The role of visual attention in saccadic eye movements

Accurate saccadic programming in natural visual scenes requires a signal designating which of the many potential targets is to be the goal of the saccade. Is this signal controlled by the allocation of perceptual attention, or do saccades have their own independent selective filter? We found evidence for the involvement of perceptual attention, namely: (1) summoning perceptual attention to a target also facilitated saccades; (2) perceptual identification was better at the saccadic goal than elsewhere; and (3) attempts to dissociate the locus of attention from the saccadic goal were unsuccessful, i.e. it was not possible to prepare to look quickly and accurately at one target while at the same time making highly accurate perceptual judgements about targets elsewhere. We also studied the trade-off between saccadic and perceptual performance by means of a novel application of the "attentional operating characteristic" (AOC) to oculomotor performance. This analysis revealed that some attention could be diverted from the saccadic goal with virtually no cost to either saccadic latency or accuracy, showing that there is a ceiling on the attentional demands of saccades. The links we discovered between saccades and attention can be explained by a model in which perceptual attention determines the endpoint of the saccade, while a separate trigger signal initiates the saccade in response to transient changes in the attentional locus. The model will be discussed in the context of current neurophysiological work on saccadic control.

Stimuli presented in a non-attended location are responded to much slower than stimuli presented in an attended one. The hypotheses proposed to explain this effect make reference to covert movement of attention, hemifield inhibition, or attentional gradients. The experiment reported here was aimed at discriminating among these hypotheses. Subjects were cued to attend to one of four possible stimulus locations, which were arranged either horizontally or vertically, above, below, to the right or left of a fixation point. The instructions were to respond manually as fast as possible to the occurrence of a visual stimulus, regardless of whether it occurred in a cued or in a non-cued location. In 70% of the cued trials the stimulus was presented in the cued location and in 30% in one of the non-cued locations. In addition there were trials in which a non-directional cue instructed the subject to pay attention to all four locations. The results showed that the correct orienting of attention yielded a small but significant benefit; the incorrect orienting of attention yielded a large and significant cost; the cost tended to increase as a function of the distance between the attended location and the location that was actually stimulated; and an additional cost was incurred when the stimulated and attended locations were on opposite sides of the vertical or horizontal meridian. We concluded that neither the hypothesis postulating hemifield inhibition nor that postulating movement of attention with a constant time can explain the data. The hypothesis of an attention gradient and that of attention movements with a constant speed are tenable in principle, but they fail to account for the effect of crossing the horizontal and vertical meridians. A hypothesis is proposed that postulates a strict link between covert orienting of attention and programming explicit ocular movements. Attention is oriented to a given point when the oculomotor programme for moving the eyes to this point is ready to be executed. Attentional cost is the time required to erase one ocular program and prepare the next one.