↓ Skip to main content

Perceptual task induces saccadic adaptation by target selection

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Perceptual task induces saccadic adaptation by target selection
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, October 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00566
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander C. Schütz, David Souto

Abstract

Adaptation of saccades can be induced by different error signals, such as retinal position errors, prediction errors, or reinforcement learning. Recently, we showed that a shift in the spatial goal of a perceptual task can induce saccadic adaptation, in the absence of a bottom-up position error. Here, we investigated whether this top-down effect is mediated by the visibility of the task-relevant object, by reinforcement due to the feedback about the perceptual judgment or by a target selection mechanism. Participants were asked to discriminate visual stimuli arranged in a vertical compound. To induce adaptation, the discrimination target was presented at eccentric locations in the compound. In the first experiment, we compared adaptation with an easy and difficult discrimination. In the second experiment, we compared adaptation when feedback about the perceptual task was valid and when feedback was provided but was unrelated to performance. In the third experiment, we compared adaptation with instructions to fixate one of the elements in the compound-target selection-to the perceptual task condition-target selection and discrimination. To control for a bottom-up stimulus effect, we ran a fourth experiment in which the only instruction was to look at the compound. The saccade amplitude data were fitted by a two-state model distinguishing between an immediate and a gradual error correction process. We replicated our finding that a perceptual task can drive adaptation of saccades. Adaptation showed no effect of feedback reliability, nor an effect of the perceptual task beyond target selection. Adaptation was induced by a top-down signal since it was absent when there was no target selection instruction and no perceptual task. The immediate error correction was larger for the difficult than for the easy condition, suggesting that task difficulty affects mainly voluntary saccade targeting. In addition, the repetition of experiments one week later increased the magnitude of the gradual error correction. The results dissociate two distinct components of adaptation: an immediate and a gradual error correction. We conclude that perceptual-task induced adaptation is most likely due to top-down target selection within a larger object.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Professor 2 8%
Other 6 25%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 10 42%
Neuroscience 4 17%
Linguistics 1 4%
Sports and Recreations 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 5 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 September 2015.
All research outputs
#15,347,611
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#5,270
of 7,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,810
of 283,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#116
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,152 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 283,130 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.