Contrast, probability, and saccadic latency; evidence for independence of detection and decision
- PMID: 15341745
- DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2004.08.058
Contrast, probability, and saccadic latency; evidence for independence of detection and decision
Abstract
Many factors influence how long it takes to respond to a visual stimulus. The lowest-level factors, such as luminance and contrast, determine how easily different elements of a target can be detected. Higher-level factors are to do with whether these elements constitute a stimulus requiring a response; they include prior probability and urgency. It is natural to think of these two processes, detection and decision, as occurring in series, so that overall reaction time is essentially the sum of the contributions of each stage. Here, measurements of saccadic latency to visual targets whose contrast and prior probability are systematically manipulated demonstrate that there are indeed separable stages of detection and decision. Both can be quantitatively described by rise-to-threshold mechanisms; the average rate of rise of the first is a simple logarithmic function of target contrast, whereas the second shows the linear rise characteristic of the LATER model of neural decision making. The implication is that under normal, high-contrast conditions, in which detection is very fast, the random variability that is characteristic of all reaction times is not caused by sensory noise but is gratuitously introduced by the brain itself; paradoxically, by conferring unpredictability it may aid an organism's survival.
Similar articles
-
The spatio-temporal tuning of the mechanisms in the control of saccadic eye movements.Vision Res. 2006 Oct;46(22):3886-97. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2006.06.012. Epub 2006 Aug 1. Vision Res. 2006. PMID: 16879855
-
Trial-to-trial variability of spike response of V1 and saccadic response time.J Neurophysiol. 2010 Nov;104(5):2556-72. doi: 10.1152/jn.01040.2009. Epub 2010 Sep 1. J Neurophysiol. 2010. PMID: 20810695
-
Influence of stimulus size and contrast on the temporal parameters of saccadic eye movements: implications for road traffic.Ger J Ophthalmol. 1993 Aug;2(4-5):246-50. Ger J Ophthalmol. 1993. PMID: 8220107
-
Intrinsic uncertainty explains second responses.Spat Vis. 2007;20(1-2):45-60. doi: 10.1163/156856807779369715. Spat Vis. 2007. PMID: 17357715 Review.
-
LATER models of neural decision behavior in choice tasks.Front Integr Neurosci. 2014 Aug 22;8:67. doi: 10.3389/fnint.2014.00067. eCollection 2014. Front Integr Neurosci. 2014. PMID: 25202242 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Why do humans make antisaccade errors?Exp Brain Res. 2010 Feb;201(1):65-73. doi: 10.1007/s00221-009-2008-x. Epub 2009 Sep 17. Exp Brain Res. 2010. PMID: 19760267
-
Increased preparation time reduces, but does not abolish, action history bias of saccadic eye movements.J Neurophysiol. 2019 Apr 1;121(4):1478-1490. doi: 10.1152/jn.00512.2018. Epub 2019 Feb 20. J Neurophysiol. 2019. PMID: 30785812 Free PMC article.
-
Sequential activation of human oculomotor centers during planning of visually-guided eye movements: a combined fMRI-MEG study.Front Hum Neurosci. 2008 Mar 28;1:1. doi: 10.3389/neuro.09.001.2007. eCollection 2007. Front Hum Neurosci. 2008. PMID: 18958215 Free PMC article.
-
Influence of uncertainty and surprise on human corticospinal excitability during preparation for action.Curr Biol. 2008 May 20;18(10):775-780. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2008.04.051. Curr Biol. 2008. PMID: 18485711 Free PMC article.
-
Using saccades to diagnose covert hepatic encephalopathy.Metab Brain Dis. 2015 Jun;30(3):821-8. doi: 10.1007/s11011-014-9647-8. Epub 2015 Jan 15. Metab Brain Dis. 2015. PMID: 25586511
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources