye movements to select targets of interest. Studies have shown that the future target of a saccadic eye movement is processed differently by the visual system. A number of effects have been reported, including a benefit for perceptual performance at the target (“enhancement”), reduced influences of backward masking (“un-masking”), reduced crowding (“un-crowding”) and spatial compression towards the saccade target. We investigated the time course of these effects by measuring orientation discrimination for targets that were spatially crowded or temporally masked. In four experiments, we varied the target-flanker distance, the presence of forward/backward masks, the orientation of the flankers and whether participants made a saccade. Masking and randomizing flanker orientation reduced performance in both fixation and saccade trials. We found a small improvement in performance on saccade trials, compared to fixation trials, with a time course that was consistent with a general enhancement at the saccade target. In addition, a decrement in performance (reporting the average flanker orientation, rather than the target) was found in the time bins nearest saccade onset when random oriented flankers were used, consistent with spatial pooling around the saccade target. We did not find strong evidence for un-crowding. Overall, our pattern of results was consistent with both an early, general enhancement at the saccade target and a later, peri-saccadic compression/pooling towards the saccade target.

Interference during eye movement preparation shifts the timing of perisaccadic compression

Our perception of the surrounding environment remains stable despite the fact that we frequently change the retinal position of input by rapid gaze shifts (saccades). There is a long-standing debate whether visual stability depends on an active mechanism using an efference copy of the impending saccadic motor command. Behavioral studies showing changes in perception around the time of saccades are consistent with a predictive mechanism, but previous studies of perceptual effects in humans confounded saccade programming with the resulting physical eye movement. In three experiments, we used a saccadic inhibition (SI) paradigm to delay saccadic onset while participants were performing a perisaccadic localization task. As expected, the perceived position of the probe stimulus was systematically biased (compressed) toward the saccadic goal, already during the presaccadic interval. In the SI condition, the localization error was shifted in time, in line with it following saccade intention rather than execution. The pattern was not the consequence of the probe being captured by the timing of the flashed distractor, but depended instead on the delay in saccadic onset time caused by SI. Importantly, the same configurations of perceptual probes presented with a flashed backward mask when participants maintained fixation did not lead to similar localization errors as saccade trials. This pattern of results is consistent with an active, sensorimotor explanation for perisaccadic mislocalization and, more generally, theories emphasizing the role of motor prediction in visual stability.

The transfer function of the rhesus macaque oculomotor system for small-amplitude slow motion trajectories

Two main types of small eye movements occur during gaze fixation: microsaccades and slow ocular drifts. While microsaccade generation has been relatively well-studied, ocular drift control mechanisms are unknown. Here we explored the degree to which monkey smooth eye movements, on the velocity scale of slow ocular drifts, can be generated systematically. Two male rhesus macaque monkeys tracked a spot moving sinusoidally, but slowly, along the horizontal or vertical directions. Maximum target displacement in the motion trajectory was 30 min arc (0.5 deg), and we varied the temporal frequency of target motion from 0.2 to 5 Hz. We obtained an oculomotor “transfer function” by measuring smooth eye velocity gain (relative to target velocity) as a function of frequency, similar to past work with large-amplitude pursuit. Monkey eye velocities as slow as those observed during slow ocular drifts were clearly target-motion driven. Moreover, like with large-amplitude smooth pursuit, eye velocity gain varied with temporal frequency. However, unlike with large-amplitude pursuit, exhibiting low-pass behavior, small-amplitude motion tracking was band-pass with the best ocular movement gain occurring at ~0.8-1 Hz. When oblique directions were tested, we found that the horizontal component of pursuit gain was larger than the vertical component. Our results provide a catalogue of the control abilities of the monkey oculomotor system for slow target motions, and they also support the notion that smooth fixational ocular drifts are controllable. This has implications for neural investigations of drift control and the image-motion consequences of drifts on visual coding in early visual areas.