Oculomotor interference of bimodal distractors.

Jessica Heeman, Tanja C W Nijboer, Nathan Van der Stoep, Jan Theeuwes, Stefan Van der Stigchel

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Vision research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

3citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

Saccadic trajectories deviate toward or away from optimally informative visual features.iScience · 2023
Article
Sounds are remapped across saccades.Scientific reports · 2020
Article
Cross-Modal Integration of Reward Value during Oculomotor Planning.eNeuro
Article

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jessica HeemanExperimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, The Netherlands; Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences: Cognitive Psychology Section, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: j.heeman@vu.nl.

Tanja C W NijboerExperimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, The Netherlands; University Medical Center, Department of Neurology, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience and Center of Excellence for Rehabilitation Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht and Rehabilitation Center De Hoogstraat, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Nathan Van der StoepExperimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.

Jan TheeuwesFaculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences: Cognitive Psychology Section, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Stefan Van der StigchelExperimental Psychology, Helmholtz Institute, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.

Funding

European Research Council 323413

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When executing an eye movement to a target location, the presence of an irrelevant distracting stimulus can influence the saccade metrics and latency. The present study investigated the influence of distractors of different sensory modalities (i.e. auditory, visual and audiovisual) which were presented at various distances (i.e. close or remote) from a visual target. The interfering effects of a bimodal distractor were more pronounced in the spatial domain than in the temporal domain. The results indicate that the direction of interference depended on the spatial layout of the visual scene. The close bimodal distractor caused the saccade endpoint and saccade trajectory to deviate towards the distractor whereas the remote bimodal distractor caused a deviation away from the distractor. Furthermore, saccade averaging and trajectory deviation evoked by a bimodal distractor was larger compared to the effects evoked by a unimodal distractor. This indicates that a bimodal distractor evoked stronger spatial oculomotor competition compared to a unimodal distractor and that the direction of the interference depended on the distance between the target and the distractor. Together, these findings suggest that the oculomotor vector to irrelevant bimodal input is enhanced and that the interference by multisensory input is stronger compared to unisensory input.

Indexed as

AdultAnalysis of VarianceAttentionFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationReaction TimeSaccadesVisual PerceptionYoung AdultAudiovisual distractor effectsGlobal effectOculomotor competitionRemote distractor effectSaccade averaging

Identifiers

PMID27164053

DOI10.1016/j.visres.2016.04.002

PMCPMC4894297

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC-ND

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.