We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.
Email Signup | RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ
CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article


Carbone E, Schneider WX. Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 2010; 72(8): 2168-2175.


Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.


(Copyright © 2010, Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group)






In three experiments, we investigated whether the control of reflexive saccades is subject to central attention limitations. In a dual-task procedure, Task 1 required either unspeeded reporting or ignoring of briefly presented masked stimuli, whereas Task 2 required a speeded saccade toward a visual target. The stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) between the two tasks was varied. In Experiments 1 and 2, the Task 1 stimulus was one or three letters, and we asked how saccade target selection is influenced by the number of items. We found (1) longer saccade latencies at short than at long SOAs in the report condition, (2) a substantially larger latency increase for three letters than for one letter, and (3) a latency difference between SOAs in the ignore condition. Broadly, these results match the central interference theory. However, in Experiment 3, an auditory stimulus was used as the Task 1 stimulus, to test whether the interference effects in Experiments 1 and 2 were due to visual instead of central interference. Although there was a small saccade latency increase from short to long SOAs, this difference did not increase from the ignore to the report condition. To explain visual interference effects between letter encoding and stimulus-driven saccade control, we propose an extended theory of visual attention.

Language: en


All SafetyLit records are available for automatic download to Zotero & Mendeley