FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2034385542> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2034385542 endingPage "798" @default.
• W2034385542 startingPage "793" @default.
• W2034385542 abstract "When we move our eyes, images of objects are displaced on the retina, yet the visual world appears stable. Oculomotor activity just prior to an eye movement contributes to perceptual stability by providing information about the predicted location of a relevant object on the retina following a saccade [1Duhamel J.R. Colby C.L. Goldberg M.E. The updating of the representation of visual space in parietal cortex by intended eye movements.Science. 1992; 255: 90-92Crossref PubMed Scopus (1378) Google Scholar, 2Rolfs M. Jonikaitis D. Deubel H. Cavanagh P. Predictive remapping of attention across eye movements.Nat. Neurosci. 2011; 14: 252-256Crossref PubMed Scopus (228) Google Scholar]. It remains unclear, however, whether an object’s features are represented at the remapped location. Here, we exploited the phenomenon of visual crowding [3Pelli D.G. Tillman K.A. The uncrowded window of object recognition.Nat. Neurosci. 2008; 11: 1129-1135Crossref PubMed Scopus (472) Google Scholar] to show that presaccadic remapping preserves the elementary features of objects at their predicted postsaccadic locations. Observers executed an eye movement and identified a letter probe flashed just before the saccade. Flanking stimuli were flashed around the location that would be occupied by the probe immediately following the saccade. Despite being positioned in the opposite visual field to the probe, these flankers disrupted observers’ ability to identify the probe. Crucially, this “remapped crowding” interference was stronger when the flankers were visually similar to the probe than when the flanker and probe stimuli were distinct. Our findings suggest that visual processing at remapped locations is featurally dependent, providing a mechanism for achieving perceptual continuity of objects across saccades. When we move our eyes, images of objects are displaced on the retina, yet the visual world appears stable. Oculomotor activity just prior to an eye movement contributes to perceptual stability by providing information about the predicted location of a relevant object on the retina following a saccade [1Duhamel J.R. Colby C.L. Goldberg M.E. The updating of the representation of visual space in parietal cortex by intended eye movements.Science. 1992; 255: 90-92Crossref PubMed Scopus (1378) Google Scholar, 2Rolfs M. Jonikaitis D. Deubel H. Cavanagh P. Predictive remapping of attention across eye movements.Nat. Neurosci. 2011; 14: 252-256Crossref PubMed Scopus (228) Google Scholar]. It remains unclear, however, whether an object’s features are represented at the remapped location. Here, we exploited the phenomenon of visual crowding [3Pelli D.G. Tillman K.A. The uncrowded window of object recognition.Nat. Neurosci. 2008; 11: 1129-1135Crossref PubMed Scopus (472) Google Scholar] to show that presaccadic remapping preserves the elementary features of objects at their predicted postsaccadic locations. Observers executed an eye movement and identified a letter probe flashed just before the saccade. Flanking stimuli were flashed around the location that would be occupied by the probe immediately following the saccade. Despite being positioned in the opposite visual field to the probe, these flankers disrupted observers’ ability to identify the probe. Crucially, this “remapped crowding” interference was stronger when the flankers were visually similar to the probe than when the flanker and probe stimuli were distinct. Our findings suggest that visual processing at remapped locations is featurally dependent, providing a mechanism for achieving perceptual continuity of objects across saccades. Visual crowding occurs across hemifields during the period of predictive remapping. The magnitude of such “remapped crowding” is sensitive to probe-flanker similarity. These findings suggest visual features are preserved during predictive remapping Each time we make an eye movement, the retinal image is displaced, yet our perception of the visual world remains stable. The visual system achieves perceptual stability by using the magnitude and direction of an impending saccade to predictively update an internal representation of the visual world. Neurons in primate oculomotor areas, including the lateral intraparietal area (LIP), frontal eye fields (FEF), and superior colliculus (SC), begin to respond to visual stimuli outside their receptive fields if an impending saccade will bring the stimulus into the receptive field [1Duhamel J.R. Colby C.L. Goldberg M.E. The updating of the representation of visual space in parietal cortex by intended eye movements.Science. 1992; 255: 90-92Crossref PubMed Scopus (1378) Google Scholar, 4Walker M.F. Fitzgibbon E.J. Goldberg M.E. Neurons in the monkey superior colliculus predict the visual result of impending saccadic eye movements.J. Neurophysiol. 1995; 73: 1988-2003PubMed Google Scholar, 5Nakamura K. Colby C.L. Updating of the visual representation in monkey striate and extrastriate cortex during saccades.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2002; 99: 4026-4031Crossref PubMed Scopus (315) Google Scholar, 6Sommer M.A. Wurtz R.H. Influence of the thalamus on spatial visual processing in frontal cortex.Nature. 2006; 444: 374-377Crossref PubMed Scopus (358) Google Scholar]. Such anticipatory activity might provide a neural mechanism for predictive remapping of stimuli to facilitate transsaccadic perception [7Wurtz R.H. Neuronal mechanisms of visual stability.Vision Res. 2008; 48: 2070-2089Crossref PubMed Scopus (424) Google Scholar]. However, whether presaccadic activity of remapping neurons conveys information about an object’s identity, such as its orientation and shape, has been the subject of intense debate [8Melcher D. Morrone M.C. Spatiotopic temporal integration of visual motion across saccadic eye movements.Nat. Neurosci. 2003; 6: 877-881Crossref PubMed Scopus (149) Google Scholar, 9Melcher D. Spatiotopic transfer of visual-form adaptation across saccadic eye movements.Curr. Biol. 2005; 15: 1745-1748Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (142) Google Scholar, 10Melcher D. Predictive remapping of visual features precedes saccadic eye movements.Nat. Neurosci. 2007; 10: 903-907Crossref PubMed Scopus (164) Google Scholar, 11Knapen T. Rolfs M. Cavanagh P. The reference frame of the motion aftereffect is retinotopic.J. Vis. 2009; 9 (16.1-7)Google Scholar, 12Afraz A. Cavanagh P. The gender-specific face aftereffect is based in retinotopic not spatiotopic coordinates across several natural image transformations.J. Vis. 2009; 9 (10.1-17)Crossref PubMed Scopus (75) Google Scholar, 13Knapen T. Rolfs M. Wexler M. Cavanagh P. The reference frame of the tilt aftereffect.J. Vis. 2010; 10 (8.1-13)Crossref Google Scholar, 14Morris A.P. Liu C.C. Cropper S.J. Forte J.D. Krekelberg B. Mattingley J.B. Summation of visual motion across eye movements reflects a nonspatial decision mechanism.J. Neurosci. 2010; 30: 9821-9830Crossref PubMed Scopus (27) Google Scholar, 15Cavanagh P. Hunt A.R. Afraz A. Rolfs M. Visual stability based on remapping of attention pointers.Trends Cogn. Sci. 2010; 14: 147-153Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (274) Google Scholar, 16Melcher D. The missing link for attention pointers: comment on Cavanagh et al.Trends Cogn. Sci. 2010; 14: 473Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar, 17Cavanagh P. Hunt A.R. Afraz A. Rolfs M. Attentional pointers: response to Melcher.Trends Cogn. Sci. 2010; 14: 474-475Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (2) Google Scholar, 18Mayo J.P. Sommer M.A. Shifting attention to neurons.Trends Cogn. Sci. 2010; 14: 389Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar, 19Cavanagh P. Hunt A.R. Afraz A. Rolfs M. Attention Pointers: Response to Mayo and Sommer.Trends Cogn. Sci. 2010; 14: 390-391Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (4) Google Scholar]. Here we demonstrate that visual processing at predictively remapped locations is contingent on the visual appearance of the remapped object. We exploited the phenomenon of visual crowding [3Pelli D.G. Tillman K.A. The uncrowded window of object recognition.Nat. Neurosci. 2008; 11: 1129-1135Crossref PubMed Scopus (472) Google Scholar, 20Bouma H. Interaction effects in parafoveal letter recognition.Nature. 1970; 226: 177-178Crossref PubMed Scopus (967) Google Scholar] to determine whether processing at remapped locations is sensitive to features of the remapped object (see Figure 1A). A crowded object is difficult to identify because its features are integrated with those of the flanking elements prior to recognition [21Levi D.M. Crowding—an essential bottleneck for object recognition: a mini-review.Vision Res. 2008; 48: 635-654Crossref PubMed Scopus (685) Google Scholar]. Flankers that share features with a crowded object impair identification of the object more than flankers with nonshared features [22Kooi F.L. Toet A. Tripathy S.P. Levi D.M. The effect of similarity and duration on spatial interaction in peripheral vision.Spat. Vis. 1994; 8: 255-279Crossref PubMed Scopus (314) Google Scholar], and the magnitude of crowding decreases as the flankers are moved further away [3Pelli D.G. Tillman K.A. The uncrowded window of object recognition.Nat. Neurosci. 2008; 11: 1129-1135Crossref PubMed Scopus (472) Google Scholar]. Crucially, in the current study, we presented a probe stimulus in one visual hemifield and distractors in the opposite visual hemifield flanking the predicted postsaccadic retinotopic location of the probe (Figure 1B). We further manipulated the similarity of flankers and probes to determine whether featural similarity modulated interference by distractors at the probe’s future retinotopic location during the period of predictive remapping (Figure 1C; and see Figures S1C and S1D available online). After first establishing a standard crowding effect (Figure S1A), we compared observers’ accuracy for displays in which probe and flanker items shared visual features with their accuracy for displays in which probe and flanker features were different. As expected [22Kooi F.L. Toet A. Tripathy S.P. Levi D.M. The effect of similarity and duration on spatial interaction in peripheral vision.Spat. Vis. 1994; 8: 255-279Crossref PubMed Scopus (314) Google Scholar], letter probes were released from crowding when nonshared-feature flankers surrounded the probe. Specifically, probe identification accuracy was lower when flankers and probes shared features (0.50 ± 0.03; mean ± SEM; red dashed lines in Figure 2B) than when they did not (0.74 ± 0.02; blue dashed lines in Figure 2B; t4 = 11.56, p = 3.18 × 10-4). To measure visual processing during remapping, we required observers to identify a letter probe flashed briefly in the interval immediately prior to execution of a goal-directed saccade to a predictable location (see Figure 1C). The probe appeared in one of four possible flanker conditions: (1) directly flanked by distractors that shared features with the probe (“shared-feature” distractors); (2) directly flanked by distractors that were featurally distinct from the probe (“nonshared-feature” distractors); (3) alone in one hemifield, with shared-feature distractors presented in the opposite hemifield; or (4) alone in one hemifield, with nonshared-feature distractors presented in the opposite hemifield. Predictive remapping is highly dependent on the time course of stimulus presentation relative to saccade onset [1Duhamel J.R. Colby C.L. Goldberg M.E. The updating of the representation of visual space in parietal cortex by intended eye movements.Science. 1992; 255: 90-92Crossref PubMed Scopus (1378) Google Scholar, 2Rolfs M. Jonikaitis D. Deubel H. Cavanagh P. Predictive remapping of attention across eye movements.Nat. Neurosci. 2011; 14: 252-256Crossref PubMed Scopus (228) Google Scholar, 23Hunt A.R. Cavanagh P. Remapped visual masking.J. Vis. 2011; 11: 13Crossref PubMed Scopus (13) Google Scholar, 24Jonikaitis D. Szinte M. Rolfs M. Cavanagh P. Allocation of attention across saccades.J. Neurophysiol. 2013; 109: 1425-1434Crossref PubMed Scopus (62) Google Scholar]. To motivate observers to execute saccades with predictable latencies, therefore, we required observers to report the identity of a brief, masked Gabor at the saccade target in addition to the letter probe (see Supplemental Experimental Procedures). Results from the saccade task are presented in Figure S2. For critical “remapped crowding” trials (Figure 2A), we compared the accuracy of probe identification when no saccade was planned with accuracy during a brief period just prior to a saccade. As shown in Figure 2B, relative to no-saccade trials, probe performance was significantly reduced during the presaccade interval when both shared-feature flankers (t4 = 6.24, p = 0.003) and nonshared-feature flankers (t4 = 3.13, p = 0.035) surrounded the remapped location of the probe. These results indicate that an object’s identity can be degraded by flankers in the contralateral visual field due to predictive remapping. We refer to this presaccadic perceptual effect as “remapped crowding.” A second important finding shown in Figure 2B is that remapped crowding was significantly stronger in the shared-feature condition than in the nonshared-feature condition, suggesting that, as in normal crowding, visual processing at remapped locations is sensitive to feature information. This difference was confirmed by a significant interaction between flanker features (nonshared versus shared) and saccadic condition (no saccade versus presaccade; F1,4 = 30.51, p = 0.005). Whereas, in the no-saccade condition, probe performance was equivalent across flanker features (t4 = 0.8, p = 0.471), in the presaccade condition, performance deteriorated more when flankers shared features with the probe than when they were featurally distinct (t4 = 6.01, p = 0.004). We examined the time course of interference from remapped crowding by dividing the presaccade interval into 100 ms bins measured from saccade onset (see Supplemental Experimental Procedures and Figures S1C and S1D). As shown in Figure 2C, the difference in probe identification accuracy for shared-feature and nonshared-feature conditions emerged 100–200 ms prior to saccade onset (t4 = 3.82, p = 0.019) and was greatest 0–100 ms before the saccade (t4 = 3.75, p = 0.020). The results of experiment 1 demonstrate that, just prior to a goal-directed eye movement, identification of a letter probe is degraded when flankers surround the remapped location of the probe, even though at the time of presentation they appear in opposite hemifields. This remapped crowding effect is greater when flankers share features with the probe than when they are featurally distinct. Our evidence supports the conclusion that predictive remapping leads to crowding at a distance, arising from integration of feature information from the flankers and the remapped object in the opposite visual field. In experiment 1 the probe and shared-feature flankers were drawn from the same set of letters (L, T, and H) from trial to trial. It is possible, therefore, that at least some of the errors in probe identification might have arisen from decision noise associated with selecting between these possible letter identities [25Chastain G. Confusability and interference between members of parafoveal letter pairs.Percept. Psychophys. 1982; 32: 576-580Crossref PubMed Scopus (40) Google Scholar, 26Gervais M.J. Harvey Jr., L.O. Roberts J.O. Identification confusions among letters of the alphabet.J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 1984; 10: 655-666Crossref PubMed Scopus (77) Google Scholar]. We ruled out this potential contribution in experiment 2 by employing shared-feature flankers, Landoldt Cs, that were never probes (see Figure 3A). As expected [22Kooi F.L. Toet A. Tripathy S.P. Levi D.M. The effect of similarity and duration on spatial interaction in peripheral vision.Spat. Vis. 1994; 8: 255-279Crossref PubMed Scopus (314) Google Scholar, 27Parkes L. Lund J. Angelucci A. Solomon J.A. Morgan M. Compulsory averaging of crowded orientation signals in human vision.Nat. Neurosci. 2001; 4: 739-744Crossref PubMed Scopus (675) Google Scholar], when probes were directly flanked by distractors, the standard crowding effect was significantly stronger in the shared-feature condition than in the nonshared-feature condition (t4 = 5.49, p = 0.005; dashed lines in Figure 3B). These results demonstrate a standard crowding effect from elementary features of flankers and probes in the absence of shared categorical identities. As shown in Figure 3B, when the probe and flankers appeared in opposite visual hemifields, probe performance was lower during the presaccade interval of saccade trials than during fixation trials. Crucially, however, this decrement in accuracy for saccade trials was significant in the shared-feature condition (t4 = 4.29, p = 0.013), but not in the nonshared-feature condition (t4 = 2.02, p = 0.114). Moreover, an analysis of trials in which the probe was presented during the critical period of remapping (0–100 ms prior to the saccade) revealed a significant interaction between flanker features and saccade condition (F1,4 = 8.39, p = 0.044). No effect of flanker similarity was observed in no-saccade conditions (t4 = 0.31, p = 0.772). In contrast, accuracy was significantly lower during the period of predictive remapping when flankers surrounding the remapped location shared features with the probe than when the flankers were featurally distinct (t4 = 2.82, p = 0.048; see Figure 3C). The size of this decrement was 9%, comparable to the 10% difference found for similar and distinct flankers under our standard crowding condition. Although observers’ accuracy at identifying the orientation of the Gabor differed across conditions, further analyses suggest it is unlikely these differences contributed to the remapped crowding effect (see Figure S3). Furthermore, there were no differences in saccadic latencies or amplitudes across conditions. Flankers degrade object recognition most strongly when they fall within an area that is approximately half the eccentricity of the probe [20Bouma H. Interaction effects in parafoveal letter recognition.Nature. 1970; 226: 177-178Crossref PubMed Scopus (967) Google Scholar], a region referred to as the “critical distance of crowding” [3Pelli D.G. Tillman K.A. The uncrowded window of object recognition.Nat. Neurosci. 2008; 11: 1129-1135Crossref PubMed Scopus (472) Google Scholar]. To examine the spatial extent of feature processing at remapped locations, in experiment 3 we varied the distance of the flankers from the remapped location of the probe. Flankers were either inside (1.3°) or outside (2.6°) the critical distance of the probe’s remapped location (see Figure 4A). If remapped crowding depends on the remapped location of the probe, observers’ performance should be worse when flankers are 1.3° from the probe’s remapped location than when they are 2.6° from the probe’s remapped location. During steady fixation and when flankers and probe appeared in the same hemifield, observers were less accurate in identifying the probe in the 1.3° flanker condition than in the 2.6° flanker condition (t9 = 2.11, p = 0.064; see dashed lines in Figure 4B). A similar trend was observed during the presaccade interval (t9 = 2.03, p = 0.073). These trends accord well with previous results on the effect of probe-flanker distance in crowding (for a review, see [3Pelli D.G. Tillman K.A. The uncrowded window of object recognition.Nat. Neurosci. 2008; 11: 1129-1135Crossref PubMed Scopus (472) Google Scholar]). Results from the saccade task are presented in Figure S4. As can be seen in Figure 4B, when flankers surrounded the probe’s remapped location, probe identification accuracy was lower during the presaccade interval than during steady fixation in both the 2.6° condition (t9 = 2.47, p = 0.032) and the 1.3° condition (t9 = 4.48, p = 0.002). Note that probe identification accuracies in the no-saccade conditions were lower than those in the previous experiments. The probe was likely harder to identify in this experiment due to its greater eccentricity of 3.9° compared with 2.6° in the last experiments. Critically, as shown in Figure 4C, the time course of the presaccadic decrement was markedly different across the two spatial separations. At 0–100 ms prior to the saccade, there was an interaction between flanker spacing and saccade condition (F1,9 = 5.57, p = 0.043): probe identification was significantly poorer for the 1.3° flanker condition than for the 2.6° flanker condition during predictive remapping (t9 = 2.78, p = 0.021), but there was no such difference in the no-saccade condition (t9 = 0.14, p = 0.888). Just as recognition of a visual object in the periphery depends on the proximity of surrounding objects [20Bouma H. Interaction effects in parafoveal letter recognition.Nature. 1970; 226: 177-178Crossref PubMed Scopus (967) Google Scholar], remapped crowding depends on the proximity of visual information to the remapped location of the probe. We found that, just prior to a saccade, the presence of visual distractors surrounding a probe letter’s predicted postsaccadic retinotopic location interferes with observers’ ability to identify the probe. Importantly, this interference is modulated by the visual similarity of the distractors and the probe, as in standard crowding: flankers that are similar to a probe impair performance relative to flankers that are dissimilar to a probe. In a further experiment, we also observed remapped crowding for vertical saccades, suggesting the effect is not unique to the horizontal meridian (see Supplemental Results). Our results reveal that visual features are preserved during remapping. We describe this effect as a “preservation” of visual features, rather than as “feature remapping” per se, because our data do not distinguish between competing accounts of the underlying mechanisms. Instead, our findings call attention to a fundamental regularity in the effects of remapping: just prior to saccade initiation, visual processing at the future retinotopic location of a task-relevant visual object is tuned to the features that most closely match the object. The temporal profile of the remapped crowding effect measured here closely matches the time course of activity of remapping neurons in LIP [1Duhamel J.R. Colby C.L. Goldberg M.E. The updating of the representation of visual space in parietal cortex by intended eye movements.Science. 1992; 255: 90-92Crossref PubMed Scopus (1378) Google Scholar], area V3 [5Nakamura K. Colby C.L. Updating of the visual representation in monkey striate and extrastriate cortex during saccades.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2002; 99: 4026-4031Crossref PubMed Scopus (315) Google Scholar], FEF [6Sommer M.A. Wurtz R.H. Influence of the thalamus on spatial visual processing in frontal cortex.Nature. 2006; 444: 374-377Crossref PubMed Scopus (358) Google Scholar, 28Umeno M.M. Goldberg M.E. Spatial processing in the monkey frontal eye field. I. Predictive visual responses.J. Neurophysiol. 1997; 78: 1373-1383PubMed Google Scholar], and SC [4Walker M.F. Fitzgibbon E.J. Goldberg M.E. Neurons in the monkey superior colliculus predict the visual result of impending saccadic eye movements.J. Neurophysiol. 1995; 73: 1988-2003PubMed Google Scholar], as well as predictive remapping of spatial attention [2Rolfs M. Jonikaitis D. Deubel H. Cavanagh P. Predictive remapping of attention across eye movements.Nat. Neurosci. 2011; 14: 252-256Crossref PubMed Scopus (228) Google Scholar, 23Hunt A.R. Cavanagh P. Remapped visual masking.J. Vis. 2011; 11: 13Crossref PubMed Scopus (13) Google Scholar, 24Jonikaitis D. Szinte M. Rolfs M. Cavanagh P. Allocation of attention across saccades.J. Neurophysiol. 2013; 109: 1425-1434Crossref PubMed Scopus (62) Google Scholar]. Hunt and Cavanagh [23Hunt A.R. Cavanagh P. Remapped visual masking.J. Vis. 2011; 11: 13Crossref PubMed Scopus (13) Google Scholar] found a similar time course of interference from masks presented at the future retinotopic location of probes. They attributed this “remapped masking” effect to a shift in the priority of visual processing from the probe location to the mask location just prior to an eye movement. Because masking depends on disruption of transient signals, however, no strong conclusions could be drawn about featural information at the remapped location. Our finding that remapped crowding depends on the similarity between flanker and probe stimuli makes remapped crowding distinct from transsaccadic [29De Pisapia N. Kaunitz L. Melcher D. Backward masking and unmasking across saccadic eye movements.Curr. Biol. 2010; 20: 613-617Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (31) Google Scholar] and presaccadic [23Hunt A.R. Cavanagh P. Remapped visual masking.J. Vis. 2011; 11: 13Crossref PubMed Scopus (13) Google Scholar] remapped backward masking. The spatial characteristics of remapped crowding are markedly different from those of standard crowding. In standard crowding, the probe and flankers appear in close spatial proximity [20Bouma H. Interaction effects in parafoveal letter recognition.Nature. 1970; 226: 177-178Crossref PubMed Scopus (967) Google Scholar]. By contrast, in remapped crowding, the flankers appear in the opposite visual hemifield to the probe. Given this difference between the physical arrangements of stimuli, the analogous reduction in identification accuracy in the standard and remapped conditions is most likely attributable to a common form of spatiotemporal integration of probe and flanker stimuli (see the Supplementary Material of [3Pelli D.G. Tillman K.A. The uncrowded window of object recognition.Nat. Neurosci. 2008; 11: 1129-1135Crossref PubMed Scopus (472) Google Scholar]). During predictive remapping, there is a brief window of time during which visual processing is prioritized at the location of the probe and, concurrently, at its predicted location [2Rolfs M. Jonikaitis D. Deubel H. Cavanagh P. Predictive remapping of attention across eye movements.Nat. Neurosci. 2011; 14: 252-256Crossref PubMed Scopus (228) Google Scholar]. On this account, remapped crowding arises because visual information is drawn from both the probe and the flankers, resulting in visual interference. Such an interpretation is in line with evidence from a recent study, in which we found that oculomotor signals play an important role in visual crowding [30Harrison W.J. Mattingley J.B. Remington R.W. Eye movement targets are released from visual crowding.J. Neurosci. 2013; 33: 2927-2933Crossref PubMed Scopus (61) Google Scholar], and is consistent with the notion that feature preservation during remapping is mediated by higher brain areas, such as FEF [15Cavanagh P. Hunt A.R. Afraz A. Rolfs M. Visual stability based on remapping of attention pointers.Trends Cogn. Sci. 2010; 14: 147-153Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (274) Google Scholar]. A link between an object’s position and identity could be mediated in a top-down fashion by brain areas involved in both remapping and visual selection, potentially negating the need for feature information to be conveyed via the remapping signal itself [7Wurtz R.H. Neuronal mechanisms of visual stability.Vision Res. 2008; 48: 2070-2089Crossref PubMed Scopus (424) Google Scholar, 15Cavanagh P. Hunt A.R. Afraz A. Rolfs M. Visual stability based on remapping of attention pointers.Trends Cogn. Sci. 2010; 14: 147-153Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (274) Google Scholar]. The FEF, for example, contain remapping neurons [6Sommer M.A. Wurtz R.H. Influence of the thalamus on spatial visual processing in frontal cortex.Nature. 2006; 444: 374-377Crossref PubMed Scopus (358) Google Scholar] and specify the locations of visual objects with task-relevant features [31Schall J.D. The neural selection and control of saccades by the frontal eye field.Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2002; 357: 1073-1082Crossref PubMed Scopus (196) Google Scholar]. Thus, just prior to a saccade, neurons in such remapping areas can signal the remapped position of an object with task-relevant features. Reciprocal links between FEF and area V4 allow dynamic, spatiotemporal changes in featural processing [32Moore T. Armstrong K.M. Selective gating of visual signals by microstimulation of frontal cortex.Nature. 2003; 421: 370-373Crossref PubMed Scopus (843) Google Scholar] at remapped locations [15Cavanagh P. Hunt A.R. Afraz A. Rolfs M. Visual stability based on remapping of attention pointers.Trends Cogn. Sci. 2010; 14: 147-153Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (274) Google Scholar]. Top-down mediation of feature preservation during remapping provides a mechanism by which transsaccadic object continuity could be achieved via purely retinotopic representations [11Knapen T. Rolfs M. Cavanagh P. The reference frame of the motion aftereffect is retinotopic.J. Vis. 2009; 9 (16.1-7)Google Scholar, 12Afraz A. Cavanagh P. The gender-specific face aftereffect is based in retinotopic not spatiotopic coordinates across several natural image transformations.J. Vis. 2009; 9 (10.1-17)Crossref PubMed Scopus (75) Google Scholar, 13Knapen T. Rolfs M. Wexler M. Cavanagh P. The reference frame of the tilt aftereffect.J. Vis. 2010; 10 (8.1-13)Crossref Google Scholar, 15Cavanagh P. Hunt A.R. Afraz A. Rolfs M. Visual stability based on remapping of attention pointers.Trends Cogn. Sci. 2010; 14: 147-153Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (274) Google Scholar], without the need to transfer feature gain settings of low-level visual neurons, as previously suggested [10Melcher D. Predictive remapping of visual features precedes saccadic eye movements.Nat. Neurosci. 2007; 10: 903-907Crossref PubMed Scopus (164) Google Scholar, 33Melcher D. Colby C.L. Trans-saccadic perception.Trends Cogn. Sci. 2008; 12: 466-473Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (209) Google Scholar]. Our account is in line with recent studies showing that the degree of postsaccadic remapping can be modulated by instructing observers to attend to the remapped location of objects [34Melcher D. Selective attention and the active remapping of object features in trans-saccadic perception.Vision Res. 2009; 49: 1249-1255Crossref PubMed Scopus (56) Google Scholar, 35Golomb J.D. Chun M.M. Mazer J.A. The native coordinate system of spatial attention is retinotopic.J. Neurosci. 2008; 28: 10654-10662Crossref PubMed Scopus (143) Google Scholar, 36Golomb J.D. Nguyen-Phuc A.Y. Mazer J.A. McCarthy G. Chun M.M. Attentional facilitation throughout human visual cortex lingers in retinotopic coordinates after eye movements.J. Neurosci. 2010; 30: 10493-10506Crossref PubMed Scopus (62) Google Scholar] (but see [13Knapen T. Rolfs M. Wexler M. Cavanagh P. The reference frame of the tilt aftereffect.J. Vis. 2010; 10 (8.1-13)Crossref Google Scholar]), as well as a recent brain imaging study showing that a world-referenced representation of motion depends on the allocation of spatial attention to the motion stimulus [37Crespi S. Biagi L. d’Avossa G. Burr D.C. Tosetti M. Morrone M.C. Spatiotopic coding of BOLD signal in human visual cortex depends on spatial attention.PLoS ONE. 2011; 6: e21661Crossref PubMed Scopus (66) Google Scholar]. We have shown that, during eye movement preparation, visual processing is altered to anticipate the appearance of task-relevant features at the predicted postsaccadic location of a visual object. Under natural conditions, top-down preservation of features during remapping would allow an uninterrupted and stable representation of visual objects across shifts of gaze, because relevant object features are primed at remapped locations in expectation of these features arriving there following an eye movement. The authors thank Dustin Venini for his help with data collection. This research was supported by an Australian Professorial Fellowship to R.W.R. (DP0666772), an Australian Laureate Fellowship from the Australian Research Council to J.B.M. (FL110100103), and an ARC Discovery Grant to R.W.R. and J.B.M. (DP120103721). The study was approved by The University of Queensland’s School of Psychology Ethical Review Committee. Download .pdf (.33 MB) Help with pdf files Document S1. Figures S1–S4, Supplemental Results, and Supplemental Experimental Procedures" @default.
• W2034385542 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2034385542 creator A5005195196 @default.
• W2034385542 creator A5021357561 @default.
• W2034385542 creator A5031544098 @default.
• W2034385542 creator A5079450962 @default.
• W2034385542 date "2013-05-01" @default.
• W2034385542 modified "2023-09-29" @default.
• W2034385542 title "Visual Crowding at a Distance during Predictive Remapping" @default.
• W2034385542 cites W1603831766 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W1968517506 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W1978581712 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W1979988111 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W1988808800 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W1994166112 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W2009571106 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W2010790961 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W2027857138 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W2031480396 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W2044147198 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W2057253936 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W2064885356 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W2065406768 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W2065943687 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W2066922397 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W2074854285 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W2080601052 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W2086593260 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W2098011981 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W2101183927 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W2115554324 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W2116799948 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W2126167981 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W2127841673 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W2128782308 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W2146355490 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W2169192319 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W2171553377 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W2290219147 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W27612933 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W4243358536 @default.
• W2034385542 cites W1974852870 @default.
• W2034385542 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.03.050" @default.
• W2034385542 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23562269" @default.
• W2034385542 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2034385542 type Work @default.
• W2034385542 sameAs 2034385542 @default.
• W2034385542 citedByCount "41" @default.
• W2034385542 countsByYear W20343855422012 @default.
• W2034385542 countsByYear W20343855422013 @default.
• W2034385542 countsByYear W20343855422014 @default.
• W2034385542 countsByYear W20343855422015 @default.
• W2034385542 countsByYear W20343855422016 @default.
• W2034385542 countsByYear W20343855422017 @default.
• W2034385542 countsByYear W20343855422018 @default.
• W2034385542 countsByYear W20343855422019 @default.
• W2034385542 countsByYear W20343855422020 @default.
• W2034385542 countsByYear W20343855422021 @default.
• W2034385542 countsByYear W20343855422022 @default.
• W2034385542 countsByYear W20343855422023 @default.
• W2034385542 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2034385542 hasAuthorship W2034385542A5005195196 @default.
• W2034385542 hasAuthorship W2034385542A5021357561 @default.
• W2034385542 hasAuthorship W2034385542A5031544098 @default.
• W2034385542 hasAuthorship W2034385542A5079450962 @default.
• W2034385542 hasBestOaLocation W20343855421 @default.
• W2034385542 hasConcept C149333683 @default.
• W2034385542 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W2034385542 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2034385542 hasConceptScore W2034385542C149333683 @default.
• W2034385542 hasConceptScore W2034385542C169760540 @default.
• W2034385542 hasConceptScore W2034385542C86803240 @default.
• W2034385542 hasIssue "9" @default.
• W2034385542 hasLocation W20343855421 @default.
• W2034385542 hasLocation W20343855422 @default.
• W2034385542 hasOpenAccess W2034385542 @default.
• W2034385542 hasPrimaryLocation W20343855421 @default.
• W2034385542 hasRelatedWork W1597601761 @default.
• W2034385542 hasRelatedWork W1641042124 @default.
• W2034385542 hasRelatedWork W1971334825 @default.
• W2034385542 hasRelatedWork W1990804418 @default.
• W2034385542 hasRelatedWork W1993764875 @default.
• W2034385542 hasRelatedWork W2046158694 @default.
• W2034385542 hasRelatedWork W2082860237 @default.
• W2034385542 hasRelatedWork W2130076355 @default.
• W2034385542 hasRelatedWork W2327549633 @default.
• W2034385542 hasRelatedWork W4255402853 @default.
• W2034385542 hasVolume "23" @default.
• W2034385542 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2034385542 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2034385542 magId "2034385542" @default.
• W2034385542 workType "article" @default.