Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 12, 2026

Measuring Attention and Visual Processing Speed by Model-based Analysis of Temporal-order Judgments
Published on: January 23, 2017
Attentional localization prior to simple and directed manual responses
T L Hodgson1, H J Müller, M J O'Leary
1Division of Neuroscience and Psychological Medicine, Imperial College School of Medicine, Charing Cross Hospital, London, England. t.hodgson@ic.ac.uk
Abstract:
The relationship between attention and the programming of motor responses was investigated, using a paradigm in which the onsets of targets for movements were preceded by peripheral attentional cues. Simple (button release) and reaching manual responses were compared under conditions in which the subjects either made saccades toward the target location or refrained from making eye movements. The timing of the movement onset was used as the dependent measure for both simple and reaching manual responses. Eye movement latencies were also measured. A follow-up experiment measured the effect of the same peripheral cuing procedure on purely visual processes, using signal detection measures of visual sensitivity and response bias. The results of the first experiment showed that reaction time (RT) increased with the distance between the cued and the target locations. Stronger distance effects were observed when goal-directed responses were required, which suggests enhanced attentional localization of target positions under these conditions. The requirement to generate an eye movement response was found to delay simple manual RTs. However, mean reaching RTs were unaffected by the eye movement condition. Distance gradients on eye movement latencies were relatively shallow, as compared with those on goal-directed manual responses. The second experiment showed that the peripheral cue had only a very small effect on visual detection sensitivity in the absence of directed motor responses. It is concluded that cue-target distance effects with peripheral cues are modulated by the motor-programming requirements of the task. The effect of the peripheral cue on eye movement latencies was qualitatively different from that observed on manual RTs, indicating the existence of separate neural representations underlying both response types. At the same time, the interactions between response modalities are consistent with a supramodal representation of attentional space, within which different motor programs may interact.
Insights
Peripheral attention cues influence motor response programming, with effects varying based on task demands. Motor programming requirements modulate cue-target distance effects, suggesting separate neural representations for different response types.
Area of Science:
- Cognitive Neuroscience
- Motor Control
- Human Factors
Background:
- Investigating the interplay between attention and motor response generation is crucial for understanding complex human behaviors.
- Peripheral attentional cues are known to influence reaction times, but their precise role in motor programming remains debated.
Purpose of the Study:
- To examine how peripheral attentional cues affect the programming of simple and reaching manual responses.
- To determine if eye movement generation influences manual response timing and attentional effects.
- To differentiate the impact of attentional cues on motor responses versus purely visual processes.
Main Methods:
- Utilized a paradigm with peripheral attentional cues preceding target onsets for manual responses (button release, reaching).
- Compared reaction times (RTs) for manual responses under conditions with and without concurrent eye movements (saccades).
- Assessed visual sensitivity and response bias using signal detection in a separate experiment without motor responses.
Main Results:
- Reaction time increased with cue-target distance, particularly for goal-directed responses, indicating enhanced attentional localization.
- Eye movements delayed simple manual RTs but did not affect reaching RTs.
- Peripheral cues had minimal impact on visual sensitivity without motor demands.
Conclusions:
- Cue-target distance effects are significantly modulated by motor-programming requirements.
- Distinct neural representations likely underlie manual and eye movement responses, despite interactions.
- Attentional space may be supramodal, allowing interaction between different motor programs.
More Related Videos
06:46Investigating the Deployment of Visual Attention Before Accurate and Averaging Saccades via Eye Tracking and Assessment of Visual Sensitivity
Published on: March 18, 2019
09:30Localizing Function-specific Targets for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation in the Absence of Navigation Equipment
Published on: May 23, 2025